Parliamentary Debates (HANSARD)
THIRTY-EIGHTH PARLIAMENT FIRST SESSION 2012
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
Thursday, 15 November 2012
Legislative Assembly
Thursday, 15 November 2012
THE SPEAKER (Mr G.A. Woodhams) took the chair at 9.00 am, and read prayers. PARLIAMENT HOUSE — SOLAR PANELS INSTALLATION Statement by Speaker THE SPEAKER (Mr G.A. Woodhams): Members, I remain on my feet to provide you with two pieces of information. The Parliament has decided to install a set of solar panels on top of Parliament House. By the end of the year, Parliament will be generating its own electricity on site. There will be 72 panels in all, enough to provide energy to both legislative chambers. I might facetiously suggest that we always have enough light in this house! Mr T.R. Buswell: We’ve got enough hot air! The SPEAKER: Correct, minister! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Thanks, members. Hon Barry House, President of the Legislative Council, and I have been planning this project for quite some years. We believe that the location of the 72 solar array panels above this particular chamber, construction of which finished in 1904, will certainly reduce electricity costs in this place. Parliament will undertake other sustainable energy innovations with LED lighting, the use of voltage optimisers and the real time monitoring of electricity, gas and water use. I knew that members would find that information useful. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE — INQUIRY INTO THE STATE’S PREPAREDNESS FOR THIS YEAR’S BUSHFIRE SEASON Extension of Reporting Time — Statement by Speaker THE SPEAKER (Mr G.A. Woodhams): I also indicate that I received a letter dated 14 November 2012 from the Chairman of the Community Development and Justice Standing Committee advising that the committee has resolved to amend the tabling date of the report on its inquiry into the state’s preparedness for this year’s fire season until 26 November 2012. CONTAINER DEPOSIT SCHEME Petition MR W.J. JOHNSTON (Cannington) [9.04 am]: This petition is certified as being in accordance with the standing orders and is signed by four citizens. It reads as follows — To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, say the WA Parliament should pass laws to give Western Australia a Container Deposit Scheme to increase the number of beverage containers recycled in Western Australia and assist in improving the ongoing litter problem we have in our state. Now we ask the Legislative Assembly to take full and comprehensive action to ensure the passing of the Container Deposit Scheme is swiftly implemented in Western Australia. [See petition 697.] PERTH AIRPORT — THIRD RUNWAY Petition MR W.J. JOHNSTON (Cannington) [9.05 am]: This petition has been signed by 112 people and is certified as being in accordance with the standing orders. It reads as follows — To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned say that building a third runway at Perth Airport will bring excessive noise to the community of Beckenham. We are opposed to the Barnett Liberal Government plan for a third runway. This is unnecessary, as congestion at Perth Airport can be dealt with by improving management practices at the Airport such as:
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8727
• ensuring small planes do not take off or land at peak times. • ensuring airliners carrying tourists and business people are given preference of peak times. • ensuring mining company fly in/fly out planes do not crowd the airport at peak times These options are all cheaper than spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a third runway, which would not only bring excessive noise to our homes, but also make airline travel through Perth Airport more expensive. Now we ask the Legislative Assembly to ensure the government protects local residents in Beckenham and stop the plan by the Barnett Liberal Government for an unnecessary third runway at Perth Airport. [See petition 698.] ST KIERAN PRIMARY SCHOOL AND SERVITE COLLEGE — SPEED-ZONE SIGNS Petition MR J.C. KOBELKE (Balcatta) [9.06 am]: I have a petition that conforms with the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly and contains 179 signatures. It reads as follows — To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned are most concerned that too many vehicles fail to adhere to the 40kph speed limit in the School Speed Zone adjacent to St Kieran Primary School and Servite College in Tuart Hill. We fear for the safety of students along with their parents and other people who need to cross Cape Street on their way to and from school. Now we ask the Legislative Assembly to request the Government to install Flashing Electronic Speed Signs to improve driver awareness of the requirement to adhere to the 40kph speed limit during the designated times in Cape Street adjacent to St Kieran Primary School and Servite College. [See petition 699.] HOUSING AFFORDABILITY Petition MS J.M. FREEMAN (Nollamara) [9.07 am]: I have a petition that has been certified as conforming with the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly. It has 31 signatures and reads — To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, bring your urgent attention to the issue of Western Australia’s lack of affordable housing and the impact it is now having on our families. We find ourselves in the intolerable position of not being able to provide our families with safe and stable homes. Many of us have been listed on the Department of Housing’s wait list for many years. With even the priority list now extending out to several years, we are desperate to find homes. We cannot afford private rental properties. For the few properties that are affordable, we have been unsuccessful because of the overwhelming number of applicants. Too many people have no choice but to sleep in their cars, tents and on the floors of friends and family. This is highly unsuitable, unsafe and de-stabilising for our children’s health and education. Now we ask the Legislative Assembly to give urgent attention to our housing needs and the housing needs of those Western Australians who are currently suffering homelessness due to a critical shortage of affordable housing properties in both the private rental and social housing sector. [See petition 700.] ST ANDREW’S HOSTEL, KATANNING — BLAXELL REPORT — VICTIM PAYMENTS Petition MR P.B. WATSON (Albany) [9.08 am]: I certify that this petition conforms with the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly. It has 32 signatures and reads — To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled.
8728 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012]
We the undersigned residents of Western Australia strongly believe the amount of compensation offered to the victims of Dennis McKenna, former Warden at the State run St Andrews Hostel in Katanning to be totally insufficient. We believe that the maximum compensation of $45,000 should be raised significantly to reflect the devastating impact the abuse had on the lives of not only the victims, but also their families. We respectfully request that the Premier and the Government of Western Australia give this matter serious consideration [See petition 701.] NO PRIVATISATION OF MIDLAND HEALTH CAMPUS BILL 2012 Petition MR R.H. COOK (Kwinana — Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [9.09 am]: I have a petition containing 115 signatures that complies with standing orders and reads — To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, say the Western Australia State Government should not privatise Midland Hospital. Hospitals are essential services that should be publicly owned and run. Public ownership and management is crucial in providing a system of accountability and responsibility, to ensure high standards of quality and care. Privatisation of Hospitals has failed in the past and will fail again. The Western Australia government can afford to provide us with a publicly owned and run hospital, and we the undersigned do not want our new Midland Hospital privatised. Now we ask the Legislative Assembly to urge Frank Alban, Member for Swan Hills and Premier Colin Barnett to vote in favour of, and encourage other Liberal and National Members of Parliament to vote in favour of, the No Privatisation of Midland Hospital Bill. [See petition 702.] BACK ON TRACK TRAIL BIKE STRATEGY Petition MR R.H. COOK (Kwinana — Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [9.10 am]: I also have a petition that states — TO THE HONOURABLE THE SPEAKER AND MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF THE PARLIAMENT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLED. We, the undersigned, support the mandatory registration of off-road vehicles as part of the Back on Track Trail Bike Strategy. Off-road vehicles are causing damage to bushland and parks in the Kwinana area and should only be used in designated off-road areas. We urge the State Government to act to ensure that off-road vehicles must be registered and have visible licence plates so that Police and other members of the community can report misuse of these vehicles. The petition is certified as complying with the standing orders and contains 104 signatures. [See petition 703.] Nonconforming Petition Mr R.H. COOK: I also report to the house that I have a petition with 164 signatures on a similar theme but it does not comply with the standing orders. PAPERS TABLED Papers were tabled and ordered to lie upon the table of the house. MARGARET RIVER BUSHFIRES — GOVERNMENT COMPENSATION Statement by Premier MR C.J. BARNETT (Cottesloe — Premier) [9.11 am]: On 23 February this year, as part of a wide-ranging response to the Keelty report “Appreciating the Risk: Report of the Special Inquiry into the November 2011 Margaret River Bushfire”, I announced a financial assistance scheme that entitled property owners whose houses, outbuildings or property were destroyed or damaged in the fire to claim up to $190 000 for any
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8729 uninsured losses. An amount of $5 million was set aside to fund this scheme. Under the scheme, 160 claims have been lodged, 117 have been assessed and 88 have been settled. Twenty claims did not fall within the financial assistance scheme and the balance of the claims are being processed or awaiting assessment. It was never disputed by the government that both the Margaret River fire and the fire that started on the same day at Milyeannup, near Nannup, were the result of the escape of prescribed burns being undertaken by the Department of Environment and Conservation. It has also been publicly stated on numerous occasions that legal advice was being sought regarding DEC’s liability for both fires. That advice and additional independent post- incident analyses commissioned by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and undertaken by Noetic Solutions Pty Ltd into the causes of and responses to these fires have now been received and considered. I am able to advise the house that the government has decided that all reasonable claims for losses related to the Margaret River and Milyeannup fires that started on 23 November 2011 will be met by the government’s self- insurer, RiskCover, on behalf of the Department of Environment and Conservation. This decision applies to both personal and business claims. In other words, the $190 000 cap that applied under the previous scheme is effectively removed. The process for lodging claims will be publicised, but basically it will involve the submission of written notification to RiskCover together with relevant supporting documentation. Once claims are received they will be forwarded to RiskCover’s appointed loss adjustor, Risk Control Services, to make contact with claimants and to carry out assessment of losses. Claims for property damage will be assessed on an indemnity basis. Losses already paid under the Margaret River bushfire financial assistance scheme will be deducted from any liability claim settlement. I would like to acknowledge the financial and emotional stress that many fire victims have experienced. Ms M.M. Quirk: Finally! The SPEAKER: Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT: Their patience while the series of reports by Mr Keelty and Noetic Solutions Pty Ltd were prepared and the State Emergency Management Committee took action in response to those reports is recognised and appreciated. The government’s considerations have necessarily been lengthy and detailed, and I am conscious that some of those without insurance or without adequate insurance for the losses they suffered have been in something of a limbo pending this decision. This decision applies to both those who are uninsured and underinsured, and I trust it will assist fire victims to make plans for their future and to put this event behind them as best they can. In conclusion, it is timely that I remind everyone living in fire-prone communities to fully prepare themselves for the coming fire season and to ensure that their insurance is adequate to cover their property and possessions. The bushfire threat this summer will be extremely serious and everyone in areas of risk needs to make immediate preparations to secure their property and protect themselves and their loved ones. Ms M.M. Quirk: You haven’t apologised, Premier. The SPEAKER: Member for Girrawheen, if you want to make a statement, you might have to wait to do that. I formally call you to order for the first time today. Mr C.J. Barnett: You are so bitter. Ms M.M. Quirk: I am not bitter. The SPEAKER: Member for Girrawheen, I do not need to hear you speaking, either. Mr T.R. Buswell: Ambulance chaser. The SPEAKER: Nor you, Treasurer! STATE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE — REPORTS Statement by Minister for Emergency Services MR T.R. BUSWELL (Vasse — Minister for Emergency Services) [9.15 am]: I rise to present to the house four reports: the “Emergency Preparedness Report 2012” prepared by the State Emergency Management Committee; the reports commissioned by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and undertaken by Noetic Solutions Pty Ltd, headed “Post Incident Analysis for Blackwood Fire 8—Ellens Brook–Gnarabup, 23/24 November 2011”, concerning the Margaret River fire, and “Post Incident Analysis for Blackwood Fire 11— Milyeannup–Sollya, 23 November to 5 December 2011”, concerning the Milyeannup fire; and the SEMC advice regarding the reports provided by Noetic. The SEMC is the state’s peak emergency management body, and at the request of the government it prepared a report on the state’s preparedness for emergencies. The “Emergency Preparedness Report 2012” is an assessment of current capabilities and is geared towards a strategic, statewide overview with a specific focus on the three natural hazards of cyclone, bushfire and flood, with bushfire given particular attention in view of recent
8730 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] incidents. The report indicates that the state is better prepared for the 2012–13 bushfire season relative to 2011– 12 due to better training, resourcing and improved interagency arrangements. A number of initiatives have been put in place to increase community awareness, and increased resources for response have been provided by the government. The preparedness report finds that there have been notable advances in the state’s preparedness, but acknowledges that significant work remains to be done. The Noetic reports contained 91 lessons, of which 73 are supported and have progressed or are consistent with current practice. The SEMC was asked to advise the government of the progress by government agencies regarding the lessons contained in the Noetic reports and the implications of the findings as they relate to the state’s preparedness for bushfire in the lead-up to the 2012–13 bushfire season. The SEMC advice details the reasons when a lesson is not supported. In most cases, it is because the agency has adopted alternative approaches to management of the issues identified by Noetic. The SEMC did not find any reason to object to any of the alternatives proposed by the agencies. I commend to the house the State Emergency Management Committee’s “Emergency Preparedness Report 2012”, the Noetic reports and the SEMC advice regarding the Noetic reports. [See papers 5585 to 5588.] DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT — CITY OF CANNING INQUIRY Statement by Minister for Local Government MR G.M. CASTRILLI (Bunbury — Minister for Local Government) [9.18 am]: I advise that on 9 February 2012, I directed the Director General of the Department of Local Government to commence an authorised inquiry into the City of Canning in accordance with section 8.3(3) of the Local Government Act 1995 following receipt of information provided to me by the City of Canning’s mayor and other sources. The terms of reference of the inquiry related to governance, recruitment, tendering processes, contract management and general performance. The inquiry found evidence of a failure by the elected council to ensure that the City of Canning performs its functions properly and identified that this failure has been both serious and continuous over an extended period. The report has found evidence that the elected council has seriously eroded its professional relationship with its administration, to the extent that the inquiry considers that if the council were to remain in office, the potential exists for further major problems to develop. The report provides a comprehensive analysis of matters related to the terms of reference and makes 66 findings that relate to the elected council’s actions, the actions and behaviour of individual elected members, as well as some aspects of the city’s processes and procedures. It makes five recommendations, including recommendations to appoint an inquiry panel and suspend the council. The findings of the inquiry are of significant concern to me. I received the report yesterday and elected to table the report at the earliest opportunity as this is a matter of high public interest, especially for the residents and ratepayers of the City of Canning. My priority is to ensure that the City of Canning council and its administration act in the best interests of their community. The government will fully consider this inquiry report and its findings and recommendations to determine what appropriate action should be taken. It is my intention for that process to be completed in the very near future. Authorisation of Publication — Motion Mr G.M. CASTRILLI: In accordance with parliamentary processes concerning such reports, I table the document titled, “Report of the Inquiry into the City of Canning 2012”. I move — That this house authorises the publication of the “Report of the Inquiry into the City of Canning 2012”. Question put and passed. [See paper 5589.] ECONOMICS AND INDUSTRY STANDING COMMITTEE “Committee Minutes: 24 Feb 2010–14 November 2012” — Tabling MS A.R. MITCHELL (Kingsley) [9.21 am]: As Chair of the Economics and Industry Standing Committee I rise to table the minutes of all deliberative meetings held by the committee between 24 February 2010 and 14 November 2012. The minutes have been redacted so as not to reveal confidential communications such as commercially sensitive material and in camera evidence. [See paper 5590.] PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE Twentieth Report — “Review of the Reports of the Auditor General 2011–2012” — Tabling MR J.C. KOBELKE (Balcatta) [9.21 am]: I present for tabling the twentieth report of the Public Accounts Committee titled, “Review of the Reports of the Auditor General 2011–12”. [See paper 5591.]
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8731
Mr J.C. KOBELKE: When implementing the recommendations made by the Auditor General in his audit reports, for the most part, agencies continue to acquit themselves well. Having said that, there is a role for the Public Accounts Committee to examine agencies’ responses to ensure that they are achieving the worthwhile recommendations made by the Auditor General. The Auditor General provides a valuable service in identifying shortcomings in agencies’ performances. However, the real value in his work is in the responses made by agencies and their implementation of the recommended improvements. This simple truth has a significant contribution to the decisions taken by the committee to change the way in which it handles the follow-up of the Auditor General’s reports. The revised process has seen a more direct approach involving shorter time frames, increased interaction with the agencies concerned and, when appropriate, public hearings to fully examine issues raised in the audit reports. Whereas previously agencies could overwhelm the Public Accounts Committee with bureaucratic non-answers, the revised approach has given the committee a number of options to clarify contradictory responses or, when appropriate, critique what it considers to be inadequate consideration of the issues raised by the Auditor General. I would like to touch on a number of the matters contained within this report. Firstly, I refer to child health checks. In this review we have drawn attention to the contradictory responses made by the Department of Health to questions about the impact of changes by the commonwealth government to the payment of family tax benefit part A on the demand for child health services in Western Australia. An initial response from the department indicated that approximately 16 000 additional children would present for health checks as a result of change and that additional funding of around $1.3 million each year would be needed to meet the increased demand. However, when we sought additional detail on this issue a few months later, the department told us that there would be a minimal impact arising from the changes. Furthermore, the information provided to us by the Department of Health in its response contradicted advice from the commonwealth government. Namely, the commonwealth suggests that three-year-old health checks will be required to continue to receive the benefit, whereas the Department of Health states that it is four-year-old health checks. In this matter that I have just touched on lightly—it is covered in the report—we see that the Department of Health has taken a bureaucratic response. It picks a part of the issue and provides an answer to that, but does not go to the heart of the matter unveiled in the Auditor General’s report; that is, it is not providing health checks when they are required for young children at their age development and parents find it difficult to get in their children for the health checks because the resources are inadequate. The response from the Department of Health is to simply answer with what happened in one area; it gave us information that was unclear and did not address the underlying issue. That bureaucratic approach is simply not adequate. We have made two recommendations in the report. We call on the Minister for Health to — • clarify whether child health checks that meet the requirements for the receipt of Family Tax Benefit Part A are required for three year olds or four year olds; • outline how many additional child health checks are estimated to arise as a result of this change; and • the impact on the Department of Health’s budget and staffing levels to meet anticipated increased demand for child health checks. The first recommendation goes specifically to that area that needs clarification. Our second recommendation goes to the broader issue. I will read it to the house — That the Minister for Health: • Outline the extent to which the Department of Health has resources and appropriate staff to provide the recommended child health checks for all children across Western Australia; and • Provide specific details as to the location, employment arrangements and roles of the additional services funded in the 2012–2013 state budget. They are recommendations contained within this report. Just to take up that last point, the member for Alfred Cove and her committee worked in this area and quite rightly pointed out the problems and made clear recommendations. The government in part picked that up in the budget and said that there was money to address this issue. That has now gone out to tender, as I understand it, or expressions of interest have been requested for private sector provision. The documentation I have been able to see is quite vague. We are now almost halfway through the financial year and none of those services are available to people. There are real concerns with how those services will be enhanced with the extra money in the budget and the outcome of that. I will say no more on that, but that is clearly a matter that is reflected in the report I have just tabled. I now go to another matter, which is the report by the Auditor General relating to certain aspects of the service of alcohol and particularly the responsible service of alcohol. We ended up with something of a dispute between the Auditor General and the Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor about what was meant or intended by a recommendation in the Auditor General’s report. The Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor disputed a
8732 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] recommendation on the basis that the recommendation related to an issue over which it did not have legal power. As we note in the body of the report, the Auditor General was aware of the department’s position at the time of the audit, and we conclude that legal advice should have been sought before completing the audit. This would have ensured that the Auditor General made appropriate recommendations. As it currently stands, in the absence of legal advice the appropriateness of the recommendation remains an open question. The Auditor General fills an important role in our democracy, providing independent oversight of the operations of the executive government on behalf of the Parliament. The importance of the role is reflected in the extent of the powers granted to the Auditor General to carry out his role. During the four years of this thirty-eighth Parliament the committee has enjoyed a close working relationship with the Auditor General and his staff and this is the first occasion on which we have felt it necessary to raise criticism about an audit. We acknowledge that the issues discussed here are not massively significant, but they are worth examining precisely because of the important role given to the Auditor General by the department. Given that a key aspect of the Auditor General’s approach is to create transparency and openness so that people can see what is happening, the Public Accounts Committee felt it could not brush aside the disagreement between the Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor and the Auditor General. Although it may be a matter of opinion in part, we really knew that that should have been sorted out before the report was tabled. I know that the Auditor General tries very hard to do that. Sometimes reports are delayed because the draft report is given to the agency, the agency has feedback and there is toing and froing. In this report, clearly, an aspect of that was not sorted out. The suggestion in the report is that seeking legal advice might have been one means by which that difference of opinion could have been sorted out. I turn to information technology security in the public sector. It is worthwhile putting on the record part of what is contained in the report—that is, a summary of some of the recent reports by the Auditor General on IT security. It shows that we have a problem and that the problem is not being addressed. In 2007, the Auditor General examined wireless networks in eight agencies and found serious information security weaknesses in seven of those agencies. In particular, none of the agencies was monitoring for unauthorised installation of wireless access points or external interception of the agency’s wireless signals. In 2008 the Auditor General examined seven agencies to ascertain the adequacy of their policies for the disposal of hard drives. None of the agencies was found to have policies or procedures for the removal of data from computer equipment prior to disposal. The Auditor General purchased 10 ex-government computers at auction and was able to recover sensitive and confidential data from four of these computers. Returning the following year to look at another aspect of computer security, in 2009 the Auditor General examined the protection of personal and sensitive information. None of the five agencies examined was found to have adequate controls in place to protect the information held on networks and in databases. Three of the five agencies lacked IT security policies; none of the agencies was consistently applying administrative controls— that is, police checks and confidentiality agreements—and network security was found to be poor, which resulted in active network accounts for former employees and generic accounts that allowed access to networks by unidentified individuals. The Auditor General also found fundamental weaknesses in security controls, including the retention of manufacturer default passwords for databases, and some databases with no password access at all. The following year in 2010 the Auditor General’s follow-up report examined the security afforded to laptop and portable storage devices and found that each of the seven agencies examined lacked comprehensive management and technical and physical controls over their laptops and personal storage devices. Again the following year in 2011 the Auditor General examined 15 agencies to ascertain whether they had configured their IT systems and had supporting policies and procedures in place to detect, manage and appropriately respond to cyber attacks. None of the agencies was found to have adequate systems in place, and only one agency detected the Auditor General’s attacks. Internal networks—that is, the networks used by staff to store and retrieve agency data—at three agencies were accessed using vulnerabilities identified in the previously undetected attacks. Another test carried out by the Auditor General involved leaving USB devices in agency common areas—that is, meeting rooms and lunchrooms. In eight agencies the USB devices were plugged into computers, which sent information on agency networks back to the Auditor General. Collectively, the Auditor General’s reports from the preceding four years paint a particularly concerning picture about the state of information security in Western Australia’s public sector and serve to highlight the lack of awareness of information security amongst public servants. I have read largely from the contents of the report, but it is a very brief summary that highlights a very serious problem that we have in the lack of IT security and that it is not being fixed. That puts at risk people’s personal information. It may be personal information that needs to be kept private. It may be personal information that goes to people’s financial affairs and access to their credit cards. It also involves matters of state security. Major corporations and other governments would like to know things about our mineral resources and about major
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8733 multimillion or billion-dollar deals that the government is involved in, and they might be accessed simply because we do not have the IT security that should be put in place. Following the tabling of last year’s IT security report by the Auditor General, the committee wrote to the Premier and suggested that consideration be given to the immediate establishment of a chief technology officer and a chief information officer who would be responsible for managing issues like IT security for the entire public sector. In writing to the Premier, we observed that establishing the two positions had been recommended by the government’s Economic Audit Committee in 2009. It is not that the Public Accounts Committee members are experts in this area; the government itself put in place the Economic Audit Committee that, in 2009, made these recommendations. We therefore saw that as an appropriate vehicle from which the government could pick up the report to it from its own organisation to see what could be done. Unfortunately, nothing has happened there. The government has, I think, decided not to proceed with the appointment of a chief technology officer or a chief information officer. The response from the Premier was to hand the matter to the Public Sector Commissioner. The Public Sector Commissioner produced a policy from which the whole public sector was to take some guidance. On my viewing, it was really just one page. It was a start but, to me, woefully inadequate. In July this year the responsibility for IT security was transferred to the Department of Finance, and only one full-time equivalent staff member was passed over from the Public Sector Commission to the Department of Finance to deal specifically with IT security. That is woefully inadequate. I recognise the efforts that have been made by the Department of Finance. It has some expertise in contracting IT security and is in the position, I think, of being in a good place where IT security can sit. The committee knows, from evidence that officers of the Department of Finance gave to our hearing, that they are interested in improving IT security; they are becoming active in the area; they are engaging with other agencies and with directors general; and they are trying to push it forward. But it really does need to be given a higher priority in my view and it does need to be resourced. Finally, I once again note the unprecedented amount of audit-related work that the Public Accounts Committee of the thirty-eighth Parliament has been able to complete. We hand over to the following committee a manageable number of audits for follow-up and have, for the most part, bedded down a revised follow-up process. It is my hope that the Public Accounts Committee in the following Parliament will continue with this good work and will build upon the reforms made over the last four years. But clearly that is up to the new committee. As has already been commented on in this place in the last day or so, the Public Accounts Committee, for the first time in Western Australia, in the thirty-eighth Parliament had an opposition majority and an opposition chair. It is also my hope that that will be the case in the following Parliament, in that I hope it will be a Liberal member who will chair the Public Accounts Committee next year, and the member for Carine would be most suited to that. Mr M.P. Whitely: For the next 20 years! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Ha, ha! Regardless of that, it has been a challenge getting the committee to work. It is not that members do not get on well personally. It has been great to share the company of my fellow members from this side of the chamber and also the company of members from the other side and the now Independent member for Churchlands. Without wanting to sound critical, I think there is an issue. We need to be able to work out, when we are working in the Public Accounts Committee or in any other committee, that we take off our party political hat and look to being parliamentarians. We need to realise that the whole issue of accountability is important regardless of who is in government. For the people who are in government, obviously, it can be more of a problem because political embarrassment comes out of things. But the underlying issue is that if we do not have accountability and if we do not have recommendations to improve transparency and accountability, we are not fulfilling our role. For new members coming into Parliament there is a real challenge to actually understand that. It may be that the training that all committees have can be extended a bit to help improve that ability to see the role that members should play as parliamentarians, while of course we always look to protect our political back. I thank the members of the committee: the member for Carine and deputy chair, Tony Krsticevic; the member for Gosnells, Chris Tallentire; the member for West Swan, Rita Saffioti; and the member for Churchlands, Dr Elizabeth Constable. I also thank our staff who do just an incredible job. I thank Mr Foreman Foto, and very especially Mr Mathew Bates, our principal research officer, who is extremely competent and very diligent and works extremely hard with the huge volume of material that has gone through the committee over that time. MR C.J. TALLENTIRE (Gosnells) [9.38 am]: I rise to speak to this “Review of the Reports of the Auditor General 2011–2012”. As this is the last of the reviews of the reports of the Auditor General, I want to place on record my appreciation for the work of the Auditor General and to acknowledge the way he makes himself and his staff available to members of this place and presents the reports—often over some sandwiches in the committee room. He goes into detail and is prepared to answer all sorts of questions about the nature of the agency’s work. It is important to consider how that work is evolving as well. The Auditor General has discussed
8734 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] with us how the role is evolving from simply being one of reviewing financial matters—balance sheets and what have you—through to now becoming one of performance auditing. That is an area of auditing that I think is very interesting to the general public. It is a way for the general public to see how effectively our public service is functioning and how well a government agency is achieving what its real objectives should be. I see that the Auditor General is keen to develop that side of the agency’s work, and that is a good thing. As our chairman, the member for Balcatta, said so well, this approach of an opposition chair and an opposition majority on the committee has worked very well. It is an approach that is adopted in other Parliaments for good reason. It enables us to have a strong degree of scrutiny of the activities of government agencies. That is the thing: parliamentarians can work collaboratively to really ask questions about the operation of government agencies. Ministers have that endeavour as well; they want to get to the bottom of what is going on inside an agency and check that obscure policy units really are delivering value for money for taxpayers. However, sometimes it is difficult for a member in that ministerial role to ask the hard questions, whereas a committee can get to the bottom of what is going on and find out whether objectives are being delivered. I turn now to the report and will focus on one area, which is the responsible service of alcohol. In the community among those who work in the hospitality sector, there is a high degree of concern about the quality of training that goes on. There is much talk among industry leaders about the training for the responsible service of alcohol, but when we talk to the actual practitioners—often very young people who stand behind bars and have to deal with rowdy crowds in quite pressured circumstances—they say that the training is pretty token and fairly inadequate and does not equip them well. We then have to step back and say, “Well what of our government instrumentalities? How are they best organised to deal with this problem? Are they really doing their job?” That is where the review tabled here today demonstrates a problem because there is something of an impasse and a lack of clarity of the roles that the Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor and the police are to play. I will quote from the letter that the Director General of the Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor, Mr Barry Sargeant, provided us. It reads — The responsibility of the licensing authority is a complex jurisdiction with wide ranging responsibilities, which are constrained by the scope of the Act through: i. the granting of licences to fit and proper persons to sell, supply and consume liquor on licensed premises that conform to proper standards; and ii. placing obligations on licensees. There is ambiguity about the interpretation of that and just how far the Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor can go when it comes to checking on the effective management of that right to hold a liquor licence. It is unfortunate that the department is not involved in some measurable, quantifiable way of checking on patrons in public houses and seeing whether they are too drunk to be served further alcohol. Unfortunately, we do not have that situation at the moment. There is a lack of a good quantifiable approach to dealing with this problem. The Auditor General made some recommendations on this matter and said in his third recommendation that the department and the police should develop a guideline to assist the identification of drunk persons. I do not know that a guideline will be good enough. It must be something that is measurable and quantifiable. Members can imagine the tense situation that could arise if somebody is suddenly told that they are not to be served any more alcohol. If the practitioner has no clear proof, it could lead to tense circumstances. We need greater clarity and something that is clearly measurable. The suggestion in the recommendation is that information be provided to industry associations and training providers that is designed to assist staff working in the liquor industry to better identify intoxicated patrons. I do not think that it is fair on those people who have to work in the industry to expect them—as I said, they are often young people—to do this identification. This recommendation needs to be more robust. The chairman noted how the Auditor General did not seek legal advice on this interpretation and nor did the department. It is good that we have raised this matter about seeking more clarity. A further section from the Auditor General’s report reads — [in] reporting to Parliament I was aware of DRGL’s views that it’s (sic) resourcing and the powers of its inspectors placed practical constraints on its capacity to monitor and enforce the responsible service of alcohol in licensed premises. I did not disagree with this position and reflected it in my report. There is some confusion about how to proceed here, but a further investigation of matters should resolve things. The work of the committee has been greatly helped by our support staff and I want to place on record my appreciation for the work of Foreman Foto, our research officer, and Mathew Bates, our principal research officer. MS R. SAFFIOTI (West Swan) [9.45 am]: I will make some brief comments on this report of the Public Accounts Committee, given the number of reports being tabled today. I put on record initially recognition of the good work that the Auditor General does. It is a challenging role assessing the performance and value for money of agencies, and I believe the unit and agency does a very thorough job and tries to do whatever it can, given the resources it has. Again, the Auditor General goes about his business in a very professional way, which is what
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8735 we want from an Auditor General. I also want to thank the staff, Foreman Foto, and, in particular, Mathew Bates. Mathew’s ability to write a lot of material in a quick and intelligent manner is something that we all appreciate, and his ability to work with all of us on the committee has been absolutely excellent. I want to put on record the outstanding role of our chairman, the member for Balcatta. The member for Balcatta has done a very good job in handling the egos and personalities of people on the committee. Mr P.B. Watson: You are hard to work with. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: I am not talking about myself. Having an opposition chair has been a positive thing. Much to my displeasure sometimes, he has been very fair and has conducted himself in a very fair and unbiased manner. The member for Balcatta could have abused that opportunity, but I seriously do not think he has. I have known the member for Balcatta for a number of years, and his diligence, hard work and professionalism is outstanding, and I think the Parliament will miss his contributions. In respect of the report, I want to mention the issue of child health—I think it will be mentioned later on today in other reports. It is an area about which we made some recommendations to the Minister for Health—whether it will be taken up by this Minister for Health or the incoming Labor Minister for Health—and we need to address this issue quickly in the next year. Funding is available for further child health nurses, but there is some confusion about the roles, responsibilities and locations of those child health nurses, such as whether they will be funded through a different mechanism such as a non-government organisation, and what role they will have with the existing child health nurse network. I represent an electorate that probably has the most number of babies born in it each week. The issue of child health and ensuring a good assessment and recognition of early development is vital. Our education system normally plays catch-up if we do not recognise the issues early on. As I said before, there is a real issue in recognising the right issues early enough so that children will not have ongoing problems through primary and secondary school. Child health nurses are trained for that. I am not discounting the role of doctors, but child health nurses have enormous experience in that area. From my personal experience, having three kids under three years old, people really take on board the advice of child health nurses, who assess children in a very thorough and complete way. I think we should look at where this funding should go. Most of the time child health nurses are located in very cramped conditions, so if more child health nurses were to be allocated, there would need to be sufficient space for them to work. All these things need to be looked at. I also agree with what the member for Balcatta said about the confusion around the effect the federal policy change will have on the number of nurses, how they use their time, and their roles. We are not quite clear on that, which I think is a huge problem. I want to again put on the record that either this Minister for Health or the incoming Labor Minister for Health needs to take this on board quickly. Child health and the role of the child health nurses should not be a minor part of the total Health bureaucracy; it really should be at the forefront. If we assess and identify issues early on, it will save enormous expenditure and heartache in later years. If we want to look at it from a cost–benefit analysis point of view, the benefits far outweigh the costs. We need to assess our children and try to get as much engagement as we can. I know that child health nurses are absolutely under the pump, and checks are not being undertaken, not because they do not want to, but because they just do not have the time. If members consider that a lot of people who want their children checked cannot get those checks, imagine how many are falling through the cracks. Those who would not normally offer their children for checks are just being forgotten, and sometimes they are the children with significant problems. I urge the government to look at this issue and make sure that any expenditure in this area is done in a coordinated fashion and links in with the current services and does not duplicate or create another system. We have a system; we just need it to be better funded and resourced, and also more targeted in its operation. MR A. KRSTICEVIC (Carine) [9.52 am]: I, too, would like to say a few words on the review of the reports of the Auditor General for 2011–12. I will not go over the matters in the report that other members have covered, but I wish to put on the record my thanks to the Auditor General and his staff for the outstanding work they have done over the past four years, and for the professional and collaborative way they have worked with the Public Accounts Committee during that time. Together, I think we have achieved some very positive results for the state of Western Australia and the public sector as a whole, and, in turn, obviously, we have done a service to our Parliament. I would also like to express my support for more work to be done in the performance audit area. Being an accountant, I know that financial audits are an exciting place to be, but we have to extend ourselves sometimes and look at what we are actually achieving as opposed to just the numbers around some of these things. I am very, very keen on, and supportive of, performance audits, and I would like to see more work done in that area. I am also very grateful to the government and its ministers who have taken on board a lot of the recommendations made by the Public Accounts Committee over the past four years around improvements and changes, and obviously the Auditor General has gone a long way in terms of contributing to that. Four years ago when I became a member of the Public Accounts Committee, it was, for the first time, an opposition-dominated and led committee—a very interesting experience for me. Back then, the member for
8736 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012]
Balcatta, who I believe has done an outstanding job over the past four years, was our chairman, and still is, and the member for Gosnells and Hon Alan Carpenter—the former member for Willagee—were on the committee as opposition members; I and the member for Jandakot were the government members. To use a military analogy: I felt like there were three battleships on one side and a little tugboat on the other — Mr P.B. Watson: A big tugboat! Mr A. KRSTICEVIC: I was the tugboat; that is right! There were two highly experienced opposition members—a former Premier and a long-serving minister—as well as the member for Gosnells who, albeit new, obviously stepped up to the mark very quickly. I would say that the government members probably had to work exceptionally hard just to stay close to where the opposition members were at in understanding all the issues. I think I and the member for Jandakot did a pretty good job. The member for West Swan spoke about the member for Balcatta having been a generally impartial and balanced chairman. I use the word “generally”; I know certain members did their best to try to shift the direction from time to time. But that is what it is about; there are so many issues and concerns going on in government that I think a lot of times we acknowledged the fact that it would not have mattered which party was in government, the issues would have been the same, the bureaucracy would still have had its problems, and irrespective of the minister, it is very, very difficult to steer that ship. Irrespective of which party is in government, it is better for both sides of the house if committee members help each other to steer the state in the right direction. I do not think playing politics on committees per se benefits anyone in this place. Over the past four years I have learnt something important: a lot of work is needed, and the more we can work together, the easier it will be for everybody in this place and it will result in a better outcome for the people of Western Australia. The member for West Swan became a member of the committee after the then member for Willagee left to go into the private sector—he has no doubt become a good conservative since that time, having worked in the private sector! When the member for West Swan came on board she added another dynamic to our committee. From my perspective, I have learnt a lot in the past four years, and I think I have become a better member of Parliament and, hopefully, a better parliamentarian in that respect. I thank the committee staff. The work they do is absolutely outstanding, and I do not know how we would have done half of what we did without our capable staff. We have been very fortunate over the past four years to have had a number of capable staff come through, but our current research officer, Mr Foreman Foto, and our principal research officer, Mr Mathew Bates, have done an outstanding job in pulling together the information. I think they have been very balanced and fair in their dealings with all committee members, and they have shared their knowledge, experience and views on information gathered in a fair and balanced way. They have done themselves and the people of Western Australia a great service, and having those sorts of people in parliamentary services provides a good outcome for us all. In conclusion, opposition-led committees has been an interesting experiment in this thirty-eighth Parliament. Personally, I am supportive of it; I am not supportive of me necessarily being the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee after the next election, but I look forward to us being in government and struggling in the opposition ranks of the committee! Thanks very much for the offer anyway. Twenty-first Report — “Review of Selected Infrastructure Projects — Tabling MR J.C. KOBELKE (Balcatta) [10.00 am]: I present for tabling the twenty-first report of the Public Accounts Committee, “Review of Selected Infrastructure Projects”. [See paper 5592.] Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Since the commencement of this thirty-eighth Parliament, the Public Accounts Committee has dedicated a great deal of time to examining the delivery of infrastructure in Western Australia. For a committee whose remit is to assist with oversight and accountability of government expenditure, examining infrastructure projects has provided us with many opportunities to contribute to the discussion about the way in which government spends money. There can be little doubt that infrastructure delivery can be a challenging business for any government. There can be political pressures associated with announcing projects at the right time of the political cycle. There are also obligations to choose the right project to respond to the needs of the community, and often there is pressure to fund iconic structures that make lasting contributions to the state’s civic architecture. All too often, the various pressures can conspire to create outcomes that are less than optimal. Sometimes this means that a project goes over budget or is completed beyond schedule. In more serious cases, it might mean that the resulting piece of infrastructure falls below expectations because it fails to meet the real needs of the community. Western Australia has a detailed suite of policies, the strategic asset management framework, referred to as SAMF, that are designed to guide departments and governments through the process of developing infrastructure proposals and then, ultimately, making investment decisions. Applying SAMF helps to answer questions about the need underpinning the project and requires agencies and governments to consider a range of options before
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8737 selecting a preference for how best to respond to designated need. SAMF goes further and provides advice about the best contracting method and the procedures that should be followed as the procurement process continues through delivery, commissioning and operation. In 2009, the Economic Audit Committee, which was established by the Barnett government in 2008, endorsed the important role of SAMF in minimising risks to the state in building major infrastructure. In particular, it noted that if projects are approved by cabinet without the benefit of a detailed analysis in compliance with the principles established by SAMF, it would increase the risk that decisions would be made on the basis of less than full information. Prophetically, in October 2009, the Economic Audit Committee went on to note — In this regard, Cabinet may decide to proceed with a poorly evaluated project that has an excessively low estimated cost or an overly optimistic completion date when more extensive analysis would have given a clearer picture of the risks associated with the project. We see the truth of this simple statement from the Economic Audit Committee reflected in the projects that we have examined in this report. We examined three projects, plus a fourth matter that we picked up, and those three projects are ones that we looked at previously and have been monitoring whether or not they are in conformity with the SAMF principles. The first one I would like to comment on is the Perth City Link project. The Perth City Link has escalated in cost from $236 million to its current estimate of $737 million, which is the figure we get when the land development aspects of the project are included. Almost all of the increases in cost can be attributed to changes in the scope of the project after it had been announced or to further refinement to the cost estimates—that is, a cost increase from the first figure to the current figure of $500 million or 212 per cent. I am not saying that governments should not change projects; there will be changes in circumstances and there are good reasons for that. It does not mean that when the scope and cost are changed that we are not getting value for money, but that is put at risk; it will increase the risk that we will not get value for money. I am not making, in this particular case, the accusation that the change, the enhancement, is not giving value for money, but we do not really know because we do not have the analysis that covered the whole scope of the project at the start. That increased cost of $500 million is even before we have let the contracts for undergrounding the Wellington Street bus station, and that could change the infrastructure required for the development of the land freed up by the undergrounding of the bus station and 300 metres of rail line. I expect from the work that has been done that it will come in close to the figures, but that has not started yet. We do also need to mention that the government will recoup some money through the sale of land that will be available for commercial and residential development on top of where the railway line goes underground. We are talking here about development costs; the net costs will be different, depending on what the government can recoup from the sale of the land. It needs to be very clear that this is not a transport project; it was not set up to improve public transport. It is a project that was set up to redevelop this important part of the city and to enhance the vitality of the CBD and Northbridge. It is a very city-centric redevelopment program. The large cost blow-out is clearly symptomatic of a failure to apply the required SAMF processes prior to the commitment to the project. The next project I would like to comment on briefly is the Ord–East Kimberley expansion project. A similar story exists for the state government’s contribution to the Ord–East Kimberley expansion project. The state’s share of the cost started at $195 million when it was first proposed for commonwealth assistance. The commonwealth donated $195 million for quite a different set of projects, and it has kept its contribution at $195 million. But the state’s contribution, which was for the infrastructure to expand the land that could be used for irrigated agriculture, grew from $195 million to $220 million and now to $322 million. That is a cost escalation of $127 million or 65 per cent. Just like the Perth City Link, the increase can be attributed to the detailed estimates being available only after the project had been approved. The scope of the project was also expanded post-approval in response to the recognition that the amount of land being made available under the original scope would not be sufficient to meet the objective of establishing the required economies of scale. In the earlier report that the Public Accounts Committee made on this issue, it was absolutely clear to us that that the expansion was not big enough to provide those economies of scale. But why was that not recognised at the start of the project? The Public Accounts Committee could come in and have a quick look and see it straightaway, but the project was kicked off without its being recognised that if the government wanted to have those economies of scale for a particular crop, whichever it might be, then the original proposed 7 500 hectares would not be adequate. In both these cases, it is reasonable to ask whether the government would have proceeded with the proposals had it known that in order to achieve the project’s objectives, significantly more money than initially estimated would need to be spent. One of the concerns I have with the Ord–East Kimberley expansion project is that there did not seem to be any process of establishing clearly what the objectives of the project were. There was a whole range of ideas thrown in, but I am not aware of a process that set about to establish what were the clear objectives. Was it about populating the north? Was it about increasing development in the north, because it is underpopulated? But no case was made for that in any real, objective way. Was it this vague idea of developing a food bowl in the north? The two economic analyses that were available to the committee showed that in terms of net present value, we would not get a return. There was no other evidence to
8738 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] show that investment there was going to be a real economic benefit in food production, even though ministers have espoused that as part of the reason. A third and quite important reason may have been addressing Indigenous disadvantage. The East Kimberley could be seen as the most disadvantaged part of Western Australia. On my behalf, I certainly want money spent there, but the issue is: was that clearly designated as the objective of putting in what is now $322 million? The case was not made. The SAMF simply was not followed. There was not a clear designation of the objective, how it could best be achieved and whether that was through the expansion of the channel and a road and increasing the hectares that will be available for irrigated agriculture. The connection was not made. The major industry in Kununurra is government services; it is not agriculture. We were told there is no government policy to set targets for Indigenous employment in government agencies. If the primary objective was to deal with the clearly demonstrated Indigenous disadvantage, I believe there would be a much better pay-off through other projects. If we had set targets for the percentage of Indigenous people employed at government offices in Kununurra and the East Kimberley and put in the training programs, the mentoring programs and the jobs, $322 million would have provided a lot more jobs than increasing the area under agriculture. Clearly, there has been expansion of Indigenous people caring for country by taking on roles as rangers within the Department of Environment and Conservation et cetera, which is great, but more Indigenous people could be employed if the money was there. Clearly, we have needs in education and health, and more Indigenous people could be trained in those areas to provide support roles and then move into higher professional roles. There is a huge need for aged care for Indigenous people, so people could be trained for that. If the strategic asset management framework process had been established and its primary objective was to do something about the horrendous Indigenous disadvantage in the East Kimberley, I would not have made the decision to build a canal and increase the horticultural area, because we know that the flow-on effects to Indigenous people will be indirect. We will not have the money to be a major investor in that area. Under the native title agreement, Indigenous people will benefit through having freehold title on some of the land, but whether they will actually manage that land or simply lease it out and gain ongoing benefits, which is good, is another question. The bottom line is that I strongly support spending considerable amounts of money—the $322 million that we are now spending—in the East Kimberley, but I am not convinced that we are getting value for money. From the reports in the paper it looks like we will provide land and development worth $322 million to a Chinese company for a song. It will not pay the government, whether through its lease or through its purchases, a fraction of the $322 million; it might be $20 million, $30 million or $40 million. The company will have to put in hundreds of millions of dollars to get the land levelled and to get it serviced and to turn it into a productive agricultural land. There is a flow-on effect from that, but how often do governments spend over $300 million to subsidise an industry without even having an economic analysis to show that there is positive net present value? That is $322 million to subsidise an industry when we do not even know what it will produce. The Minister for Regional Development said in this place that it would be rice. Only a few months later we were told that rice was no longer any good and that rice would not be grown there because it was not economic. It just shows that the SAMF process has not been followed and we have no idea whether we will get value for money out of this. We also know that whoever takes over this land and puts a lot of money into developing it is unlikely to even pay for the cost of the water. When I say the cost of water, I am not talking about amortising the huge capital cost, but about the cost of administering and maintaining the flow of water, which will be subsidised by the taxpayers. We may get the benefit of the hundreds of millions of dollars that the Chinese company will come in and spend, but we would have spent $322 million and we will be subsidising the water so that the company can grow its products and export them. Clearly, there are flow-on benefits, but are we getting value for money from those benefits worth $322 million, which would have gone a long way to addressing Indigenous disadvantage and providing real sustainable jobs in areas where Indigenous people can work? The next issue I will touch on is the new Perth stadium. The government’s decision to locate Perth’s new stadium at Burswood is unique because the government had the benefit of the detailed report completed by Mr John Langoulant. The Perth Major Stadia Taskforce report did many of the things that a SAMF requires of agencies. It examined the need for a new stadium and then considered the various options of where a new stadium could go and its style and characteristics. The report ranked Burswood last of the four short-listed options and noted that it would be the most expensive location in addition to providing the least satisfactory transport access. With the cost of the all-important transport solution not yet available, it is not possible to tell how large the cost escalation will end up being by the completion of this project. I am personally a very strong advocate for Perth having a modern world-standard major sports stadium and I use the opportunity now to briefly give my thoughts on the transport challenges facing the operation of the proposed Burswood stadium. The proposal in the 2006 task force report to increase the percentage of patrons attending Patersons Stadium in Subiaco to 61 per cent was considered ambitious. The 43 000-seat capacity stadium had way below that number of patrons using public transport, and it was considered ambitious to try to get 61 per cent of the patrons to use public transport when the stadium’s capacity increased to 60 000. The Burswood option started with the objective of increasing this figure to 70 per cent, which is even more optimistic. Now, the underlying parts of the
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8739 master plan that have been revealed assume a transport solution that will achieve 50 000 patrons travelling by public transport, which is 83 per cent of people travelling by public transport. Frankly, the transport figures given in the project definition plan released in September 2012 are simply not plausible; they do not add up. The actual figure in the plan—we might be told there is a typographical error—actually come out at more than 83 per cent because people who walk across the footbridge from near Gloucester Park will use public transport to get from the CBD to Gloucester Park. It is not going to happen. The transport plan that has been released so far is totally dodgy. There are something like 5 300 car bays at the Crown Perth complex, yet there is no mention of them in the report. Burswood may put up gates and stop people going into the stadium unless they have a ticket showing they have gone into the casino or the hotel, so I am not saying they would be available, but the report does not even mention them. The transport plan is totally shonky; it does not stack up. Burswood is on a peninsula and the Langoulant report made it clear that transport was the major problem, because on a peninsula there are not different points to get in or out. The transport situation can be fixed, but it will cost a huge amount of money. There will have to be flyovers to get onto Albany Highway or the Causeway or to get onto or across Great Eastern Highway. That is tens and tens of millions of dollars to provide an appropriate transport solution so that it will be easier to get there and people will want to go. If that is not done, we will run into problems. I am running out of time, but what we found in some of the academic papers we read when we did this work over the last few years is something called “optimism bias”, and this happens regardless of which side of politics is in government. People start with a project and are so optimistic about it that they downplay the risks and the costs; they optimise the benefits. It can even be a bit more sinister than that—Sir Humphrey Appleby—in that agencies will put forward a project and under-scope and under-cost it, because once the government has announced it, it is locked in. Then the agency comes back and says, “Oh, but we’ve got to add this and we’ve got to add that”, and the cost blows out. That is regardless of who is in government. If the SAMF process is not gone through properly, the government is opening itself to committing to a project on less than adequate information and the project will blow out. In the end, the project may not even meet its needs. The committee report also covered the land sale to Crown, but I have run out of time. Again, I echo my thanks to all the members of the committee and our staff, especially Mr Mathew Bates, who have done a brilliant job ensuring that the standard of the work of the committee and the results the committee could achieve are what we have achieved. MR C.J. TALLENTIRE (Gosnells) [10.19 am]: I rise to speak to the “Review of Selected Infrastructure Projects” report and begin by adding to our chairman’s comments on the Ord–East Kimberley expansion project. As has been said, every major project that the state embarks upon should use those strategic asset management framework principles. That is all about making sure that a project is delivered on time and on budget and that we know what we are really developing and what the real aim of the project is. That is where the Ord–East Kimberley expansion project has been quite confused as to what we have been developing. I know from the early stages of development there was a commendable objective of improving the quality of life of Indigenous people in the East Kimberley. That is absolutely commendable. Significant amounts of money were put aside for that. We have climbed up to some $322 million going into the project. If that can improve the quality of life of people in the East Kimberley, that would be money well spent. However, is this the vehicle? Is the development of 15 000 hectares of irrigated land in the East Kimberley the best means by which we can deliver that improvement in the quality of life of people in the East Kimberley? I fear that it is not. I fear that there could have been other ways, better ways, of spending that money through which we would have seen improvements, such as a reduction in horrific things such as suicide rates in the East Kimberley and improvements in the rates of alcoholism. All sorts of terrible social problems in the Kimberley could have been improved by using this money differently. Nevertheless, we have spent $322 million. We are hoping to bring online 15 000 hectares. I know it is a crude analysis, but that equates to something like a subsidy of $21 500 per hectare. As noted in the press at the moment, a company is getting access to that land at an incredible subsidy. I understand from speculation that the most likely proponent is a Chinese company, which will be issued with a 50-year lease on that land. Nevertheless, a subsidy of $21 500 per hectare is a massive subsidy. Of course there have been some benefits. When the Public Accounts Committee visited the East Kimberley, we met with some of the people working for the various construction companies. They told us about how they were working with individual people. At the very human scale, they were going out to make sure that people were able to get to work and had the right safety gear—all that very detailed work. The people were actually learning about the importance of having regular employment. They are good, commendable things. But could we have done better with our money than spending it in this way? That is the question that has to be asked. I want to raise a few technical questions as well about the development of the land in the Ord area. I know at one early stage there was talk of ensuring that there was an abattoir as part of the development and that that could have led to intensive livestock grazing. It could have perhaps helped us diversify away from the live animal export trade and have another string to our bow for animal livestock producers in the Kimberley. An abattoir in
8740 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] the Kimberley is something that we really should be looking at. That was shied away from. Instead, the money has been put solely towards the development of irrigation channels for the purposes of irrigated crops. We have looked at the sorts of crops that are going to be viable in the Kimberley. At the moment, information is that sandalwood is the most viable. The latest speculation, though, is suggesting that sugar is a possibility. There could be a huge area of sugar. In fact, the upgrading from 7 000 hectares to 15 000 hectares seems to be around accommodating a level of production that would enable a sugar mill to operate in an economic way. My only concern is that some of the expansion is into the Goomig area. I have seen the soil mapping of the area—I note that it has been presented—by Jim Dixon from the Department of Agriculture and Food’s natural resource management assessment unit. He has a great deal of expertise in this area of soil mapping and soil quality assessment, and he has assessed that much of that soil is of a type called Aquitaine soils. Those soils are prone to salinity. Therefore, I wonder about the suitability of a lot of that area to sugar production. There are some concerns there. I also gather that that soil type is perhaps not well suited to sandalwood production. There are other crops that perhaps can cope with it, but it is uncertain whether they will be commercially viable. As soon as we start to add in other crops, we diversify. It sounds commendable to be diversifying, because I think one of the problems with Australian agriculture always has been our mono-crop approach to things. Making sure we have a diversity of crops is normally a good thing, because there is always going to be some unanticipated pest or disease that will come in and perhaps attack or wipe out one crop or another. But we know that to have the necessary production levels for the sugar mill, we are looking at 15 000 hectares—it is a significant area. Nevertheless, I am concerned that they may not be adequate for the production system because the soil types may not be correct. I turn now to the Perth stadium proposal, about which I have a lot of concerns. Our chairman has very well outlined the problems associated with the transport connections that the stadium affords. I read in the latest report on the new Perth stadium that there is the potential for an upgrade of the Thornlie line to link up with the Mandurah line as part of increasing accessibility to the stadium so people from Cockburn and southwards of Cockburn down to Mandurah would be able to access the stadium passing via Thornlie. That sounds like a huge additional expense. Already we are up to $900 million for this project. To be then adding very expensive rail upgrades, which I applaud in principle, onto the cost of this project really does make me wonder how well we have used the strategic asset management framework in assessing this particular project and its viability on the Burswood peninsula, with all the other complexities that are associated with that site. Its location does seem to pose many problems. I commend our report to the house, and again thank my colleagues, and especially the committee’s chairman, the member for Balcatta, for the guidance that he has given us over the course of the last four years. MS R. SAFFIOTI (West Swan) [10.26 am]: I rise today to make a contribution on the Public Accounts Committee report, “Review of Selected Infrastructure Projects”. I want to go to through the projects that were outlined in the report. The first one is the Perth stadium project. One of the reasons the Public Accounts Committee looks at projects, proposed projects or projects underway is to look at whether they follow rigorous and existing strategic asset management plans of government. It is basically ensuring that proper processes are being adopted in ensuring that we get value for money when we build these projects. I think the Perth stadium is a classic example in which proper, rigorous process is not being followed. Of course, the history of this was, “Let’s build a stadium.” This is how the government went about the process: as I understand, the Premier drove around the city, found a block of land and said, “That will be a good place for a stadium. This is where we are starting from.” I think everyone would say that that is not the way to start a billion-dollar project. What we have now is a site where a stadium can be built. As the member for Balcatta said, a stadium can be built on the site—of course it can. But the question is the cost. There are two key elements in relation to the cost. The key issue is how much extra are we paying to be building on a contaminated site that has some significant drainage issues but also flooding issues. That is the key: how much extra? We were told that around $50 million of additional structural work is required to make sure that the stadium basically does not sink. The other key issue of this project is transport. Again, as the member for Balcatta said, of course a transport solution can be built for this project, but at what cost? What we are seeing is the entire metropolitan transport system having to be reconfigured to suit this stadium. That is not an exaggeration. Let us go through it. A major new platform station will be built at Belmont Park. As we understand, it is going to be a three-platform station with a capability of carrying nine-car sets. The key issue is, of course, that currently no other station in Perth can carry a nine-car set, so there will have to be expansion of existing platforms around the metropolitan area to ensure that we can get the people away from Belmont. As the member for Gosnells outlined—this is something that came out of our latest hearing—we understood from the initial hearing that there would be an expansion of platforms in the Perth City Link project to accommodate a nine-car set. What we understood, and I think everyone understood, was that the design would allow a shuttle facility between Belmont Park and the city of the extended trains—the nine-car sets. However, it came out in the hearing that there is not enough room in the Perth City Link project to allow a nine-car platform.
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8741
Therefore, the government would basically have to rebuild or make major changes to the Barrack Street Bridge. This was something that came a bit out of the blue, because we were told probably a couple of weeks earlier that the whole transport solution was based on a shuttle service between Belmont Park and the city to get the number of people out of Belmont Park in a quick manner. Then we were told that basically nine-car sets cannot fit in that city redevelopment, which poses a lot of questions about the Perth City Link project, frankly, because it must be remembered that the Perth City Link was meant to be a public transport project, but it is not; it is an urban development project. It constrains the future capacity of our existing rail network by undergrounding it and basically limiting future expansion. It now appears that the government will probably need to do the extension of the Thornlie spur for no other reason than the government is building a stadium at Burswood. So, regardless of patronage figures and all these other things, it appears that the government will have to do it to be able to transport people to the stadium. As the member for Gosnells said—of course, he would support such a spur because of some of the benefits — Mr P. Abetz: So do all the locals. All the locals would love to see it built. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: A lot of locals across a lot of areas would like to see improvements in public transport, member. That cost alone, I suspect, would be between $400 million and $600 million. Mr P. Abetz: It is $240 million. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: The member says $240 million. Is that linking the Mandurah rail line to the — Mr P. Abetz: The Thornlie line, including building the three stations, and a rail overpass over Nicholson Road—the whole lot. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: I thank the member for that. The other key components are the road modifications, the construction of a dedicated bus station, a new footbridge across the Swan River and expansion of the existing pedestrian component of the Windan Bridge. It must be remembered that all of that, including the new spur, is meant to cost $300 million. The member for Southern River has just spent $240 million of that, so I expect the transport component of this project will now be—I estimated between $400 million and $500 million, but I think I was a bit low in my estimate—between $600 million and $700 million. As I said, all these projects are nice—we all like public transport improvements—but to do them on the basis that the government stuck a stadium at a place that no-one can get to is absolutely ridiculous when there are huge demands throughout the metropolitan area. To do it on the basis that the government chose a location because it thought it would be a nice place to put a stadium is ridiculous. I expect that some of these details will be outlined in the December project definition plan to be released by the government. But, again, it just shows that this government makes decisions that cost a lot but do not deliver the appropriate benefits to the community. I think spending $1.7 billion on a stadium that could cost the government $1 billion is an extravagance that WA cannot afford. I now want to quickly talk about the Ord. If we were to say to a government that we had $322 million to either provide industry assistance or address Aboriginal disadvantage, would we go and spend $322 million to build a water canal to create a sugar industry that would be sold to an overseas investor? Really? Is that the solution we would come up with? Of course it is not. As I said, I believe that we need to do more to address Aboriginal disadvantage. Imagine what we could do with $322 million. As the member for Balcatta said, we talked to some Indigenous representatives in the north of the state. Do not talk about jobs. With $322 million we could train them to work in the aged-care industry or in child care or as park rangers. We could train them to work in the mining industry. What we could do with $322 million! Mr A.P. Jacob interjected. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: Do not try to provide that explanation because it is absolute rubbish. I am just saying what could be done if we had $322 million to address Aboriginal disadvantage. As the member for Balcatta said, when we talked to Indigenous representatives, they outlined things such as they need more women in the area trained in aged care and child care. For example, we asked, I think, the government representatives about how many Indigenous people work in the Department of Housing doing maintenance—that is, doing jobs that will last forever and are located locally. They said none; so, as we understand, no Indigenous people work in the Department of Housing up there. What we could do with $322 million to address disadvantage! The idea that we have outsourced that project of addressing Aboriginal disadvantage to an overseas company that is building a sugar mill is not logical. Again, if we had $322 million and we wanted to choose an industry, would we choose sugar processing? Would we? When we were there trying to protect local fabrication jobs, we were talked about as interfering in the market and being like socialists. Now we have $322 million to create a new industry, I do not know what the real objective is. It does not make sense. Lastly, I will deal with the Crown Casino land issue. The committee found that there needs to be greater transparency in that process, because the value of the concession that has been given to the private company is
8742 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] not exactly clear. There may be arguments about incentives for tourism development, but the committee is suggesting greater transparency. In everything we saw, there was not a clear figure on the exact value of the benefit. MR A. KRSTICEVIC (Carine) [10.37 am]: I did not intend to speak on this report, but I have to quickly put a couple of things on the record regarding the review of selected infrastructure projects. The member for West Swan has motivated me to say a couple of words about that, specifically in terms of the Ord project. It is interesting that over not only the last few years, but also the last few days, we have heard quotes from the former Treasurer and previous Leader of the Opposition in which he strongly supported the Ord project and strongly supported, I suppose, ultimately, what we have done. We get the view that with a lot of these infrastructure projects, the former Labor Party government in some respects started these projects, and we have come along and finished these projects that it started, and now it is criticising us. Mr A.P. Jacob interjected. Mr A. KRSTICEVIC: No. As a member of this house, it is very difficult to balance those two things and say, “Well, you started it. You put us on this track. This is exactly what you were going to do. As a matter of fact, we actually enhanced the project. We improved it and added some value to it, and now you are criticising us for doing that.” That just does not make sense to me. When we look through the records of this Parliament and at the decisions that have been made by ministers on both sides, we can see that in a lot of respects we are heading in the same direction. Yes, we can get better at the way we do things, but I think an important point was made by the member for Balcatta about the changing scope of projects. We are not talking about cost overruns; we are not necessarily talking about wasting money either, because a lot of these projects are nation building. We are building the north up; we are creating opportunities by opening the door for other people to come on board. Yes, sometimes these things cost a lot of money and the immediate value is not seen. I think in life it is known by most people as short-term pain for long-term gain. That is a very important point that needs to be stressed here. In the short term it is very easy to criticise; it is very easy to see the lack of value in these projects; it is very easy to make it sound as though we are wasting money. But, with hindsight, a lot of times we come back and say, “Well, actually, that was a great decision and it was the turning point in a lot of respects.” The local people around the Ord, MG Corporation and the Indigenous people are very supportive of the work that is taking place there. They are very supportive of the money that is being invested. At the same time, when we talk about what sorts of crops to grow, we cannot tell the private sector and we cannot tell people in agriculture what is or is not the right thing to do. They are the people who know what is going on. People sitting here in Parliament should not be telling people up in Kununurra what they should or should not be planting in the ground, when probably most of those people have not even been to Kununurra — Mr M.P. Whitely: Would you not want to find out that they are going to do something with it before you spend all that money? Mr A. KRSTICEVIC: They are going to do something. There is an article in the paper today that talks about the sugar and the processing plants and the jobs that are going to be created. We can sit here and we can criticise and say that it is not going to create jobs and it is not going to do this or do that. But, you know what? Tomorrow, when something does occur, no-one is going to stand in this place and say what a wonderful decision the government made or what a wonderful thing it was doing. So it is a bit hypocritical sometimes to do that. To me, the disappointing part is when the politics comes back into play as opposed to doing what is the right thing for the state. It is also interesting that when we talk to members of the opposition and ask, “What would you do, or what would you cut out?”, they do not have any suggestions. All they can say is, “You are in government, so you decide what you are going to do”. Then, when we do decide what we are going to do, and we do it, they criticise us! So we say, “Okay, then, what would you do?”, and they say, “No, you are in government; you decide.” Members opposite cannot have it both ways. They cannot have two bites of the cherry. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms L.L. Baker): Member for Kwinana! Mr A. KRSTICEVIC: There is also a lack of information, a lack of transparency and a lack of facts. It is very easy to spin things, and it is very easy to make up stories. Unfortunately, the media are very gullible nowadays and they are not interested necessarily in doing the hard work to find out all the facts for their stories. Several members interjected. Mr A. KRSTICEVIC: The media are gullible, because they believe in the integrity of some of the people in this place and the information they are sharing with them, and they believe that they are trying to do the right thing for the community. However, they have on many occasions found that not to be true very quickly afterwards and they have not run with the stories beyond one or two days. So in that respect, the media have done a great job
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8743 from that perspective as well. But the media need to be a bit more conscious of the stories that they hear. It is not easy for the media in their role either, but if they want to know exactly what is happening, they need to appreciate the fact that, on our side of the house, our ministers are very genuine, are very concerned, and are very, very keen to share the facts with the people of Western Australia so that they can make an honest and informed decision and do not just get caught up in the spin. I know that between now and 9 March there will be a lot of spin by the opposition and they will try to shake every tree and make up stories all over the place. I know that the people of Western Australia are smarter than that. I know that the people in my electorate are definitely smarter than that and they can see through those things as well. We now have this infrastructure project report, and the committee has looked at a lot of these projects, and there have been some good outcomes. It is good to focus on what is going on and bring it to the attention of the bureaucrats and the public service, and try to refine our processes. But politics will always be politics. As was mentioned earlier by the member for Kalgoorlie, announcements will be made, and costings will be given. I know that at the time of making those decisions, the people who make those decisions do not necessarily have all the fine details, so that is when the cost may blow out. But these things need to be taken with a grain of salt sometimes where there is criticism, because, as I said, it does not matter who is in government; the same decisions will still be made, and the same outcomes will still occur. Thank you very much. EDUCATION AND HEALTH STANDING COMMITTEE Eighteenth Report — “A child who is healthy, attends school, and is able to read will have better educational outcomes” — Tabling DR J.M. WOOLLARD (Alfred Cove) [10.44 am]: I present for tabling the eighteenth report of the Education and Health Standing Committee entitled, “A child who is healthy, attends school, and is able to read will have better educational outcomes”. [See paper 5593.] Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: I would like to start, because we all seem to run out of time in tabling these reports, by thanking our research officers for this committee, Dr Brian Gordon and Lucy Roberts, who have worked very hard during this inquiry. They have given the committee members great guidance and support. This is the fifth report that we are tabling as part of this inquiry, and we would not have been able to do that without their dedication and assistance, so thank you very much, Brian and Lucy. I would also like to thank the committee members—yourself, Madam Acting Speaker, Ms Lisa Baker, member for Maylands; Mr Peter Abetz, member for Southern River; Dr Graham Jacobs, member for Eyre; and Mr Peter Watson, member for Albany. The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms L.L. Baker): Member for Swan Hills! Members, could you keep the level of conversation down, please! Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: Sadly, because of the parliamentary timetable, we have not been able to spend as much time as we would have liked on this inquiry, so there is unfinished business in this area. This is a very important area, and I am very hopeful that next year, in the next term of Parliament, we will be able to continue our work on health and education, and also start to look at mental health issues. I also thank the Public Accounts Committee, which presented a report this morning and looked at some of the issues that this committee has been dealing with, particularly the lack of child health nurses. I congratulate the government this year on funding 100 child health nurse positions. But that still leaves in child health 50 positions that have not been funded and that are urgently needed. Also, I bring to the attention of the Minister for Health the fact that the committee has tabled its report on foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. The three-month period for the government to table its response to that report will be up within the next week. The government’s response to that report has not been tabled. Members will be aware that some media attention was given to this issue last week, when people were presenting some results from the Lililwan project in Fitzroy Valley. When the committee tabled this report, we said that we have been told that in some communities, 30 per cent, or higher, of the children who are born have foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. That means that 30 per cent, or higher, of the children in those communities have brain damage. However, because there is no diagnostic tool and there is no definition within our legislation of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder as a disability, there is no funding to assist those children at home, at school or after school, and that is why our juvenile justice system and our criminal justice system often become a home for many of the children who are born with that condition. These children are born with this condition because their mothers are unaware of the fact that binge drinking during pregnancy can cause irreversible damage to the brain and that will affect the child for the remainder of his or her life. This report discusses three main areas: literacy, health and student attendance. We know that children who do not attend school, children who are functionally illiterate and children who cannot hear are set up to fail in their education and in their lives. It has been very disappointing for the committee to see the major failings that there are in this area. When we have presented previous reports we have congratulated the Department of Education
8744 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] for some of the work it has done in relation to information technology, but there is a huge gap particularly in dealing with absenteeism. In relation to the three issues we are going to discuss, the member for Southern River is going to discuss literacy when he presents his comments on this report. Basically, in that area, we are saying that the government must prioritise the use of phonics; it must assist teachers in teaching using phonics so that children do better at school by using phonics as a method to learn. We know that in terms of education and literacy outcomes, only 54 per cent of Australians have the reading skills necessary to meet the demands of living in the twenty-first century. The report looks not only at the support that needs to be given in the early years but also briefly at what is being given to children who are gifted and talented. There is insufficient support in WA for gifted and talented children. Mr A.J. Waddell: Hear, hear! Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: Yes; I heard the member for Forrestfield’s comments yesterday. There is a need to expand the programs that cater for gifted students in Western Australia. We know that 10 per cent of our children are born gifted and talented. In the metropolitan area we have one school, Perth Modern School, that caters for gifted and talented students. Of that 10 per cent of the whole population who are gifted and talented, that one school that takes gifted and talented students caters for only 2.4 per cent, or 930, of those students, and we wonder why some students cause problems at school. These gifted and talented students need more assistance; they need to be encouraged at school. That could be either through programs in individual schools or we may need more than one Perth Modern School. Maybe we need a Perth Modern School in the south metropolitan area as well as programs in individual schools, but something needs to be done for those children. The member for Eyre is going to discuss health issues in particular. He is going to again call on the government to close the gap, particularly for Indigenous children in the north west, by medically or surgically treating the complications that arise from ear infections. As we have said time and again in this house, children need to hear to learn, and they are not hearing to learn. Just in one school in Roebourne, 94 per cent of the children between grades 1 and 3 had some form of hearing loss. We have suggested to the government that it look at developing a memorandum for school health nurses so that they can screen children, treat them medically with antibiotics for ear infections and refer to ear, nose and throat specialists those children who have repeated infections. We have also asked the government to look at funding a mobile surgical bus, which could go around the north west and the goldfields, and within five to 10 minutes children could have grommets inserted or could have a layer of plastic—I cannot think of the name of the technique—placed across their eardrum and they might actually be able to hear. I am going to leave that area for the member for Eyre. We need to now look at school attendance. We know that poor attendance places children at educational risk. I hold up, for the sake of members, a chart that shows school attendance percentages for last year. This chart shows that 71 per cent of children are considered to have regular attendance. That means that they are absent from school for only up to 16 days a week. Mr I.C. Blayney: Sixteen days a week? Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: Sorry, up to 16 days a year; thank you very much, member for Geraldton. In other words, they are missing fewer than five days a term. If children miss five days a term, what parents, I believe, are not aware of is that that equates to children missing one year of schooling. We need to get these figures out to parents. If children miss one day a week of schooling, they move into what the Auditor General classified as indicated risk, which equates to children missing two years of schooling. That means that in WA, over 45 000 children are missing two years of schooling. Absenteeism is a big problem in WA. Instead of developing policies to look at absenteeism, the Department of Education has got to provide hands-on help to school principals who are facing absenteeism and poor attendance by students. Parents need to be made aware of the fact that if a child misses one and a half to two days a week of school, it puts them in the moderate risk category, which means that they are missing three to four years of schooling. One and a half to two days a week equates to three to four years of schooling that they are missing! How many students do we have in that category in WA? We have 18 456 students in WA who are at moderate educational risk. The final category that we have is students who are at severe educational risk, which are those who are missing three days or more a week of schooling. As members can see from this table, over three per cent of students are at severe risk. Almost 9 000 students are at severe educational risk, which means that they are missing the equivalent of six years of schooling. We have a huge problem. In the Auditor General’s 2009 report “Every Day Counts: Managing Student Attendance in Western Australian Public Schools” he said that 28 per cent of students fell in the categories of indicated risk, moderate risk or severe risk. The statistics we received this year from the education department for 2011, almost three years after the Auditor General’s report, were still the same—28 per cent of students are still missing school in those categories; 17 per cent at indicated risk, 7.1 per cent at moderate risk and 3.4 per cent at severe risk. Why do we have this gap? The Department of Education website states — A strong public education system is the cornerstone of every successful society.
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8745
To have a strong educational system, we need—to put it politely—bottoms on seats. We need the children to be at school. At the moment there is no central office for the collection of data on absenteeism. The Department of Education’s data on absenteeism is 12 to 18 months old. This is what the director general recently told the Public Accounts Committee. How can we address absenteeism when we do not have clear reasons for why children are missing school? Obviously, it varies from school to school and there is not one easy fix to address absenteeism. However, we need the data. We need to look at what can be done within the schools so that not so many children fail. If children are missing one day or two days a week, of course they will get behind at school; of course there will be behavioural problems; and of course they are more likely to drop out and not attend school. We really have to collect that data. At the moment the Department of Education puts all the onus of dealing with children who are absent for periods of time on the principal. That might be fine in a school where it is just one or two children who are absent for a period of time, but these figures show it is not one or two children. In some schools it is several children. In some schools these children are missing three days a week, which means they miss six years of schooling. If they miss two days a week, they miss four years of schooling. We cannot continue to put the onus on the principals. The school principals must be supported. The committee has recommended to the government that the school principals have responsibility for children who miss no more than half a day a week. However, when the children move into the at-risk categories—such as the 80 to 90 per cent category, which means they are missing one day a week or two years of schooling—the school should have an attendance officer working with the principal and with those families so that those children are encouraged to come to school and the families are given whatever support they need to help the children come to school. When children are in the moderate risk category and missing one and a half to two days a week or three and a half years of schooling, a senior regional attendance officer should work with those attendance officers. When children are at severe risk and missing three days a week at school, which adds up to six years lost schooling, the Department for Child Protection, if it is not already involved, should become involved. In this day and age, we should not be graduating children from school who have missed up to six years of their schooling. MR P.B. WATSON (Albany) [11.04 am]: It gives me great pleasure to speak on the Education and Health Standing Committee report on “A child who is healthy, attends school, and is able to read will have better educational outcomes”. I would like to read some of the evidence that we received, as outlined in the report — The achievement gap in the early years Future literacy is supported and enhanced by being exposed to a language rich environment in the home. As one witness noted, ‘It all begins with oral language and exposure to print and all those early literacy experiences.’ If the child is having 10 minutes’ conversation with one parent during the week, the chances of them coming to literacy ready to read are pretty much zero. They are your 10 %; they are already there. We need to look at early childhood, and by “early” I mean early. … Underpinning everything is oral language and early literacy experiences. We do not have a lot of control over that but we now know that we have to work on oral language, which all of us would agree on. … The achievement gap begins for many students before they enter the Kindergarten classroom. Children aren´t born with a vocabulary, yet educators and reading researchers have long identified the differences in word knowledge and vocabulary as key indicators of student readiness. Here are a couple of key findings: A gap of 30 million words in language experience exists for some children prior to entering school. In 1995, Hart and Risley published findings from a study showing vast differences in the quantity and quality of language experience in the homes of children during the first 4 years of life. Infants and young children with inadequate language development are at‐risk for developing academic difficulties. Without effective intervention, the majority of these students will exit high school with academic skills well below grade level. I read quite a few years ago that if we talk or read to a child when they are in their mother’s tummy, they will read books later. I am a bit eccentric, but I read to every one of my grandchildren when my daughters — Dr J.M. Woollard: I used to read and play music.
8746 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012]
Mr P.B. WATSON: I did not play music because I do not think they would have liked the Rolling Stones while listening to reading! My eldest granddaughter, Amelie, has a bookcase with probably 300 books in her bedroom. My grandson Mason has books everywhere in the house. Little Eden has books that she rips up on a regular basis because she turns one on 20 November. Thank goodness I remembered the date! It is so important that we start in the early years. We heard some disturbing evidence from child health nurses; they said that children were coming along to school who had no oral understanding, could not read and were wearing nappies and could not look after themselves. That is a damning thing in today’s society. Every child should have the opportunity to start off at kindergarten or preschool with the same sort of advantages as everyone else. If children start behind in those areas, what kinds of lives do they have before them? We went up north and we were told about children with ear problems. I know that Dr Jacobs will talk about that. We also heard about children with foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Some children are going into classrooms with no reading skills because their parents never read to them and their parents never read to them. We went to an alcohol centre in Wyndham and looked for books; they did not have any books there at all. I remember my granddaughter going through and culling some of hers and sending them up. We got a lovely note back from the group up there. We should provide these facilities for people as young as we can get. Dr Jacobs will tell us later how we can fix the problem. These young children up north go into classrooms and cannot hear what is going on. Even when they can hear, they do not understand because they have FASD. They do not realise when they are doing things wrong that it is wrong. They do not know how to handle discipline. They do not understand when they are given direct tasks to do. Therefore, they do not want to go to school. It should be everyone’s right to go to school. There are children who do not want to go to school but we have to give them the opportunity so that when they do go to school, they have the best opportunities. The shortage of health nurses is a huge issue. Our chairman has said on numerous occasions that health nurses are a huge part of the problem. It is not the health nurses’ fault; they have workloads that members would not believe. When we deal with the most delicate of our society, our young people, these nurses should have more time to put extra work into these young people. However, they cannot get to everyone they need to get to. We talk about the foetal alcohol syndrome and even ear problems facing our Indigenous community up north, but members should not think that the problems are limited to that area. There are probably similar issues in the metropolitan area, but we also have a large Indigenous community in the great southern that gets forgotten. I was at a funeral yesterday talking to one of our Aboriginal elders who said, “Watto, don’t let them forget about us.” There are probably as many Indigenous people from Geraldton through to Albany as there are up north, and they are suffering the same sort of education issues — Mr I.C. Blayney: I think there are more. Mr P.B. WATSON: There are more Indigenous people. Sorry, I meant to say that. There are more Indigenous people from Geraldton through to Albany and they get forgotten; they get only a little bit of federal money and a little bit of state money. When we look at these sorts of things, we must look at the entire state. A lot of money gets thrown up north and particular parties want to win seats up there, but the reality is that these human problems exist across the whole state. I want to follow on about gifted children. Ten per cent of Western Australian students, which is 38 000, are gifted children, but we are not looking after them; we are looking after the bottom end. If we keep looking after the bottom end all the time and do not look after the top end, we will have problems. Of these gifted children, 23 000 attend public schools. We must look after them and provide them with pathways. People say “Oh no, they are all right.” I never had that problem at school—I was probably in the bottom half all the time—but these gifted kids need encouragement. We want leaders in our regional communities. We want people to do the things that are expected of them but if we do not give them the proper facilities to do it, it will not happen. I also congratulate the Clontarf Foundation. It does tremendous things for our young Indigenous community in Albany and all over the state. I congratulate Gerard Neesham for starting it, and also Phil Gilbert and Andrew McGovern in Albany. They are very well respected in the Aboriginal community. Before I go—I know this has nothing to do with this report—I went to a funeral in Albany yesterday for Wendy Bearfoot. Wendy was a wife, mother, sister, friend and workmate to a lot of people in Albany. She went out to fight a fire and never came home. She leaves behind her husband and two sons. It was so sad at the funeral yesterday. Many people were there paying their respects to this wonderful, brave lady who gave her life. We take these people for granted. We go to bed at night while these people are out fighting fires and doing all those sorts of things that we just expect will get done. A very dangerous fire season is approaching Albany and I just hope that we can get the funding so that these people can be trained properly to fight fires, because they put their lives on the line all the time. Before I go, I thank Dr Brian Gordon and Lucy Roberts, our two very dedicated staff, who have done a tremendous job for our committee throughout the year. I commend this report to the house.
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8747
MR P. ABETZ (Southern River) [11.13 am]: The purpose of the Education and Health Standing Committee’s inquiry was to determine what could be done to improve educational outcomes for Western Australians. The evidence was really quite overwhelming. Basically, if we can address nonattendance, move to teaching phonetically and address middle ear infections in children, there would be a massive improvement in the educational outcomes of our children. Contrary to the assertions of the Gonski report, which suggests we need to throw billions more dollars into education, our report indicates that the biggest gains in educational outcomes, particularly in numeracy and literacy, can be achieved using current resources. Getting kids to school does not cost a lot of money and teaching phonetically does not cost a lot of money; it is not rocket science. Our grandparents were taught to read that way, I was taught that way and so was my wife, who was a teacher when we got married, and she taught that way. Taking steps to ensure that our kids have healthy ears will require some funding but it is a fairly minor cost in the context of the overall health budget. In fact, if we address these issues constructively, we would not only improve the quality of life for many children, but also save a massive amount of taxpayers’ money because children who do poorly at school are overrepresented in our judicial system and unemployment queues. The three issues—nonattendance, teaching phonetically and middle ear infections—are all interconnected. If a child does not attend school, they will be left behind. If a child cannot hear the teacher, they will get left behind and will not want to attend. If a child cannot learn to read because of the method of teaching, they will get left behind and will not want to attend. Because of the limitation of time, I want to briefly touch on how we teach literacy. There are basically two approaches: the whole language approach and the phonetic approach. For the past 20 or 30 years the trend has been to use the so-called whole language approach. Sadly, it was a fad in education. There was no evidence to show that it was superior to phonetics, but the educational establishment embraced this whole language approach with almost a religious fervour. The fact that research clearly shows that it has been a failure has not stopped it continuing to be the dominant approach used in most Western Australian schools. It is true that some kids manage to learn very well with the whole language approach, but the reality is that most do not and that is particularly so for children for whom English is a second language. Some years ago, when I was in Warburton, I had the opportunity to speak with one of the Aboriginal elders for the whole afternoon. He told me that his own age group could read and write because the missionaries had taught them to read and write and, with tears in his eyes, he said to me, “But my grandchildren cannot read or write.” I have often reflected on that. Missionaries who were not trained teachers taught Aboriginal kids to read and write—besides all the other things they had to do such as growing their own food and attending to various needs in the community—and now fully qualified university-trained teachers are going to these remote schools, yet very few kids are coming up to a proficient standard in numeracy or literacy. Interestingly, the missionaries used the phonics approach of sounding out words. They basically taught those kids how they had been taught. We were presented with evidence that for a person to learn English as a second language, which is the case in most remote communities, the whole language approach is totally unsatisfactory. Indeed, I reflect on my own experience of arriving in Australia as an eight-year-old. I could not speak a word of English and I was simply dropped into a class and taught the phonetic way of learning to read and write. Within nine months I could speak English like all the other kids. As part of our inquiry we were told that it takes children seven years with ESL to get up to standard with English. I thought, “What on earth is going on?” I do not think I was such a language genius to be able to pick up English in nine months. What became clear as our inquiry developed was that we do not need more funding to achieve good educational outcomes but a change in emphasis. Professor Louden told the committee — … the greatest resource of all is a knowledgeable and skilful teacher who cares about that group of kids, who believes they can learn. Or as John Fleming put it — ‘people who whinge about resources are looking for a scapegoat — what is broken is the delivery’ We also need parents to take an interest in their children’s education, because what happens in the home has an enormous impact on a child’s willingness to engage in the learning process. However, the pedagogy that is employed in the school has a huge impact. It is noteworthy that numeracy and literacy skills scores have deteriorated sharply when measured internationally against both the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development average and, more particularly, educational outcomes in east Asia. As I mentioned before, despite the clear research evidence showing that phonics has a far better outcome than the whole-of-language approach to teaching language, the pedagogical culture in schools remains biased towards whole language and, we were told, many teachers were lacking basic understanding of language and many having little, if any, knowledge of how to teach phonics. Tragically, we were told that many teacher training lecturers in our universities are still wedded to the whole language approach. Given the evidence of the turnaround that people like John Fleming was able to bring about at Bellfield Primary School in Victoria through teaching kids to read phonetically, it was shown that this approach resulted not only in the kids learning to read,
8748 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] but the whole atmosphere of the school changed because the kids were succeeding, and that changed their behaviour and their view of themselves. The committee had the opportunity to visit the Cape York Institute and the Cape York Aboriginal Australian Academy led by Noel Pearson and we were given a demonstration of the direct instruction method of phonics teaching. Again, the results were outstanding. This led our committee to include in its recommendations, recommendation 13, which reads — The Committee strongly recommends to the Minister for Education that funding is made available in the 2013–2014 budget to ensure high quality, systematic phonic work is given priority in the teaching of literacy in schools with children learning how to decode (to read) and encode (to write/spell) print using phonics. I trust that this recommendation will be taken up, because I believe it is absolutely imperative that our teachers be given professional development to equip them to teach phonetically and how to teach explicitly. In conclusion, I express sincere thanks to the committee staff, Dr Brian Gordon and Ms Lucy Roberts, for the excellent work they have done. It has been a real pleasure working with them throughout the year. DR G.G. JACOBS (Eyre) [11.22 am]: It is a privilege to talk to the eighteenth report of the Education and Health Standing Committee, “A child who is healthy, attends school, and is able to read will have better educational outcomes”. I refer to point 2 of our terms of reference, “Factors influencing positive and negative childhood development from birth to year 12”. We certainty identified that a negative factor on childhood development was if a child cannot hear. It was Professor Gunesh Rajan, professor of otolaryngology, or ear, nose and throat, who told the committee that having strong hearing means having a strong start, because if a child cannot hear, they cannot learn, go to school or be educated. That is a fundamental principal, and a gold standard education is possible only with proper ear health. This committee identified, as other speakers have talked about, the issue of nonattendance, and as the member for Southern Rivers just talked about, the issue of phonics, but it is about hearing or the lack of hearing and deafness that I particularly want to direct members’ attention to in chapter 10 of our report, which reads — The Senate Committee further reported on the extent of hearing problems for Indigenous Australians: Indigenous Australians experience ear disease and associated hearing loss at up to ten times the rate of non-Indigenous Australia. In 2004–05, 10 % of Indigenous children aged zero to 14 years were reported as having ear or hearing problems, compared to three % of non- Indigenous children…The committee heard evidence that these figures may under represent the actual rates of hearing problems in Indigenous children. It has been estimated that some form of hearing loss may affect up to 70 % of Indigenous adult people. What causes deafness in these children, particularly those we saw in the Pilbara and the Kimberley? This is what we call glue ear. The natural drainage of the middle ear is through the eustachian tubes into the oropharynx, the nose and throat. This pathology involves a blockage of this tube that causes normal fluid secretions to build up in the middle ear, causing pressure and bulging of the drum and therefore the inability of the sound transmissions to go through the drum into the middle ear and then into the inner ear. There are many influences, of course, on what causes that, including viruses and being prone to infection, immunity, living conditions and diet, and obviously early screening and detection. We have heard a lot about this being a social disease, and that we will not correct anything until we deal with the social issues. These are very important issues. Our Minister for Health was involved in a swimming pool program, in which it was found that if children had access to swimming pools, that would naturally clean the oropharynx and improve the condition of glue ear. That is the case, except that the committee identified that there were some issues with children accessing pools: pools were not open for long enough; there was often an attendance fee for the pool; and the inability of parents to accompany children to the pool. So the pool program is a good idea, but it is not being accessed enough and therefore is not making the impact it should be on the incidence of glue ear and deafness. There are issues associated with living conditions, and this committee identified vitamin A, B and C deficiencies. Vitamin A, B and C are important in providing immunities, and the committee identified and made some findings and a recommendation that we not only provide a breakfast program, which is very extensive in Western Australia—it was very surprising to me that over 350 schools provide a breakfast program for children—but also ensure the availability of dried or fresh fruit in the morning for children to build up vitamin A, B and C levels that will improve their immunity and decrease the incidence of glue ear and middle ear infection. I want to get to the things that we can do immediately and which were evident were not being done, particularly on our visits to the north of Western Australia. Early health screening is extremely important, and there is a cohort of children who are not screened and not identified, and therefore nothing is done. We tried to grapple
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8749 with this issue of how we screen these children. We found that probably the common pathway in which to identify these children is school. We should give a school nurse, or sufficient school nurses, sufficient skills and the ability to screen children and we provided telemetry so if there was an issue with those inspections the results could be transmitted to a specialist to view and give an opinion on what should be done. That screening needs to be done by someone who has contact with the child and can engage the child consistently, and we thought the best place in this setting, particularly in the north, was a school and the school health nurse. Western Australia has four ear screening buses, and they do a wonderful job in early screening of children. We need more. We do not have one in the Kimberley or in my region in and around the goldfields. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Dr G.G. JACOBS: This was identified in our report, member for Kwinana. The other question is: if it is identified that these children have a recurrent problem and they need surgery, how do those children access surgery? There are significant distances, significant issues in accessing specialists and significant issues in accessing hospital and a surgical centre for these to be done. The two operations I am talking about are, firstly, a grommet operation, which is when little tubes are inserted in the eardrum so the ear canal and the middle ear can drain; and, secondly, an operation for those children who have chronic perforated drums that need repair. These can both be done in the field. I often say that if Fred Hollows can restore sight in the field in a Third World country, surely in Western Australia we can restore hearing in a First World country for people living in Third World conditions. Mr P. Papalia: Did you get a costing to put in here? Dr G.G. JACOBS: No, we did not put a costing in. The surgical bus— Dr J.M. Woollard: It is $2 million. Dr G.G. JACOBS: The member for Alfred Cove has said that the initial basic figure is around $2 million. A surgical bus would provide the ability to engage and go out into the field. A grommet operation is a minor surgical procedure that takes five minutes. The Smart Ear Fix program has the new technology that was shared with us by Professor Coates. He talked about the ability to repair perforations. It has been shown that this operation takes only about seven minutes. He explained that the buses are totally self-contained; they have a surgical theatre and pre-operation room and the second bus has a recovery room. This bus could go to places like Leonora or Laverton or where there is no hospital or where there is a nursing post. I think this needs to be done with two groups, like the dentist. I think dental health is a huge issue and ear, nose and throat health is a huge issue. It is important that we look at this problem. The issue is difficult, but we can attend to these issues and I think we have a responsibility to do so. MS L.L. BAKER (Maylands) [11.33 am]: I rise to make a contribution and, like our chairperson, I start by thanking the amazing Brian and Lucy for getting us through what seems to have been a year of never-ending reports—fantastic work and as always, very professional and very quick turnaround times. They really are a credit to our Parliament in the support they provided us. This eighteenth report of the Education and Health Standing Committee, “A child who is healthy, attends school, and is able to read will have better educational outcomes” follows from a number of other reports that our committee has produced, which state a number of things that I am quite frankly getting sick of hearing, because the most important of them still has not been addressed—or one of the most important ones. It is hard to pick, really, when talking about the care and wellbeing of children and the importance of the early years. At the beginning we produced a report on the lack of child health nurses and we are still sitting in this place talking to each other about the lack of child health nurses—135 as I understand it; that is simply not good enough when we know repeatedly where the gaps are and we repeatedly know the multiple effects on children if they are not healthy in their early years. The WA Labor Party released a policy statement on early childhood intervention called, “Growing Children Well”, which made some very strong commitments—the best and strongest commitments on early childhood I have seen in the state. I mention that because this report discusses all angles of children’s health. It specifically discusses the educational needs of children, but educational needs of young children cannot be discussed unless the physical and mental health needs of young children are discussed, and they cannot be discussed unless child protection is discussed as well. Are members getting it clear in their minds that this has to be an across- government process with all departments lined up together? Early childhood needs to be brought together under one banner somehow or other. Under WA Labor’s policy there would be a minister for early childhood and these areas would definitely be brought together. The longer they are left dangling apart, disconnected, struggling to know what each other are doing, the longer children will fail in this country, and that is simply not acceptable. Recommendation 6 of the report states —
8750 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012]
Where the attendance level falls below 60% which places the child at severe educational risk, the Department for Child Protection’s engagement should be required. That is quite right, but if the Department for Child Protection is struggling to resource its own activities, it will hardly be able to dash across to the education department and fill the gap in children attending school and in providing interventions. In this report we discuss the mental health and wellbeing of children and we also discuss things such as the physical health of children. Members have heard my colleagues talk about the relationship between educational attainment and just being able to grow up and participate inclusively in their communities and societies. Unless children have good hearing, they cannot do that. It is not rocket science; it is very simple. We need to have things such as the mobile medical bus on the road doing exactly what we have heard described this morning out there in our remote communities—attending to these children so that when they present at schools, they have some chance of participating in what is going on in their classroom. If any of us are still sitting in this place this time next year, I think I will just die of shame over this incredible gap. No-one is prepared to step up and fill it; we have been waiting too long for it to be filled. We simply must do something. In this report we discuss mental health and particularly where the gaps are in rural and remote communities. I want to just talk about some of the initiatives that metropolitan schools are putting in place to ensure that their kids understand what challenges other people in the community face, particularly vulnerable and low-income children and families. I want to read a letter from an emergency relief provider in my electorate called The Shopfront, which is run by the Catholic Church. It is addressed to Mrs Gina Concha who is the home economics teacher at Chisholm Catholic College. It reads — Dear Gina and fellow staff, Our visitors were delighted with the great food I picked up this afternoon. It was providential really, because before that I had only soup and bread to feed the forty three people who came at night. I kept the warm dishes in the pie warmer and they really enjoyed the Beef Stroganoff, Pies, Chicken and Noodle dishes, in fact they all went quickly … Thank you very much; our visitors were really appreciative of such a delicious spread. I hope the last term goes successfully for you. We are very grateful for what Chisholm College has done for our poor — Vulnerable — and homeless visitors … We are just about to the end of the can and non-perishable food collection that your generous students, parents and staff organized for us. Their efforts have … put food on the table of struggling families, pensioners and people who have to eke out a living on the streets. God bless all of you for your generosity and care for people less well off than yourselves. I read that letter because it demonstrates something to me. The Shopfront serves 1 300 meals a week in Maylands and if that figure shocks members, just look at what is happening around the state. It is incredibly important that the children in urban schools in fairly well-off suburbs such as those around my electorate understand what it is to be vulnerable and understand what it is to be struggling in the community. That should be part of their educational experience as well. To understand and have compassion for others is what makes us whole people. I wanted to mention that letter because it was a very lovely letter between Chisholm College and The Shopfront and I am proud of both of those organisations in my electorate. In closing, there is another chapter at the end of our report that discusses mental health and the exposure to trauma as a child. There is a wide body of evidence demonstrating the link between trauma experienced as a child, brain development and subsequent mental health. I want to mention domestic violence in this context and I will be quick, because I have only three minutes left. Domestic violence is way too prevalent in our society. Again, we have seen some attempts at changing the laws in this state around domestic violence to make society safer for women and families. Children will never develop as balanced adults who have the capacity to grow up, have families of their own and live normal, contributing lives in society if they are constantly subjected to violent and traumatic situations at home. It does not just include one violent parent or a family member being violent and the children being present to see that violence. Sometimes the violence is not directed against the children, and sometimes the violence is not directed against the women; sometimes the violence starts to be perpetrated against the least powerful member in the family, and it is often the pet. There is a very strong link, called the cruelty connection, between abuse and trauma of pets in families and domestic violence. Do not ever forget the link between that and a growing child who is simply not balanced and thinks that bullying and torturing the weakest in a family is a way to grow. It is not a way to grow. In conclusion, I thank all members of my committee. They have been fantastic to work with. I look forward to seeing them again in the new year and I look forward to the challenges we might have to face together in the coming years.
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8751
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES — STOKES REPORT Standing Orders Suspension — Motion MR R.H. COOK (Kwinana — Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [11.41 am]: without notice: I move — That so much of standing orders be suspended to allow the following motion to be moved forthwith — That this house notes the Stokes report, “Review of the admission or referral to and the discharge and transfer practices of public mental health facilities/services in Western Australia”, and condemns the Barnett government for its failures in mental health, including — (a) the lack of staff and funding for mental health services; (b) the breakdown in clinical governance; (c) the lack of leadership; (d) the unacceptable level of deaths occurring on discharge from mental health facilities; and (e) the government’s failure to release the report sooner. Standing Orders Suspension — Amendment to Motion On motion by Dr K.D. Hames (Leader of the House), resolved — To insert after “forthwith”, the following — , and that up to 20 minutes in total be provided to non-government members and up to 20 minutes in total be provided to government members to speak on the motion Standing Orders Suspension — Motion, as Amended Question put and passed with an absolute majority. Motion MR R.H. COOK (Kwinana — Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [11.43 am]: I move — That this house notes the Stokes report, “Review of the admission or referral to and the discharge and transfer practices of public mental health facilities/services in Western Australia”, and condemns the Barnett government for its failures in mental health, including — (a) the lack of staff and funding for mental health services; (b) the breakdown in clinical governance; (c) the lack of leadership; (d) the unacceptable level of deaths occurring on discharge from mental health facilities; and (e) the government’s failure to release the report sooner. A few months ago I attended a gathering in Fremantle, the object of which was to talk about the dire state of mental health services in Western Australia. That meeting was addressed by a chap called Mr Geoff Diver. Many people in this place would know Geoff. Geoff’s daughter attended the Alma Street facility in Fremantle. His daughter, Ruby, was treated at that facility. Ultimately, against Ruby’s wishes, she was discharged and finally and tragically Ruby took her life. The West Australian this morning reported that the Stokes report laid bare the “overstretched and under- resourced public mental health services” and described the “damning report that shows the system is failing people and costing lives”. This is not a sensationalist headline. This is what is going on in our mental health services today. This report exposes a cover-up. It is a portrait of failure by this government and it is an indictment on our system. The Stokes report is a great opportunity for all of us in Western Australia to take stock of how we treat the most vulnerable in our community. It damns the government for its lack of response to mental health. It calls on the government to undertake wholesale changes to its approach to mental health. It lays bare the failures that occur routinely in our system. These failures are all the more tragic because they point to the management of our system today. No-one in our system stands proud about the way our mental health system has functioned over the last decade or so. No-one in this place stands proud about that, but what we have seen from this government is arrogance, dismissal of complaints in relation to the system and, finally, we see from this government cover- up of its own failures. Many of those failures go back to the way it approaches mental health today.
8752 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012]
The Stokes report investigations involved speaking to a range of clinicians, patients and carers throughout the state. A cursory examination of the executive summary gives members a flavour of the alarm and concern that Professor Bryant Stokes has brought to this report. He refers to clinicians as follows — … clinicians consistently expressed a desire to provide the best possible care for patients and to improve the quality of care and service provision. However, they repeatedly expressed dismay at resource shortfalls, management and governance issues, workforce shortages, increasing demand, and prevalence of mental illness The overriding message from clinicians is that these features all intertwine to effectively prevent mental health workers from achieving their aims. We know that mental health workers often bear the brunt of criticism of the mental health system. We know that they are often the ones who have to suffer the anger and the distress of patients and carers, but they are not to blame in this situation. The treatment of our mental health system by this government is to blame. The report continues — The Review found the current mental health workforce is inadequate to meet the mental health needs of WA There are fewer mental health nurse full-time equivalents … and the second lowest psychiatrist FTE per 100 000 people compared with other states … It is not saying that historically we are doing better or historically we are doing worse. It shows that we are failing compared with just about every other jurisdiction in Australia. The report also goes on to say — Mental health clinicians are severely overworked in almost all areas, which invariably has led to incomplete services being supplied to patients in some areas. This report should be a wake-up call to the government that its policies on mental health have fundamentally failed. Let us look at some of the reasons for that failure. The Stokes report refers to a breakdown in clinical governance. Many people in the mental health sector anticipated this report because they knew it brought forward these criticisms. It points to a lack of clinical governance, a lack of leadership and a lack of clinical framework in mental health services. This report exposes the almost complete breakdown of the relationship between the Mental Health Commission and the Department of Health. We know that the leadership of both organisations are now almost incapable of talking to each other, because the Department of Health, which is the primary provider of services to the Mental Health Commission, blithely goes about its work, much to the frustration of the Mental Health Commission, which is an organisation set up with the best of intentions but which is now sidelined, marginalised and treated as a bit player in the process of delivering mental health services. In particular, the report refers to a fragmentation and a disaggregation of clinical governance and gaps that are now occurring in the mental health system. This has occurred because the government has gone about stripping out a range of residential community-supported accommodation and distributing that to non-profit organisations as part of a part-privatisation of the service. So now we have the Mental Health Commission running over here doing policy on high, we have the Department of Health running over here ignoring the Mental Health Commission and rolling out the services as it sees fit, and we have the non-government sector doing the best that it can in providing mental health services in some of their supported accommodation systems. Essentially, the government has stripped out any sense of control or accountability in mental health, so nowadays we have a system that is fundamentally flawed, lacks clinical governance, lacks leadership and has gaps so wide that it is now completely failing the very vulnerable people whom it is there to serve. The report suggests appointing an executive director inside the Department of Health to run mental health services. So, we have the absurd situation in which we have a Minister for Mental Health, we have a commissioner for the Mental Health Commission, we have the Office of the Chief Psychiatrist, and now we are going to have the executive director of mental health inside the Department of Health. What is occurring is increasing levels of chaos inside our system, brought about by the incompetence of this government. What has the government done? What is the nature of that incompetence? Let us look at it. In the policies that the Liberal Party took to the last election, it said that it would spend $13 million in the first two years of government to develop a comprehensive WA state suicide prevention strategy—a strategy that struggled to gain life and struggled to gain traction. It was eventually produced, I think, in early 2011, and has been largely ignored and certainly underspent significantly. The Liberal Party was going to create a minister for mental health. It made one of those, sacked that minister and brought in a new minister who daily denies the crisis that besieges her department and her commission and who was dragged, kicking and screaming, into this report from Bryant Stokes. The Liberal Party also said that it would produce a review of the old Mental Health Act based upon the review that was done in 2004—so it already had a review of the Mental Health Act—and it would produce a six- month report of the new mental health and wellbeing commissioner to produce a new Mental Health Act. Lo and behold, it produced this act in the form of a green paper two days before this house of Parliament is to rise. This government has completely botched the process for the new Mental Health Bill. Not one person inside the mental health sector actually agreed with the new Mental Health Bill. They took one look at the bill and all agreed, in a collective groan, that it was a complete basket case. It was a basket case that was going nowhere, so
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8753 the government brought in Bryant Stokes. He is “Mr Fix It” in the health department, and thank God we have Bryant Stokes to identify these gaps in the performance of the health department. Bryant Stokes took on the added role, much to the frustration and annoyance of the minister, to look at these other aspects and the failures that beset this department, brought on fundamentally by the failures that occurred in the Alma Street clinic. This government has belatedly brought in a Mental Health Bill that it said would be the crowning achievement of this government. It could not even bring in a white paper; it is another green paper to do with further consultation. The whole mental health area is a complete basket case. It is a basket case because this government has fundamentally failed to bring about any sort of worthwhile reform, failed to arrest the deterioration in services and failed to provide the resources necessary to meet the growing demand on our mental health system. If that was not bad enough, Bryant Stokes has done the right thing by the government and produced his report, which members will be surprised to hear is subtitled “July 2012”. The government has sat on this report for over four months. Why? It is because it knows that it is dammed by its findings. It is dammed by its findings, and it sat on this report for four months, hoping that it could hide from it. What did the government do? In the last, dying days of Parliament, it brought out the report, having done as much work as it could to respond to it. The Minister for Tourism, in the management of the ultra-marathon report, for instance, at least had the good form and consistency to bring out the report and to respond to it later. That is the appropriate thing to do. The community wants to see what the criticisms are. But not this minister—not the Minister for Mental Health. She hid this report because she knew that the government was dammed by this report. She hid the report like the coward that the government is and hoped that the community would not notice. The community did notice, and The West Australian wrote that this report shows that the system is costing lives. The West Australian reported this morning that the report revealed — … 15 per cent of men and 20 per cent of women took their lives on the day they were discharged from a mental health hospital and a third committed suicide within a month. A crisis is going on in our mental health system. How does this government respond? It responds by hiding the report and hiding that criticism. This is a complete embarrassment. It is an insult to Professor Bryant Stokes, it is an insult to the good people who work daily in our mental health system, it is an insult to Geoff Diver and it is an insult to all those Western Australians who have lost loved ones at the hands of this mental health department. The government has failed, and then it has tried to hide the findings of this report. It is dammed by its inaction and it is dammed by this report. DR K.D. HAMES (Dawesville — Minister for Health) [11.57 am]: One would think that the other side of this house had never been in government. It has totally washed its hands of anything to do with management of the health system for the seven and a half years it was in government. When I was the health spokesman in opposition, what did I see in the newspapers and on the news day in and day out? “Health system in crisis”. It was not just the hospitals that were in crisis; it was also the management of mental health services that was in crisis in this state. Our commitments to mental health started when we were in opposition. They started when I was the shadow Minister for Health and decided that mental health was getting nowhere near enough attention. We in opposition created a position of shadow Minister for Mental Health to make sure that we could focus on the large numbers of people who have mental health problems in Western Australia, and in fact in the world, and to make sure that we addressed that issue that was being so badly neglected by the former government. When we got into government, again the first thing we did in forming a cabinet was to make sure that we had a Minister for Mental Health. So it was not just part of the general health portfolio; we had a specific minister whose total job in health was to concentrate on issues of mental health. We committed to a mental health commissioner; we committed to increasing funds in helping to resolve this issue of mental health problems that is the scourge of our society. Did we do that? We sure did. In just four years of government we increased the funding by 40 per cent—a 40 per cent increase in funding. So, far from the opposition saying how bad we are, how badly we fund health and what a terrible job we have done, we have taken the funds that Labor had when it was in government and in just four years we have increased that by 40 per cent. So the total mental health budget is now $582 million. That is a massive increase on what was spent by the former government. In addition to having the first Minister for Mental Health, we established the Mental Health Commission, in the same way as previously we had the Disability Services Commission, so that we would have a department with a total focus on dealing with mental health issues. We appointed the first ever Western Australian Mental Health Commissioner. We have tabled the new Mental Health Bill. Sure, it is a green paper. But in such a massive change in the way we manage mental health in this state, we need to put it out first as a green bill. The first bill came out, and there were some concerns about it. Several members interjected. Dr K.D. HAMES: There is no way that members opposite can call it a basket case. We will see whether members opposite think it is a basket case when we see what they support when that bill comes to the house.
8754 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012]
When we are re-elected next year, as hopefully we will be, and when that bill comes before the house, it will be very, very interesting to see what members opposite support and what they oppose. That bill is largely intact from the original bill that was tabled. Some parts of the bill have been changed in response to the community consultation that we undertook. We have now put that bill on the table, and we are saying that if we are re- elected, that is what we will go forward with. If members opposite do not agree with that, they should come out before the election and say what they do not agree with, and table the revised bill that they will bring in if they win government after the next election. My view is that they are not likely to bother to do that, because they will see that green bill and they will see that there are no problems with it. But we are putting the bill out for everyone to see, and we are saying this is the bill of this government, and that is what will go forward if we are successful in the next election. We also brought in Western Australia’s first suicide prevention strategy. We did not see a suicide prevention strategy from members opposite in seven years. As shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs, looking at the terrible incidence of suicide in Indigenous communities in particular, where was his suicide prevention strategy? It was non-existent. What have we seen as a result of that strategy that we have introduced? We have seen a 30 per cent reduction in the number of suicides in this state in 2011. That means that 30 per cent fewer people committed suicide in 2011 than in the previous year. Mr M. McGowan interjected. Dr K.D. HAMES: I did not think I interjected at all on the shadow minister. The Leader of the Opposition will have his turn. There are five minutes left. The Leader of the Opposition will have his turn. He should just be patient. We introduced Western Australia’s first mental health court diversion program—again, a first by this government. We introduced the first step up, step down facilities; 56 beds will be put in place over three years to cater for that issue. We introduced a new community living program, with 118 homes put in place by this government, for people to move into when they come out of hospital. We introduced the first statewide specialist Aboriginal mental health service, something that is absolutely critical to working with Indigenous people, because levels of mental health and suicide have become endemic in some of our remote Indigenous communities. So we have been strongly supportive of those issues. I have been to most of the suicide prevention meetings that have been held near Beagle Bay on the Dampier Peninsula, as has the Minister for Mental Health, to make sure that we are working together with Indigenous people in this state and putting forward plans and trying to assist them in the best possible way we can to address the incidence of suicide in their community. We have put in place a large number of mental health beds. We have put in place 14 mental health beds in Broome. That is a magnificent centre, and next time members are in Broome, they might want to look at it. We have put in place 30 mental health beds in Rockingham. There will be 30 mental health beds at Fiona Stanley Hospital. There will be 15 mental health beds in Midland. There will be seven additional mental health beds in Albany, which will bring to 16 the number of mental health beds in Albany. The new children’s hospital will have 12 mental health beds in addition to the current number at Princess Margaret Hospital, which will bring to 20 the total number of mental health beds. That is a magnificent effort by this government. The Stokes review was established by this government, by the Minister for Mental Health. It was not established so that we could inquire into our mental health system and say, “We think this is all rosy. We think mental health is working really well”. It was established to go in there and find, warts and all, what the situation was within our mental health system and bring it before the public of Western Australia and the Parliament of Western Australia so that we can see where we are doing things right and where we are doing things wrong. Clearly, a lot of work needs to be done. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. The ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Kwinana! Dr K.D. HAMES: One thing that the public of Western Australia will see from the commitment that we have made in government, in just four years, compared with the commitment that was made by the Labor Party in seven and a half years of government, was that if they want mental health issues to be addressed in this state, our government is the correct one to deal with it. DR G.G. JACOBS (Eyre) [12.05 pm]: I wish to make a few comments on this motion and add a bit of perspective, if you like, particularly to some of the comments of the member for Kwinana. I have a bit of experience in this area, because I have had a couple of years’ experience in government in and around the mental health portfolio, and, also, I have to say—I think this is important—I have had some experience in the field with unfortunate people with mental illness. I think it is really important, member for Kwinana, to say that no government before now has been brave enough to commission a review such as this. But all members opposite can say is that we are hiding, or we have something to hide. When we came to government, we promised an independent review. We have had that review, and we are not hiding from that review. We had the guts —
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8755
Several members interjected. The ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Kwinana! Member for Nollamara! Dr G.G. JACOBS: We had the guts to have this review. Members opposite have talked about the new Mental Health Bill. Between 2003 and 2008, what did members opposite do about the D’Arcy Holman report and the need to totally review the Mental Health Act 1996? What did they do? I came into opposition in 2005. D’Arcy Holman recommended a total review of the Mental Health Act 1996. Between 2003 and 2008—five years— what did members opposite do? What did the then Minister for Health do? Mr R.H. Cook: Why not go and ask him? Dr G.G. JACOBS: He did nothing, and then members opposite bag us for having this independent inquiry. This was a warts and all look at it. We are not hiding from it. We want to make a difference to those poor unfortunate people, whom I have had experience with, who are suffering from a mental illness. That is what we are about. It is not about hiding. It is not about doing nothing. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. The ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Kwinana! Dr G.G. JACOBS: We are concerned about mental illness and about people being discharged before they are ready, without proper planning. We are concerned. This is a warts and all report. This is a report that we called for. Why would we hide from it if we called for it? Why would we hide from it? Members opposite did not do anything in mental health. Members opposite have heard from the Minister for Health about what we have done in recognising the issue of mental illness in Western Australia. Members opposite did nothing, and now all they can do, on the last day of Parliament, is bag us for a warts and all report that we are not running from. That is because we want to make a difference. We have made a difference. It is not really like we are starting from scratch; we have made some progress here. The minister has tabled some examples of that. We have a new community living program—118 homes for people to move out of hospital. There is individualised funding. We have the first step up, step down facilities—56 beds over the next three years. I have to say that the minister has listened to the need for transitional accommodation in my town. That sort of accommodation is very important for people who have overcome their acute illness but are not ready to live independently. That is something members opposite probably would not fully understand. Several members interjected. The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms A.R. Mitchell): Members to my left, while your speakers were speaking, it was relatively quiet. You still have time to speak. I suggest you wait until then. Member for Eyre, do not seek interjections. Dr G.G. JACOBS: Thank you, Madam Acting Speaker. We can talk about what we have done in suicide prevention. Over 200 people commit suicide in Western Australia every year, which is almost more than the intolerable road toll. We actually have made a difference. We have released a suicide prevention strategy, with community action plans throughout Western Australia. It is always a difficult key performance indicator to meet because, as members would understand, there are many, many variables in people’s lives, and on top of that can be a mental illness or depression, but that KPI has been met. We are making a difference. We have made a difference in suicide prevention in Western Australia. The opposition says that we are hiding from some of the recommendations in the report. We support all but a few of the recommendations. Many of the recommendations outlined by Professor Stokes have already been started by this government. Mr R.H. Cook: Why didn’t you release the report until this week? Dr G.G. JACOBS: If I may finish; for example, we have built WA’s first step up, step down facility, which is due to open in Joondalup by the end of this year. Others will be available in Rockingham, Broome and the goldfields. Many are operational and are being implemented immediately without additional cost. The clinical services plan will be available in December. There will be a 12-month planning process. Mr R.H. Cook: Why was it necessary to hide the report for four months? Dr G.G. JACOBS: The member for Kwinana does not actually want to study the report; he just wants to bag us and say that we are trying to hide from it. Then when I go through some of the issues, because we are serious about this — Mr R.H. Cook: I am genuine in my curiosity. Why did you hide the report and the findings of the report until this week? Dr G.G. JACOBS: Hide the report? Mr R.H. Cook: Yes.
8756 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012]
Dr G.G. JACOBS: We commissioned the report; we are releasing the report. Mr R.H. Cook: No, the report was finished in July. Dr G.G. JACOBS: If we had not done a report, the opposition would have said that we had not looked at the issues in and around mental illness in the community. We have done a report. This report is very comprehensive and very thorough. As I have said, it is warts and all. We are not hiding from this, member for Kwinana. I would reflect on Labor’s record in mental health prior to us being in government. Mr R.H. Cook: Let us reflect on your record as the minister; you were sacked! The ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Kwinana! Dr G.G. JACOBS: Irrespective of that. The member for Kwinana might not say that I had a starring role, but I suggest to him that I had a workmanlike role, because that is what it is about. It is actually making a difference for people with mental illness in the community. MR M. McGOWAN (Rockingham — Leader of the Opposition) [12.14 pm]: I rise to support the motion moved by the member for Kwinana and shadow Minister for Health. In doing so, I draw to the attention of the house that mental illness is an incredibly serious issue in our community. A great many people across the state are suffering as a consequence of family members or, indeed, themselves being victims of this illness, which these days is pervasive. As we know, a lot of people are engaging in self-harm and other activities across Western Australia. It is an increasing problem across our society that government needs to get to grips with. This report is actually a damning indictment of the government, whichever government it may be. I have been through Professor Stokes’ report. I know the government was very nervous about its release. I know there was a great deal of trepidation in government ranks about this report becoming public because of what is contained within it. I find it rather curious that a report that was received by the government in July this year was released on the second-last day of Parliament in this parliamentary term and on the same day that the most famous woman in the world, Hillary Clinton, and the Secretary of Defense of the United States, Leon Panetta, are in town. I find that level of practical spin contemptible. That is what the government would do in order to hide proper scrutiny of this report—leave it to after the opposition’s last matter of public interest for the year to bring this matter forward. We have now brought it forward. If members examine this report, they will find that it goes through government failure after government failure— government failures one after another—which the member for Kwinana outlined. On top of that, Professor Stokes did not make just one or two recommendations; the report has in excess of 100 recommendations for change. The feeble defence put forward by the Minister for Health and the former Minister for Mental Health is that the government has appointed a Minister for Mental Health and a Mental Health Commissioner. If the government had solved the problem, as it said it would do in the two-page policy which the Liberal Party released in the lead-up to the last election and in which it said it had all the answers, why are there 100 recommendations for change in this report? Why is it that the government was dragged to commissioning this report after more than three years in office, despite the fact that the shadow Minister for Mental Health, Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich, and Mr Diver had been imploring that action be taken? Why did it happen after three years of being implored to take action? Why did the current Minister for Mental Health pooh-pooh those requests? In fact, she abused Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich for regularly raising in the Legislative Council the fact that people were being released from the Alma Street clinic and then committing suicide. Why was Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich regularly pooh-poohed and demeaned by the Minister for Mental Health consequent to her raising those issues in the upper house? Why did all those things take place? We have finally got the report. We know the government was very fearful about its release. We now know why; it is because of the in excess of 100 recommendations that are contained within it, many of which relate not to additional money but to failures of administration and failures of process by the government. It is because of a failure in the administration of this portfolio in this term of government. The idea that the government appointed a minister and that that is suddenly the solution is a feeble and pathetic response to a significant problem. I say to the government: do not worry about appointing a minister—do something! Now after four years in office we have a report with 100 recommendations. It points out a truism that everyone in Western Australia, or certainly those who follow politics in this state, knows—that is, the government has a very shallow gene pool of ministers. It is regularly commented on by the press in this state; the pool of ministers is millimetres deep. The Minister for Mental Health is in the chamber today. She should be dismissed for the failures in that portfolio over the time that she has had coverage of it, because this report shows that she has achieved very little in her time in office in this important area. This report is a damning indictment of the minister’s administration of the portfolio. MR C.J. BARNETT (Cottesloe — Premier) [12.20 pm]: What a ludicrous proposition by the Leader of the Opposition that there was some sort of United States Secret Service or CIA conspiracy to conceal this report because Hillary Clinton was in town. Really! I thought members opposite were treating this matter seriously, but if that is their main argument, that is bizarre!
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8757
Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I am trying to address the Chair. The previous government did not give mental health the attention that it required. In seven or eight years in government the Labor Party did not give it attention. This government, and the Liberal Party when in opposition, as the Minister for Health has said, recognised that there is a growing incidence of mental health problems; I have no doubt about that. More people are coming to grips with and being able to talk about their health conditions and there is greater professional interest, yet the previous government did not respond to that change in reality. This government made some commitments. Our first decision when we allocated portfolios was to — Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I feel like a broken record. The ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Kwinana, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Mr C.J. BARNETT: We did as we promised. We created the portfolio of Mental Health with a minister and that work continued. We also created a Mental Health Commission. The minister in cabinet has responsibility for mental health and the Mental Health Commission, which is separated from the wider public health system and works on wider mental health issues in every respect. It should not be forgotten that during the term of this government spending on mental health has increased by 40 per cent, which is a massive increase, to a budget of $582 million. Have those measures and aspects, such as providing more mental health beds and better services and accommodation in the community solved the problem of mental health? No, they have not. Is anyone surprised by that? No, they should not be. It is a growing problem in our community. There has never been a government in Western Australian history, indeed perhaps in Australian history, that has fully taken on mental health issues in our community front on. There is more to do. The Stokes report makes it clear that there are clinical treatments. We recognise that we need to do more to help people transition from in-house hospital care to the community, and we are building the capital infrastructure to do that. We need more flexibility, innovation and better housing requirements. The job is not done. No-one is suggesting that. I will tell members what: very little happened for seven and a half years under Labor. Very little attention at all was paid to mental health. It has been this government and the ministers who have served in the mental health portfolio who have taken on the issue. There is a lot more to be done. Unlike the Labor Party, we will not just ignore it. We tabled the report and all we got was personal abuse and negativity from a group who when in government failed to address the mental health issues in our community. Members opposite talk about concealing or hiding the report. It may well be the last week of Parliament. We have considered the report carefully at both a clinical and professional level in government and at a cabinet level. We have tabled the report. The minister has also tabled the redrafted Mental Health Bill. Why did the Labor government not do that in seven and a half years? It did not get anywhere near it. It did nothing. The previous minister produced a draft Mental Health Bill. If we are re-elected, we intend to bring in and pass that bill next year. Everyone has the opportunity to look at it. From absolute inaction on the part of the Labor government, we now have a government that treats mental health seriously, treats people with mental health conditions with respect and has acted and funded mental health. The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms A.R. Mitchell): The question is the motion — Several members interjected. The ACTING SPEAKER: Premier, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Question put and a division taken with the following result —
Ayes (24)
Ms L.L. Baker Mr J.C. Kobelke Mr P. Papalia Mr C.J. Tallentire Dr A.D. Buti Mr F.M. Logan Mr J.R. Quigley Mr P.C. Tinley Mr R.H. Cook Mrs C.A. Martin Ms M.M. Quirk Mr A.J. Waddell Ms J.M. Freeman Mr M. McGowan Mr E.S. Ripper Mr M.P. Whitely Mr J.N. Hyde Mr M.P. Murray Mrs M.H. Roberts Mr B.S. Wyatt Mr W.J. Johnston Mr A.P. O’Gorman Mr T.G. Stephens Ms R. Saffioti (Teller) Noes (28)
Mr P. Abetz Mr G.M. Castrilli Mrs L.M. Harvey Ms A.R. Mitchell Mr F.A. Alban Mr V.A. Catania Mr A.P. Jacob Mr C.C. Porter Mr C.J. Barnett Dr E. Constable Dr G.G. Jacobs Mr D.T. Redman Mr I.C. Blayney Mr J.H.D. Day Mr R.F. Johnson Mr M.W. Sutherland Mr J.J.M. Bowler Mr J.M. Francis Mr A. Krsticevic Mr T.K. Waldron Mr I.M. Britza Mr B.J. Grylls Mr J.E. McGrath Dr J.M. Woollard Mr T.R. Buswell Dr K.D. Hames Mr P.T. Miles Mr A.J. Simpson (Teller)
8758 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012]
Pairs Mr D.A. Templeman Mr M.J. Cowper Mr P.B. Watson Mr W.R. Marmion Question thus negatived. JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE CORRUPTION AND CRIME COMMISSION Thirty-second report — “How the Corruption and Crime Commission Handles Allegations and Notifications of Police Misconduct” — Tabling MR J.N. HYDE (Perth) [12.29 pm]: I present for tabling the thirty-second report of the Joint Standing Committee on the Corruption and Crime Commission, titled “How the Corruption and Crime Commission Handles Allegations and Notifications of Police Misconduct.” [See paper 5594]. Mr J.N. HYDE: I will go straight to a summary of our findings and recommendations. The first finding of this committee report is that the Corruption and Crime Commission should have itself commenced an investigation into the 31 August 2008 incident involving Mr Kevin Spratt at the Perth watch-house when, or shortly after, it was first informed of this incident in September 2008. Our second finding is that the CCC is in 2012 an organisation more committed to prioritising the discharge of its misconduct function by way of independent investigation with respect to the WA Police than was the case in 2008. Our third finding is that unique delays in the CCC’s inquiry into the use of Taser weapons on Mr Kevin Spratt at the Perth watch-house in 2008 could have been avoided if the Corruption and Crime Commission Act facilitated the appointment of a deputy or assistant commissioner. Our recommendations address the appointment of an acting commissioner. Our fourth recommendation is that the CCC act be amended to make it clear that the CCC may include findings of fact in its reports. Our fifth recommendation is that the CCC should report to Parliament on the outcome of any operation that it conducts, even when that outcome is not controversial. I want to address those findings and recommendations in context. In his seminal critique of pure reason, the German philosopher Immanuel Kant stridently insisted that human perception was very much a function of our ability to imagine. Psychologists, Kant lamented, have hitherto failed to realise that imagination is a necessary ingredient of perception itself. At the time of its publication in 1781, Kant’s assertion was, to put it mildly, controversial. Today, in a world coloured by our mastery of advertising and marketing, cosmetic surgery, Photoshop, press conferences and media management, the notion that the world is not necessarily as we see it seems pedestrian. It is an unfortunate truism that the fight against corruption, particularly in public administration, is a crucial facet of twenty-first century governance because corruption is not limited to a few morally weak persons. Though we might like to describe those who have engaged in corrupt behaviour as “bad apples”, the reality is that corruption is an inherent characteristic of human nature. Though we all aspire to see our society mirror that which is described in Plato’s The Republic, we must be conscious of the fact that each of us has the capacity, how so ever well contained, to exemplify the distasteful observation of Thomas Hobbes. Furthermore, it takes the trespass of only one person to begin a total dissolution of the social construct. Eternal vigilance is most certainly the price of liberty. It is not difficult to recall examples of what happens to the fabric of societies when executive corruption becomes endemic. In the past year alone we have witnessed a gamut of social unrest arising out of corruption, from street level rioting and looting in London to the current tragic civil war that is tearing Syria apart. Although it is difficult to adequately quantify, the economic benefit associated with having a public service that is, by virtue of the good work performed by agencies such as our Corruption and Crime Commission, resistant to corruption is undoubtedly significant. For these and myriad other reasons, there can be no doubt that the role played by our CCC is vital. It is equally true, however, that while it is without question that the WA public service is today stronger and fairer in discharging its function as a result of the CCC, it is essentially impossible to adequately quantify the full impact of all the exceptional work that the CCC does. A very unfortunate consequence of this fact is that our perception of the success of the CCC is, to return to Kant, largely informed by our collective imagination. Coupled with the fact that controversy makes good media copy, it is perhaps easier to appreciate the appeal of pronounced intentions to somehow “make better use” of an agency that already performs such a noble and essential role. The Joint Standing Committee of the Corruption and Crime Commission has long harboured the strong belief that although every component of the CCC’s role is important, its role in working to enhance and maintain the high standards of integrity within the WA police is especially important. As the report states — “Police officers are,” as the former Parliamentary Inspector, the Honourable Chris Steytler … put it, “in many ways the front line of the justice system.” Certainly police officers are the most visible component of that system, and as such the manner in which the police function is and is seen to be discharged is a fundamental element in the rule of law in Western Australia.
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8759
It is for this reason that police corruption is an especially problematic phenomenon. Our system of law and order in the main relies upon individual persons obeying the law, an outcome that is in effect supported by the existence of the police. When the police themselves break the law, the entire justice system is placed into jeopardy as it creates the perception that the rule of law is unimportant, which in turn diminishes public confidence in the police. Furthermore, though it is acknowledged that police—like every other public service entity—ought to assume primary responsibility for dealing with misconduct allegations that are levelled against them, postmodern cynicism represents a barrier to even the most stringent of internal investigations. As a consequence, independent police oversight is crucial. Throughout the course of this inquiry it has been continually reiterated to the committee that it is essential that serious and credible public complaints of serious police misconduct, such as those involving either the excessive use of force or the misuse of police discretion, are regularly subjected to robust investigation and review by an external agency. It was for all these reasons that in November 2010 the committee, having, like many others in Western Australia, viewed and considered the appalling and shameful footage of Taser weapons being used on Mr Kevin Spratt by WA Police officers in the Perth watch-house on 31 August 2008, resolved to undertake this inquiry. Though the public release of this footage on 4 October 2010 by the CCC coincided with the publication of an excellent CCC report—a report that had a positive impact on the use of Tasers by WA Police officers—the committee wanted to find out why the CCC had not undertaken an immediate inquiry into the incident when first apprised of its seriousness back in 2008. Of particular concern to the committee was the apparent reluctance by the CCC to undertake independent investigations of alleged misconduct on the part of WA Police officers. Unfortunately, this inquiry has confirmed the view initially formed by the committee when it viewed that footage in 2010: in the past, the CCC has not devoted adequate priority to its police oversight role. Furthermore, it is the view of the committee that the decision of the CCC, communicated to the WA Police in October 2008, to internally investigate this obviously serious matter amounted to a serious misjudgement by the CCC. In forming this view, the committee acknowledges and supports the notion that the optimum model for promoting and enhancing integrity in any agency involves requiring the leadership of that agency to assume responsibility for the actions of their staff members. It is abundantly clear that promoting a culture of integrity is the single greatest misconduct deterrent, and such a culture is always best built from within. On this point, it is very clear to the committee—as I believe it is to most Western Australians—that the internal culture of the WA Police is very strong. Furthermore, through the course of this inquiry, the committee has learnt about the many ways in which the professional standards portfolio of the WA Police—a portfolio that is led with dedication by Assistant Commissioner Dominic Staltari—works to continually enhance that already strong culture. Especially giving regard to the myriad positive outcomes that flowed from the CCC’s subsequent inquiry into the Spratt incident, the committee maintains it would be more appropriate and of greater benefit to the state of Western Australia for the Corruption and Crime Commission to have embarked upon this inquiry two years earlier than it did. As we considered the evidence provided in aid of this inquiry, our committee was continually reminded of the ancient Greek proverb that all that is good to know is difficult to learn. Although the 31 August 2008 incident remains a black mark on the history of the WA justice system, it is clear to the committee that many important lessons have been learned as a consequence of its occurrence. The world has undergone a significant change over the past four years, and so too has the CCC. The committee notes that in the time since his appointment to the role of Corruption and Crime Commissioner in November 2011, Hon Roger Macknay has overseen the implementation of numerous changes to CCC policy and procedure, with the effect of affording a far greater priority to the CCC’s consideration of allegations of police misconduct than has historically been the case. As a consequence, throughout the course of 2012, the CCC significantly increased its investigative effort into allegations made about WA Police. Since Commissioner Macknay’s appointment, the CCC has undertaken and completed a total of 10 independent investigations into allegations of excessive use of force by police. Now, most welcome of all, this increase in investigative effort stands as testament to the strong WA Police internal culture, as none of these investigations has substantiated the allegations upon which they were initiated. Although this does leave media organisations having to indulge in even more creative writing than usual, this is evidence of an excellent system of oversight at work. This is not to say that further improvement is not possible. The committee believes that enhancements for the transparency of the CCC’s police oversight role would reap significant benefits. If a person sees fit to bring an allegation to the attention of the CCC that person should have, or be able to gain, a solid understanding of the CCC’s investigative processes and what they can expect from the process. The committee believes strongly that the police oversight model that exists in WA in 2012 is a model that the citizens of WA can very certainly trust. I want to refer to a number of sections in the report. I have summarised the findings and the recommendations. I want to refer again to the Spratt incident, particularly when we consider the issue of the coroner’s report that was tabled in New South Wales yesterday, which was very damning of police behaviour in New South Wales that led to the tasering and the death of a New South Wales citizen. The committee wants to put that in the context that, because of the CCC’s public addressing of this issue in WA, we have learned from those issues. I want to quote in context from the great metaphysical poet John Donne —
8760 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012]
No man is an island, intire of itselfe; every man is a peece of the Continent, a part of the main. if a clod bee washed away by the sea, Europe is the lesse, as well as if a Promontorie were, as well as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were, each man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. That encapsulates why the Spratt incident was the so disturbing to Western Australians. The committee has made clear findings and recommendations. Part of our thinking was also informed by discussions with the FBI and the chief administrator of the city of Chicago’s independent police review authority, Ms Ilana Rosenzweig, who said to us, “You need to have someone who is independent watching the guys who police organised crime.” The evidence from the Chicago jurisdiction and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police jurisdiction reinforces the need to have this independent oversight. Ms Rosenzweig stressed to our committee that it is incredibly important that the people doing the work within an oversight agency maintain their dignity and respect for others, and especially for those who are under investigation for having transgressed in some way. There have been issues in which the CCC has complained that it is portrayed unfairly, and we gave the CCC an extra public hearing for it to vent its views. I retain a strong belief that in giving our CCC more powers than any other body in the state, and powers that exceed and impinge on the liberty of Western Australians, the Parliament should subject the CCC to the strictest oversight, because with great power comes a requirement for great oversight. It is important to note that whereas there may be lots of bar talk—I think is what the commissioner said—or criticism of the CCC, the CCC’s own polling, which was taken in its public perceptions survey on 27 February 2008, with some 380 people surveyed, found that 80.2 per cent believed that the CCC would properly investigate a complaint, 98.4 per cent thought it was good to have an agency like the CCC, and 54 per cent thought that the CCC had increased government accountability. Whereas the CCC may feel it gets bad publicity from the media or politicians and there may be bar talk, the citizens of Western Australia understand and value the need for having a CCC. That is not to say that the CCC gets everything right and that it should not be subjected to the most stringent oversight. I also want to say thanks to Michael Strong, a former director of the Office of Police Integrity in Victoria. The chapters on his evidence are incredibly good reading on his involvement in police oversight in Victoria. He said that his external perception of the CCC was that as an agency it was respected in law enforcement circles as having a good investigative capacity. He said that this debate around getting the right balance of an agency like the CCC is not new. This may be my valedictory committee report, because unfortunately we failed to amend the CCC act to allow this committee to keep going even after the Premier prorogues Parliament, in case there are some important issues in January or February. I thank Michael Burton and John King; Frank Alban, MLA, our chairman Hon Nick Goiran, and Hon Matt Benson-Lidholm. Report 32 is an excellent contribution. MR F.A. ALBAN (Swan Hills) [12.49 pm]: The thirty-second report of the Joint Standing Committee on the Corruption and Crime Commission, “How the Corruption and Crime Commission Handles Allegations and Notifications of Police Misconduct”, draws to a conclusion my four years as a member of that committee. This work has been both challenging and rewarding, and I believe our reports have been substantial and comprehensive. One of the highlights of our reporting time was perhaps arguably the most important and controversial report, the tenth report of the committee entitled “How the Corruption and Crime Commission Can Best Work Together with the Western Australian Police Force to Combat Organised Crime”. During the four years we met many distinguished and accomplished people and I thank them all for their generous contributions. I also register my thanks to my fellow committee members for a great working relationship, including the chair, Hon Nick Goiran, MLC, member for South Metropolitan Region. Debate interrupted, pursuant to standing orders. [Continued on page 8775.] BAYSWATER STATE EMERGENCY SERVICE Statement by Member for Maylands MS L.L. BAKER (Maylands) [12.50 pm]: This year, Bayswater State Emergency Service celebrates 40 years of service. It opened its headquarters in 1972 at the corner of Toowong and Hobart Streets, Bayswater. In 1996 Bayswater SES moved into its present purpose-built premises in Clavering Road, Bayswater. The service is responsible for dealing with a number of natural hazards including tropical cyclones, floods, storms, earthquakes and tsunamis. It is also involved in search and rescue, road crash rescue, cliff and cave rescue, and supporting
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8761 firefighter efforts during the season. I liberally paraphrase Andrea Moore, the local manager, in the following part of my statement. The Bayswater State Emergency Service is a group of passionate individuals with a like- minded attitude to their community. Through hard work and serious training they have achieved a wonderful reputation within the Department of Fire and Emergency Services and the City of Bayswater communities. They are relied on in times of disaster and are known for their professionalism and wealth of knowledge in all situations. They are happily sent all over the state for search, storm operations and more recently bushfire support. Their equipment has been improved, training has become nationally recognised and their methods may have changed, but the people have not. They still have new members lining up to join them and there are those who stay because they enjoy it so much. They have the same spirit for the work they do, whether it is sitting in the pouring rain on a roof at 2.00 in the morning or sitting in a luxury aircraft at 500 feet searching over the Indian Ocean. The challenge they accept and the dedication they display are the qualities that bond them all together as part of the “orange family”. Congratulations Bayswater SES for a wonderful 40 years serving the community of Bayswater. COMMUNITY SERVICES — ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Statement by Member for Morley MR I.M. BRITZA (Morley) [12.52 pm]: I want to acknowledge three individuals who have been of enormous assistance to me over the past four years and who I am sure are not looking for genuine recognition. Firstly, Mr John Payne, who is the president of the Morley Noranda Recreation Club, has been an outstanding president and has become a wonderful and sincere friend to me. His passion for the club is undeniable and although he is a forthright, frank and outspoken gentleman, he has always declared his views with a view to presenting a true and accurate picture of what really matters to him and the club he is responsible for. Secondly, Mr John Williams leads and guides by example the Friends of Lightning Swamp. He has taken the time to articulate the need to preserve and protect Lightning Swamp and confirm and validate the legitimate desire within me to understand the passions and views of those who really care about the environment. Our professional relationship has now become a wonderful friendship and his views and insights are greatly received. Thirdly, the principal of Morley Senior High School, Gay Fortune, has been a constant and steady advocate of this school that resides in the very centre of my electorate. Her insights and formidable views on education, which have come from a lifetime of educational experience, and the school for which she is responsible, have been of enormous value and significance to me personally. My knowledge of the education process has been wonderfully enhanced and improved, as well as my understanding of the plight and predicaments of many principals across the state. These three individuals have shared with me without declaring their political bias and have desired only that I have a better understanding of the electorate of Morley, which I proudly represent. ANIMAL WELFARE Statement by Member for Gosnells MR C.J. TALLENTIRE (Gosnells) [12.53 pm]: Righting injustices and progressing our society should always be a priority of this Parliament. I want to acknowledge the many people and organisations that dedicate their energy to animal welfare and threatened species conservation. Recently I attended “An Evening for the Animals” at Government House and I salute the work of Rebecca Tilbrook in helping deliver on-ground action for the Wildlife Alliance, Leif Cocks for his dedication and service to the Orangutan Project and Clare Campbell for her magnificent work with the Silvery Gibbon Project. Saving animals from cruel treatment, overseas and in Australia, is a strong desire of many people in my electorate. People in my electorate expect this Parliament to take action on cruelty associated with live animal exports; stalls in piggeries that immobilise sows; tiny cages for hens and meat chickens; puppy farming; calf roping at rodeos; killing of unwanted racehorses and greyhounds; and the cruel treatment of feral animals in the culling process. There are many other animal welfare issues that need tackling. I am proud of the WA Labor recommendation to establish an animal welfare administration board and the creation of a WA animal welfare strategy. A society that turns a blind eye to failings in animal welfare systems is also a society that turns a blind eye to acts of child abuse and other acts of cruelty. CITY OF CANNING — INQUIRY REPORT Statement by Member for Southern River MR P. ABETZ (Southern River) [12.55 pm]: I rise to applaud the tabling of the “Report of the Inquiry into the City of Canning” this morning by the Minister for Local Government. The residents of my electorate have been frustrated by the failure on the part of the City of Canning to proceed with the upgrade of Nicholson Road and Bannister Road intersection in a timely manner. What I heard unofficially from former staff at the City of Canning has been confirmed by the inquiry. Interference by the mayor and some elected councillors in operational matters has had a detrimental effect on the operation of the city. Thankfully, the upgrade of that particular intersection is now underway, but it should have been completed a year ago, which means that motorists have unnecessarily put up with a traffic jam every morning for a year longer than was needed. Clearly, the council was interfering with the operational matters that should have been left to the council staff. Their
8762 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] interference with operational matters in which they had no expertise resulted in poor decisions being made and the creation of extra difficulties for staff. The report also indicates that the former CEO, Mark Dacombe, acted appropriately, and that the breakdown of relationship between the mayor and councillors and senior staff was largely due to the mayor and certain councillors not understanding that their role is to make strategic and policy decisions, and not to micromanage operational matters. It is most concerning that the report found that the allegations made by the mayor against the CEO were made as a means to justify the removal of the CEO. I find this appalling. I urge the minister to implement the recommendations of the inquiry. NEW AGE RECYCLING, KENWICK Statement by Member for Forrestfield MR A.J. WADDELL (Forrestfield) [12.56 pm]: On Monday night I attended a public meeting arranged by the Gosnells District Progress and Ratepayers Association with respect to New Age Recycling on 20 Kenwick Road, Kenwick. The meeting was well attended and had over 60 very angry residents as well as representatives from the City of Gosnells. The background is that New Age Recycling is situated on land zoned light industrial that is only 20 metres from the nearest residential property. The original approval for the operation and building on the site was given in 2009 and was supposed to be restricted to recycling the company’s own building materials. The scope of the operation was supposed to be very small with no impact on surrounding residential properties. Since that time, the scope of the operation has massively increased and the site operators are now actively seeking waste from third parties. I have seen video evidence of the operation of this plant and can say I have seen it kick out considerable dust and noise. The land owner has now applied for rezoning of the land to industrial to match the actual land usage. This is a completely inappropriate use of this land and will massively impact on residents in the area in a very negative way. I call upon the City of Gosnells to do the right thing and reject this request entirely out of hand. Further, I believe that the City of Gosnells should immediately send environmental compliance officers out to monitor the site to ensure that all existing operations are within the scope of the original approvals. It is absurd that ordinary ratepayers are required to meet every minutia of local planning laws with respect to their residential properties, but large business is free to flout the laws to a great cost to local residents. It is time for the City of Gosnells to do its job. LANG HANCOCK — LEGACY Statement by Member for Jandakot MR J.M. FRANCIS (Jandakot — Parliamentary Secretary) [12.58 pm]: Our great Western Australian success story is due to the vision and hard work of previous generations—great men and women, pioneers of their time, who had the foresight that Western Australia’s best days were still to come. Tomorrow marks a significant anniversary in that continuing story. On 16 November 1952 Lang Hancock discovered the world’s largest deposit of iron ore. In Hancock’s own words, while flying with his wife, Hope — I got into the Turner River, knowing full well if I followed it through, I would come out into the Ashburton. On going through a gorge in the Turner River, I noticed that the walls looked to me to be solid iron and was particularly alerted by the rusty looking colour of it, it showed to me to be oxidised iron. Lang Hancock left a substantial legacy to WA. Even today his famous 1952 discovery of iron ore in the Pilbara is still the most significant in the world, while iron ore is one of this country’s leading exports. Notwithstanding the Pilbara discovery, Hancock also played a critical role in other mining projects, assisted the infrastructure development of the north, and worked as a newspaper proprietor and published author. Less well known is that, like many of his generation, Hancock served his country during the Second World War and was a sergeant in the Australian Army’s volunteer defence corps. Lang Hancock was a great Western Australian. Former Prime Minister John Howard said of Lang Hancock — He was a visionary who overcame considerable odds to lead Western Australia, and our nation, to realise its full potential in the development of our vast natural resources. I believe on the sixtieth anniversary of that discovery of iron ore, we should acknowledge his great legacy to our state. Sitting suspended from 1.00 to 2.00 pm QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ELECTRICITY PRICES — PREMIER’S COMMENTS 719. Mr M. McGOWAN to the Premier: I refer to the Premier’s comments on ABC radio on 6 September 2012 in relation to electricity prices when he said that the good news for consumers, householders and small business is that those increases are now past us and we can now look forward to only modest increases at around the inflation rate or maybe a little bit more; and
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8763
I refer to the letter from the Under Treasurer, Mr Tim Marney, to the shadow Treasurer dated 31 October 2012 in which Mr Marney, again in relation to electricity prices, states — While I understand there has been recent commentary by the Premier on this issue, I am yet to be informed of a formal decision by Cabinet in this context. (1) Has the Premier made a decision to implement his commitment of keeping electricity prices at or around the inflation rate? (2) If not, why has he claimed that he has? (3) If so, why has the Under Treasurer not been informed? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) What a peculiar question. Mr E.S. Ripper: It’s about whether or not you’re dinkum. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Before I answer the question, I wish all members of Parliament and the staff of the Parliament a very safe Christmas and holiday period. I assume that this will be our last day of sitting, but it may be a long day. I do not want to rehash the whole electricity debate. We have done that several times. Mrs M.H. Roberts: You’re embarrassed. Mr C.J. BARNETT: If the member for Midland had bothered to read what I had to say in this Parliament during the time of the Gallop and Carpenter governments — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Midland! Mr M. McGowan: That’s not the question. The question is very simple. Treat question time with respect. The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT: I think some members were here then. I warned of the consequences of breaking up Western Power into four utilities and the consequences of trying to bring a range of policies into a small electricity market covering Perth — Mr M. McGowan: Just before you voted for it. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I warned that this would not lower prices; it would increase prices. Very few people listened to me, unfortunately. I hate to say it, but I just might have been right. I remember the former Treasurer and the former Premiers saying that disaggregating Western Power would lower electricity prices. Did it happen? No. When this government came to power, we had within the four electricity utilities — Mr F.M. Logan interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, again I sound like a broken record. Apart from the obvious cost of running four utilities instead of perhaps two, there was a debt level—a deficit, if you like—within those four electricity utilities of around a billion dollars. This government had no choice but to act upon that. Indeed, when the opposition was in government, it imposed a price freeze and tried to conceal the rising costs within the system. Those costs were real costs in terms of fuel and operational staff. Indeed, the workforce of the four utilities exploded. All those reasons contributed to that. This government did the unpopular thing, and it has been the opposition’s single policy point for the last four years. We raised electricity prices by a significant amount. Do members think we liked doing that? Do members think we liked imposing that cost on consumers? But there were only two choices: either electricity consumers had to pay or the taxpayer had to pay. It seems to me that the primary cost should be on electricity consumers. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: Even with those significant price rises, the state government is still subsidising electricity prices by in excess of $300 million a year. The point is that the difficult decision was made and therefore consumers of electricity, both householders and small business, will not see those increases again. They can expect to see increases that will be moderate. Mr B.S. Wyatt: When is that decision being made? Mr C.J. BARNETT: When is that going to happen? A year ago we increased prices by five per cent; this year they increased by three and a half per cent. I think they are moderate increases, when the overall cost has risen dramatically. There are some real reforms that need to happen within the economics and the engineering of that
8764 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] sector, and the government is working on that right now to reduce some of the real costs of operation, as distinct from the sleight of hand proposed by opposition members to take money from the taxpayer and give it to electricity consumers and say that they have solved the problem. That was exactly the same sort of sleight of hand they tried in opposition. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: I have not seen any correspondence by the Under Treasurer, and I do not believe he has written to me. I do not know whether he has written to the energy minister. It is not a perfect system. The Under Treasurer may have his view. That is fine; I do not have a difficulty with that. As has happened year in and year out, it will be the state government at the time of the budget that will set the electricity price. If we are re-elected, we will set an electricity price at the time of the next state budget. Again, I restate: it will be a modest increase in electricity prices—if not around the inflation rate, then slightly above it. ELECTRICITY PRICES — PREMIER’S COMMENTS 720. Mr M. McGOWAN to the Premier: As a supplementary question, will the Premier’s midyear review, to be released in mid-December, reflect his commentary that electricity prices will be kept at or around the inflation rate? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: The Leader of the Opposition does not seem to grasp it. Did I not just say that at the time of the budget we will set an electricity price, along with water prices and public transport prices? That price will be set — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Kwinana, I do not need to hear from you. Mr M. McGowan: There’s your answer. The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, I do not need to hear from you either while I am on my feet. I formally call you to order for the first time today and the member for Kwinana for the second time today. While I am on my feet, member for Belmont, I will formally call you to order for the first time today. Mr C.J. BARNETT: If this government is re-elected, presumably the budget will be presented in late May. As part of that, utility prices will be declared. That will include electricity prices. If this government is returned, some time in May 2013, the electricity price will be set. Will it be included in the December midyear review? No, it will not, because May 2013 comes after December 2012. Buy yourselves a calendar and you will do better! EMERGENCY TELEHEALTH SERVICE 721. Dr G.G. JACOBS to the Minister for Health: I understand that the emergency telehealth service is a pilot project that was recently launched as a component of the $565 million southern inland health initiative. As a previous general practitioner in Esperance, I am well aware just how important this initiative is. With this in mind, could the minister please outline to the house this service and the successes it has achieved? Dr K.D. HAMES replied: I thank the member for the question. Members can hear the support I get from the member on my left. I asked, “Why do I always get to go first? Is it because I like to open the batting?”, and he said, “It is because we do not mind losing an early wicket”! This is a very important question about something that I am fairly passionate about—telehealth in the bush. As part of the southern inland health initiative, which is funded to the tune of $565 million by royalties for regions, we are putting in a lot of extra services and taking over the services the commonwealth should have provided. We reached the stage at which we gave up on the commonwealth providing adequate services through primary health, which is its responsibility, in rural areas and so we have put together this half-a-billion-dollar package. One of the components of that package is telehealth. We have started trialling the expansion of the telehealth program that has operated in the past. We have a new scheme, which operates from 10.00 am to 10.00 pm Friday to Sunday, led by Dr Garth Herrington. That links services to Northam, Narrogin, Beverley, Cunderdin, Goomalling, Southern Cross, Wongan Hills, Wyalkatchem and York. In the first seven weeks of operation, 250 patients were treated using that telehealth service. We are now expanding the trial to Merredin and in the very near future into Kalgoorlie. I will just give members an example of how it works and the benefits it creates. There was a fatal accident near Southern Cross on 5 October this year. We used the telehealth service to help seven people who were injured in that accident. Sadly, there were three fatalities. Dr Willis, an emergency
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8765 physician, was on duty at that time. We used telehealth through the Southern Cross Hospital from nine in the evening right through to 3.00 am, when those patients were treated and stabilised. Communication occurred with the Royal Flying Doctor Service and St John Ambulance to get those patients to hospital and ensure they were well treated, stabilised and properly managed. When there is an accident of that severity, it is a scary situation to be in for the nurse or even the doctor who is on duty at the time when they have people with life-threatening issues and they are often the only people there. The nurse linked up through telehealth to the emergency physician, who was able to guide her through all the things she needed to do to manage and stabilise those patients. It was an extremely effective result. We were also in the electorate of the member for Kalgoorlie, visiting the hospital at Laverton when we linked up through telehealth with a doctor down in Perth. We were able to chat to him and he could zero in on the patient on the table. One of my staff was there at the time. We could look at medical problems that person may have, direct treatment and directly converse from such a distance. In the future it will mean that in areas where it is very difficult to find GPs—in fact, in areas where GPs cannot be found—we will be able to have a GP sitting at home somewhere on his computer doing medical sessions in a remote community with the assistance of a nurse. They will be able to spend hours, if not days, per week working directly into that surgery and ensuring that people who do not have access to GPs at least have the next best thing, which is a GP being able to link in, particularly if we can get nurse practitioners out there who have their own levels of skills that would blend perfectly with that sort of arrangement. Telehealth is the way of the future. This government is working very hard on a new model of telehealth across this state. Over the next two years we will see amazing changes in the way people are managed in remote parts of this state.
NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH — FUNDING 722. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS to the Minister for Police: (1) Is the minister aware of the great work done by Neighbourhood Watch? (2) Why has the minster’s government slowly but surely taken funding and resources away from Neighbourhood Watch? (3) Why has the minister agreed to a plan that will see area coordinators sacked, street captains sacked and no newsletters or other material produced for Neighbourhood Watch kids? Mrs L.M. HARVEY replied: (1)–(3) I thank the member for this question, which I am sure has come out of the Neighbourhood Watch conference that was held last weekend. WA Police convened a meeting with Neighbourhood Watch. That meeting was convened around supporting Neighbourhood Watch into the future. I stand 100 per cent behind the great work that those community volunteers for Neighbourhood Watch do in our communities. They are a tremendous resource to our police officers. Mrs M.H. Roberts: Why are you sacking them? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I am addressing part of the member for Midland’s question. WA Police support Neighbourhood Watch to the tune of $75 000 and one fulltime equivalent to help coordinate those committees. The committees come from the communities. The member asked about police, sackings and volunteers. I do not quite know how the police can sack volunteers. I understand that the volunteers are still part of the Neighbourhood Watch committees. What that meeting was about and what WA Police are working towards is empowering the Neighbourhood Watch committees with better resources such as Facebook, Twitter and use of the WA Police website. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Maylands, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time today. Members, I simply want to hear the answer to the question the member for Midland has asked. I do not want to hear other voices. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Along with WA Police, we are looking at modernising the Neighbourhood Watch model, giving Neighbourhood Watch additional resources and training its members in how to use the police website, and at how we can better fit-out the police website to fit in with the Neighbourhood Watch objectives. I want to put it on the record loudly and clearly that I support 100 per cent the efforts of Neighbourhood Watch. It does tremendous work in our community. I would not support any move by WA Police to try to disconnect from the Neighbourhood Watch communities. My office has been in conversation with the commissioner today, and we are on the same page on this one.
8766 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012]
NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH — FUNDING 723. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS to the Minister for Police: I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister giving this house an absolute guarantee that her department will continue to support Neighbourhood Watch committees and produce material for them? Mrs L.M. HARVEY replied: I absolutely give my guarantee that I stand 100 per cent behind Neighbourhood Watch — Mrs M.H. Roberts: Answer the question you were asked. It’s not funny. You speak to the area coordinators. The SPEAKER: Do you both want to stay in this place for the rest of the afternoon or do you want to talk to each other? Member for Midland, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Minister for Police, you can join your friend the member for Midland in being formally called to order for the first time today. I am going to sit down and seek another question. PERTH AIRPORT — THIRD RUNWAY 724. Mr J.M. FRANCIS to the Minister for Transport: I note recent discussions about congestion at Perth Airport and this government’s view that a third runway is required. Could the minister please provide the house with an update on any new information that he has attained and whether he is aware of any alternative views? Mr T.R. BUSWELL replied: I thank the member very much for the question; I will endeavour to answer it as best I can. The member for Jandakot is right; some time ago in this house we had some discussion. I am sorry the member for Cannington is not here today because he was a pivotal part of that, with his plan to relocate Perth Airport to Pearce Air Base. I will talk about that in a second. We have previously discussed the issues around Perth Airport. There would not be a person in this house who has gone to Perth Airport and not had their travel plans impacted on by the congestion at the airport. That has a significant direct economic cost to the state and a significant indirect cost to the state. The fact is that Perth Airport has plans to build a third runway post2029. That is too far away. It is too long for the users of that airport to wait. Dr A.D. Buti: The future fund will be open by then. Mr T.R. BUSWELL: I am assuming that none of the member for Armadale’s constituents use the airport. He does not seem to be that interested in it, notwithstanding the fact that it is one of the most important pieces of transportation infrastructure in the state. As I outlined last time, the rate of growth of passengers through the airport is way over and above what the airport had originally anticipated, and a third runway needs to be built. I indicated at the time that I would write to Mr Geatches, the CEO of Perth Airport, and seek some information from him. I might just read a quick bit of that letter into Hansard. It states — As you would be aware, both the State and Federal Governments are committed to investing approximately $1billion upgrading the road network … Given this commitment and the importance of the Airport to the State’s continued economic growth, I am seeking assurances that the planning and investment commitment … Mr B.S. Wyatt: Can you table that? Mr T.R. BUSWELL: I am happy to. [See paper 5595.] Mr T.R. BUSWELL: He goes on and asks for information about time lines, capital costs et cetera. I will be meeting on the twenty-second of this month with Mr Geatches and, I am pretty sure, with the chairman of Westralia Airports Corporation Pty Ltd. Leader of the Opposition, I am hoping to be able to inform them, based on our previous conversation by way of interjection, that the construction of the third runway at Perth airport is an important issue that has bipartisan support in this state. I am assuming that the Labor Party in Western Australia supports bringing forward the construction of the third airport. I know he does not support — Mr F.M. Logan: Third runway. Mr T.R. BUSWELL: The third runway, sorry. Several members interjected.
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8767
Mr T.R. BUSWELL: Busselton airport—now you are on good ground. I am assuming the Leader of the Opposition supports our endeavours to get Perth airport — Mr M. McGowan: What are you putting into it? Mr T.R. BUSWELL: I am putting $1 billion worth of commonwealth roads around it. I do not have to put into Perth airport; it is a private enterprise. I want to know — Mr B.S. Wyatt: It’ll take more than $1 billion to fund it. Mr T.R. BUSWELL: Hold on; let me clarify: Do you support — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Victoria Park! Mr B.S. Wyatt: You’re the Treasurer; what are you putting into it? Put something into it, Treasurer! The SPEAKER: Member for Victoria Park, I call you formally for the first and second time today. There is a process in this place, member for Victoria Park, and I know that you know what the process is. Mr T.R. BUSWELL: All I am saying is that when I meet with Mr Geatches — Mr P. Papalia: Time for a joke. The SPEAKER: The joke may be on you at this point, member for Warnbro. I formally call you to order for the first time today. I do not want to hear further interjections. I do not think people on my left want to hear further interjections if they want to ask questions. Mr T.R. BUSWELL: All I am saying is that the meeting on 22 November is an important meeting. I think the third runway is an important piece of infrastructure. I think members opposite would join with me in agreeing that bringing forward the third runway is an important thing for the state government to pressure the Perth airport to do. I am assuming that is the Leader of the Opposition’s position. Mr M. McGowan: We support additional airport and transport infrastructure in Western Australia. Mr T.R. BUSWELL: Do you support bringing forward a third runway? Point of Order Mr B.S. WYATT: I may be wrong, but I recall that the member for Jandakot asked the question of the Treasurer. He could quite as easily have asked the question of the Leader of the Opposition, and I am sure he would have answered it. I ask you to draw the Treasurer back to answering the question put to him. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr T.R. BUSWELL: One of the questions the member for Jandakot asked was: was I aware of any alternative views about bringing forward the third runway? Mr B.S. Wyatt: What’s your view? You’re the government. Mr T.R. BUSWELL: My view is that they should bring it forward. Mr B.S. Wyatt: Good; go and tell them. Table the letter and sit down. The SPEAKER: Member for Victoria Park, I formally call you to order for the third time today. Mr T.R. BUSWELL: I want to table one other letter—a letter from a senior opposition shadow minister, the member for Cannington, to one of his constituents. I am sorry he is not here. I will read a bit of it into Hansard — I am writing to let you know that I have started to fight against the Liberal State Governments plans that will dramatically increase aircraft noise in Beckenham. In the ‘West Australian’ newspaper on … 6th October 2012, Liberal State Government Treasurer Troy Buswell announced that he wants Perth Airport to build a third runway. True. It continues — That runway will be pointed right at your house … Several members interjected. Mr T.R. BUSWELL: That is not an inflammatory statement. I will repeat that — That runway will be pointed right at your house …
8768 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012]
A third runway at Perth Airport will massively increase aircraft noise for you in your house. This decision by the Liberal State Government has been made with absolutely no consultation with local residents or anyone else in our local community. It is another bad decision by the Liberal State Government. I am totally opposed to this decision by the Liberal State Government. I will campaign against this decision and I want to ask for your help. I wanted to state for the public record that the state government will be meeting with Perth Airport and we will say to Perth Airport, as we have said to the people of this state, bring forward the construction of the third runway. Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr T.R. BUSWELL: The question I think the public of Western Australia rightly will ask of the opposition and the Leader of the Opposition is: what is your view on bringing forward the third runway at Perth airport; is it that you oppose it? I think that is what it is, Leader of the Opposition. The SPEAKER: Before I give anyone the call, member for Warnbro, I formally call you to order, I believe, for the second time today. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Perth, I formally call you to order for the first time today. ROLEYSTONE–KELMSCOTT BUSHFIRE — FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE 725. Ms M.M. QUIRK to the Premier: I refer to an article in today’s Examiner referring to Perth hills bushfire victims, which quotes the member for Serpentine–Jarrahdale — We have looked at every option on the table, we went to the Premier and he is keen to help the people and we are in the last stages of working out a package for them. In light of the member for Serpentine–Jarrahdale’s commitment — A member: Darling Range. Ms M.M. QUIRK: I am sorry; member for Darling Range. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I know the interjections were made to help you with identifying the member. I think it was only necessary to say it once. I believe the member for Girrawheen has understood that the member for Darling Range is the member for Darling Range. Several members interjected. Ms M.M. QUIRK: I will repeat what he said, if you like. My question is — (1) In light of the member for Darling Range’s commitment, what additional assistance will be provided to hills victims? (2) When will it be finalised? (3) Why has it taken almost two years to give these people an answer? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) This morning the government announced that — Ms M.M. Quirk: I didn’t ask about Margaret River. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I think I got four words out then—four. This morning — Ms M.M. Quirk: You don’t give out the word “sorry” though. The SPEAKER: Member for Girrawheen, you have asked a question; if you want an answer, I suggest you listen for a while longer. Mr C.J. BARNETT: This morning the government announced that, through RiskCover, it would meet all reasonable claims arising out of the Margaret River fires. Previously, the government made a commitment of a fund of up to $5 million, and something like 88 claims have been settled. There are still a number outstanding.
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8769
That is a correct decision; it was based on both legal advice and discussion with insurers, and there is a proper way to proceed. In doing so, right from the outset, the government has recognised that the cause of the Margaret River fire was a prescribed burn by the Department of Environment and Conservation getting out of control. The government accepts responsibility. There were very extreme weather conditions; nevertheless it was a prescribed burn. It is similar to the Toodyay fires 18 months earlier. Again, while the cause was a little inconclusive, on the basis of probabilities, the fire started from Western Power infrastructure. Again, at that time, the government accepted a level of responsibility and provided a $5 million compensation package, which basically met the needs of the people of Toodyay. With respect to the hills fire, which was a very severe fire with 74 homes destroyed, indeed, there has been some obvious discussion about this. I again want to restate two things: first, that fire started from a person using an angle grinder. Again, there were very high winds; it was a very hot day with severe conditions. That fire ignited and spread at an enormous pace through those hills areas. There has never been any suggestion that the government was at fault in any respect. Clearly, there was a case of responsibility at Margaret River and, arguably, one at Toodyay. That was not the case with the hills fire. Dr A.D. Buti interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Armadale, if you wish to get to your feet and ask a question, an opportunity is always available in this place as long as you are a member. At this point, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Member for Pilbara, I do not need to hear from you either. Mr C.J. BARNETT: It is self-evident. As tragic as the loss of homes in the hills area was, there is no suspicion or suggestion of any government responsibility or liability. Mr T.G. Stephens: Who turned off the water supply? Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Mindarie! Mr J.R. Quigley: Yes, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: I am glad you know that I am here and that I am standing on my feet. I formally call you to order for the first time today. Mr C.J. BARNETT: The cause of the hills fire was not intended, but it was not an issue of responsibility of government. Nevertheless, the government is—as are, I think, all people in Western Australia—extremely sympathetic to those who lost their homes and possessions. Various forms of funding have been made available. It is a fact that those who lost their homes in the hills fire have received, I think, on average a little above $50 000 in assistance from various sources, including government. That is quite significant. The members for Darling Range and Armadale visited my office about three months ago with some people who had lost their homes. I was particularly sympathetic, as we all were, to an elderly couple who had lost the dream home of a lifetime. It is not an issue of liability in this case. The fire started. There are differences between people who were fully insured, underinsured and uninsured. It is not a responsibility of government to solve every problem of the community. Indeed, those who did insure their homes will look askance if they see assistance given to those who were uninsured. Dr A.D. Buti: They were insured. Mr C.J. BARNETT: The member for Armadale has never actually asked me a question on this. Have you ever asked a question? Dr A.D. Buti: Yes, in debate. Mr C.J. BARNETT: The member for Armadale has never stood in this chamber and actually asked a question. Dr A.D. Buti interjected. The SPEAKER: I can remember, member for Armadale. I formally call you to order for the third time today. Members, I recognise that there is some sensitivity around this issue. I would like to give the Premier an opportunity to answer the rest of the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT: The householders who lost their homes in Armadale — Dr A.D. Buti: You said it was a hardship payment. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I remind the member for Armadale that he has never asked a question about this in Parliament. Dr A.D. Buti: I have asked you about three or four time in debate—what are you on about? The SPEAKER: Member for Armadale, if you want me to call you for the fourth time today, I will happily oblige. I ask you at this point to remain silent. You obviously have some interest in the matter being discussed. I think you should take this opportunity to listen to the issue being discussed and not continue to interject.
8770 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012]
Mr C.J. BARNETT: Having just dealt with the liability issue, I think the area that is affecting people, particularly some of the older residents, is that even if they were fully insured, they cannot rebuild their home. People who may have been fully insured are finding that, with changes to building regulations, sewage requirements and the like, they cannot re-establish their home as it might have been. A person may have been a resident in the area for 30 years and be fully insured, but the building regulations and requirements are very different today. People are having issues with having to build retaining walls when they were not there before. That is the issue the government is looking at to determine whether we can provide some assistance in dealing with those issues. That is something that they could not have insured for. I make it very clear that the assistance will be limited. It will not a Margaret River or Toodyay scenario, but — Dr A.D. Buti: You said it had nothing to do with liability—you said it was hardship. Mr C.J. BARNETT: The member for Armadale has never asked a question. Dr A.D. Buti: And you never replied to my letter to you of a month ago! The SPEAKER: Member for Armadale, I provided advice to you a moment ago. I did not provide that advice lightly. Indeed, I said it with great intent. If you have other issues that relate to this particular question, I suggest you take them up with the Premier outside this place. Members in this place know that I do not want to remove them from the chamber. I do not want to remove you from this place, member for Armadale. If I hear further interruption, I will consider what your options might be. At this point, I ask you to remain silent. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I conclude that it is that issue that the government is looking at assisting them with. I do not want to raise any expectation of a large amount of money — Dr A.D. Buti: Did you respond quickly? Mr M. McGowan: What’s the package? You promised a package? Yes, you did. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: That is what I am working on with the member for Darling Range and the Armadale City Council. We will try to help these people overcome the additional requirements that have evolved in the past 30 years. Dr A.D. Buti: They were insured. Don’t misrepresent the situation—they were insured. Suspension of Member The SPEAKER: Member for Armadale, I am usually reasonably tolerant—but I think you know that. I formally call you to order for the fourth time today and ask you to leave this place for the remainder of this day’s sitting. [The member for Armadale left the chamber.] Mr T.G. Stephens: Have you ever answered his letter, Premier? The SPEAKER: Member for Pilbara, I formally call you to order for the second time today. ROLEYSTONE–KELMSCOTT BUSHFIRE — FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE 726. Ms M.M. QUIRK to the Premier: I ask a supplementary question. Given that the Premier bases his indication of payment or otherwise on liability, can he explain when the Toodyay residents will be fully compensated for Western Power’s negligence in 2009? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: The Toodyay assistance package has been completed. ROYALTIES FOR REGIONS — LIBERAL–NATIONAL GOVERNMENT 727. Mr J.J.M. BOWLER to the Minister for Regional Development: Mr Speaker — The SPEAKER: Before I give the call to the member for Kalgoorlie—let me assure you, I will give you the call—I indicate that the Minister for Transport tabled a document. Member for Kalgoorlie! Mr J.J.M. BOWLER: What happened to the member for woodlands? That did not last long! Before I start, I wish you, Mr Speaker, the staff and everyone here the best for Christmas and in the future. As we reflect on the past four and a half years of successful royalties for regions projects being rolled out across regional Western Australia, can the minister please update the house on the future in store for royalties for regions under a Liberal–National government?
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8771
Mr B.J. GRYLLS replied: Mr Speaker, I acknowledge your strong leadership in the chamber over the last four and a half years. I wish you all the best in whatever you decide to do after politics. I thank the member for woodlands—the member for Kalgoorlie renamed his seat last night in his valedictory speech!—for the question. Mr T.G. Stephens: You could give your valedictory too! Mr B.J. GRYLLS: It could well be. But I do not think so! I thank the member for Kalgoorlie for his wonderful contribution to the Liberal–National government and the rollout of the royalties for regions program. We started a huge number of projects across regional Western Australia. I do not think anyone would deny it has been an unprecedented period of regional development for Western Australia. That is important given the many years of neglect of regional communities. The Liberal–National government decided to turn that around, to right the wrong, and to get on with the job of rebuilding regional Western Australia so that it can take its part in the strong and growing economy of Western Australia. Looking back at the record, I refer to the Pilbara Cities transformational program; the Ord expansion; Country Age Pension Fuel Cards to help those people with the cost of travel when they do not have access to public transport; the southern inland health initiative, which was spoken about by the Minister for Health earlier today, with telehealth now providing important emergency care across the region; the near completion of 400 new Government Regional Officers’ Housing homes, with government employees in those homes; hundreds of service worker accommodation houses as rents continue to cause housing pressure in the community; a massive investment in our schools and TAFE system; and, a massive investment in our country hospitals. There is a new hospital in Albany and, indeed, member for Kalgoorlie, the hospital opened in Kalgoorlie just a week or so ago. We already announced that, should we be re-elected, we will undertake a goldfields revitalisation program in the member for Kalgoorlie’s community. It will be a $150 million program that will help rebuild the goldfields and help that community continue to grow into the future. Mr T.G. Stephens interjected. Mr B.J. GRYLLS: We already said that they would. Member for Kalgoorlie, not everyone in the chamber holds the same view. In framing this question, I thought the Leader of the Opposition had just about said no to everything, but he added something else to the list today during question time—today he said no to an airport expansion. He has said no to the Ord scheme, no to Pilbara Cities, no to regional health and education boosts, no to the stadium and no to the waterfront. The only thing the Leader of the Opposition has not said no to is potato reform. Potato reform has captured the Leader of the Opposition, and although he cannot find it in himself to support any of those major state-changing projects, potato reform has gone to the top of the list. He has rolled that out, and the potato growers of Western Australia are quaking in their boots at the thought that the Leader of the Opposition could have turned his mind to such a degree to their issue. Several members interjected. Mr B.J. GRYLLS: I am noting a degree of glumness on the opposition benches. The opposition is a little bit flat. There seems to be a little bit of concern, and I think what that concern is based on is the valedictory — Point of Order Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to the relevancy of the answer we are getting. The member on his feet is not answering the question he was asked. The SPEAKER: A good point of order. Mr B.J. GRYLLS: Mr Speaker, I was asked what was in store for the royalties for regions program, but I have noted the glumness on the opposition benches. I think it is based on — Mr A.P. O’Gorman interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Joondalup, I have heard you quite often today. At this point I am going to formally call you to order for the first time. I want it to be relevant. The member for Midland’s point of order was a very accurate one, Minister for Regional Development. Come back to the question you were asked. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr B.J. GRYLLS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am concerned about what is in store for the royalties for regions program. I think, given the valedictory speech yesterday by the member for Belmont, when the member for Belmont rolled out a comprehensive — The SPEAKER: Member for Warnbro!
8772 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012]
Mr B.J. GRYLLS: — program of reform for Western Australia, it showed those opposite that they had made the wrong decision. Mr P. Papalia interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Warnbro! Mr B.J. GRYLLS: Member for Belmont, I would leave your phone not on silent during February; I think you could be getting the call! I think the member for Belmont could be getting the call in February because his program of reform yesterday was an important contribution to Western Australian politics, and I acknowledge it. I thought it was a great contribution and I wish him all the best. If I can turn back to regional Western Australia — Several members interjected. Mr B.J. GRYLLS: I will turn back to what is in store for regional Western Australia. I am very concerned, because up north in the Pilbara — Mr P. Papalia interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Warnbro! Mr B.J. GRYLLS: — the Premier announced the opening of the Wanangkura Stadium in South Hedland, and immediately the member for Pilbara attacked the outcome. He attacked the outcome of a new stadium for Port Hedland. He did not want it. He did not want that spending. Several members interjected. Mr B.J. GRYLLS: Hon Jon Ford in the other place opposed the Pelago apartment tower in Karratha, and the opposition leader has just said that he does not support it. The opposition has attacked the Hilton hotel announcement of private sector investment in hotel accommodation. It has been attacked by those opposite and they have attacked investment in the Hedland marina. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for West Swan, I formally call you to order for the first time today, the member for Perth for the second time and the member for Warnbro for the third time. I do not know how much longer this is going to go on for, Minister for Regional Development; not too much longer, I hope. Mr B.J. GRYLLS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. If I could just get an uninterrupted chance to finish my answer, I am sure I will be able to sit down. The royalties for regions program has been a focus of both the government and the opposition during this term of government. There is a debate going on at the moment about who is more likely to do it well and who is more likely to do it into the future. I always say that if people want to understand the Labor Party approach to the royalties for regions program, they should see what their city members of Parliament say about it. I will provide a couple of quotes to the Parliament. The first is what the member for Mindarie said about royalties for regions on 17 November 2009. Point of Order Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Speaker, I doubt that I have to draw your attention to the length of this answer, but I understand that you asked the minister to draw his answer to a close. The SPEAKER: It is not a point of order, but, minister — Mr A.P. O’Gorman interjected. The SPEAKER: Minister, take a seat; even though you have not stood, take a seat. I agree with the member for Midland on the point of order. Minister for Regional Development, it is now a quarter to three. We have managed to get through six and a half questions. It is subtle, Minister for Regional Development. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr B.J. GRYLLS: Mr Speaker, I do not want to defy your ruling on your last day. I thank you for your contribution to the Western Australian Parliament. PEEL HEALTH CAMPUS — CONTRACT RENEWAL — EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST 728. Mr R.H. COOK to the Minister for Health: I refer to the minister’s comments on 8 November 2012 that he will seek other expressions of interest from other companies to run the Peel Health Campus. (1) When will the minister be seeking those expressions of interest from other parties, and over what period?
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8773
(2) What is the time line for the expressions of interest period, and when will the minister be announcing the outcome of the expressions of interest? (3) Does this mean that the minister will no longer be considering the proposal put to him by Health Solutions (WA) to extend its private hospital component contract for 60 years and the public hospital component of its contract for 15 years? Dr K.D. HAMES replied: I thank the member for the question. (1)–(3) It does not mean that. I will reiterate something I have said before, which is clearly on Hansard if the member wants to go and check the record: there are three options for further development of this property. One is that the proposal put forward by Health Solutions could be accepted by the government in the short term. The second is that one of those alternative companies that have options may in fact buy out the company. The third is that we wait until the period of the contract has ended and then look for options for other — Mr R.H. Cook: In 2014. Dr K.D. HAMES: The contract expires in 2017. There is a requirement under the legislation — Mr R.H. Cook: But you have to start that process earlier. Dr K.D. HAMES: That sentence is coming out of my mouth. There is a requirement under the contract that by 2014 we will start having discussions with the current manager of that service on what may occur into the future and whether or not that contract will be renewed. In part of that arrangement of deciding and having negotiations as to whether or not we should continue with that contract, I regard it as more than reasonable that the government should go out and seek expressions of interest to see what other model and alternative providers are available before making that decision. Having said that, I believe there is a need now for an extension of services at Peel Health Campus. Demand has grown significantly. Demand through the emergency department is at a level that was not expected for two to three years. So an option remains for government to have discussions on alternative arrangements that can be put in place. But I can say that this government will not be proceeding to renew the contract with Health Solutions without first seeking alternative views from other companies that may be interested in running that service. LAW AND ORDER AGENDA — LIBERAL–NATIONAL GOVERNMENT 729. Mr M.W. SUTHERLAND to the Minister for Police: The Liberal–National government has followed an uncompromising law and order agenda. Can the minister please outline to the house some of our achievements over the last four years to protect the Western Australian community? Mrs L.M. HARVEY replied: I thank the member for the question and indeed his strong interest in law and order matters. The Liberal–National government has consistently made decisions in keeping with our beliefs and our policies. Our belief is that the fundamental role of police is to detect offending and to drive down crime. We believe that our police need to be funded appropriately. We believe they need to have clear laws, robust powers and robust protections to enable them to go about their activities with confidence. We believe on this side of the house that if we put more criminals away in jail, we will have fewer offenders in the community, and we believe that the courts and the Department of Corrective Services need to be funded and equipped to support the police in the important job that they do. We have increased the budget, member for Mount Lawley, over the four years we have been in government, by 25 per cent, which is double the rate of population growth in the state. We have put more police on the street. We have recruited 180 additional police officers and 120 police auxiliary officers. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mrs L.M. HARVEY: We are currently engaged in a recruitment program that will deliver 170 additional police officers, and 30 additional police auxiliary officers. In addition, we have introduced legislation, and we are supporting programs to assist police in targeting particular offending. We are supporting police in targeting the prolific priority offenders. Mr M.P. Murray interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Collie–Preston! Mrs L.M. HARVEY: We have a more stringent approach to parole. We have reinstated the Graffiti Taskforce, introduced laws for impounding the motor vehicles of repeat offenders, and introduced mandatory sentencing for
8774 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] those who assault police officers. Yesterday, this Parliament passed legislation that will empower police to have a serious impact on organised crime in this state. That is legislation that WA Police has been watching very, very closely and very much awaiting. The member for Midland and those opposite claim that this is a failure and crime is on the way up; nothing could be further from the truth. In 2007–08, there were 211 736 reported offences. Our figures from last year, compared with the last year under those opposite, show 5.3 per cent fewer reported offences against the person, with a 10.8 per cent decrease in reported offences against property. Overall crime is nine per cent down compared with the last year Labor was in office. What that translates to is 19 200 — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I do not need commentary throughout the Minister for Police’s answer to this question. I do not need unnecessary commentary and I do not want to hear any. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: That equates to 19 200 fewer victims of crime in this state in the last financial year, compared with the year we came into government. If members are interested, crime in this quarter has shown a continual trend downwards, with 2.4 per cent fewer offences overall. Mrs M.H. Roberts: Compared with what period? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Compared with this quarter last year, so we are heading in the right direction. Going into the future, in the context of this state’s growing population and the increased demand that will place on police resources, this Liberal government will make sure that police are well resourced to continue combating crime in our community. We are committed to assisting the police in driving down crime. We are working on having police undertake less paperwork and having less red tape to deal with as they go about their duties, and having less time behind a desk and more time out on the street. We think that is going to work. We are working on policies to safeguard officer welfare and wellbeing, particularly in the area of mental health. We will also implement any legislative and practical measure we need to, to ensure that police officers in this state can go about keeping the community safe and locking up those people who need to be behind bars in the full confidence that they have the support of this Liberal–National state government 100 per cent of the way. GARY PRATTLEY — CREDIT CARD EXPENDITURE 730. Mr B.S. WYATT to the Minister for Planning: Mr Speaker, I may be the last person to whom you give the call for questions in question time, so despite the fact you have been somewhat cranky today, I wish you all the very best in your post-parliamentary career! Minister, I refer to the credit card expenditure incurred by the Western Australian Planning Commission appointee Mr Gary Prattley for $10 000 in December 2011, information on which has been refused through freedom of information channels and previous parliamentary questions to the minister. (1) Was this $10 000 for a Christmas function or functions? (2) Where did the function or functions take place? (3) Did the minister attend this function? (4) If yes to (3), what other events or functions paid through Mr Prattley’s credit card courtesy of WA taxpayers has the minister attended? Mr J.H.D. DAY replied: (1)–(4) I do not have all the information requested with me, but I am aware, and in fact I do recall, that it was a function held around Christmas time last year. I think approximately 500 people were invited to that, and I did attend that as one of those standard end-of-year events that many agencies put on. Essentially, it was a combined function between the Department of Planning and the Planning Commission, as I understand. For some reason that I am not fully aware of at the moment, the credit card of the chairman of the WAPC has been used for a range of events like that. To me, on the face of it that is a fairly unusual sort of practice, but it does not necessarily indicate anything untoward whatsoever. So, yes, there was one of the standard end-of-year functions held last year and there were a significant number of people there—people within government, people within the private sector, and within the planning arena and more widely. So that is my recollection of what was held towards the end of last year. I understand the opposition has lodged a further FOI request, or certainly a previous FOI request to the Department of Planning or the Planning Commission; obviously that process will take its course and I am not involved in that.
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8775
GARY PRATTLEY — CREDIT CARD EXPENDITURE 731. Mr B.S. WYATT to the Minister for Planning: I have a supplementary question. Does the minister think it is appropriate that in December last year, a time when people’s electricity bills were increasing by 62 per cent, that the head of his department—WAPC—was spending $10 000 on a WA taxpayer–funded credit card for a Christmas party? Mr J.H.D. DAY replied: I think it is appropriate on some occasions for modest events to be — Mr B.S. Wyatt: Modest! The SPEAKER: Thank you, members! Several members interjected. Mr J.H.D. DAY: Does the opposition want an answer or not? I think it is appropriate for modest events to either express thanks or encourage interaction between various stakeholders in relation to particular agencies and particular aspects of what governments are involved in to be held. Whether the particular expenditure was appropriate or not is something that is the subject of a request for a response from Mr Prattley to me; I am not making any judgement on that whatsoever. But the event that I and a large number of other people attended—I cannot recall whether there were any opposition members there or not, but it would not have been unusual if there were—was a modest function held at 140 William Street. There was a bit of finger food and the usual sort of range of drinks—nothing out of the ordinary—and it probably was more modest than the press will be providing for us in the courtyard here at Parliament House later today. QUESTIONS ON NOTICE 8430, 8408, 8386, 8364 AND 8343 Answer Advice DR K.D. HAMES (Dawesville — Leader of the House) [2.57 pm]: Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition asked a question under standing order 80(2) and listed five questions that had not been answered. I have been provided with advice that all those five questions had previously been withdrawn. JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE CORRUPTION AND CRIME COMMISSION Thirty-second report — “How the Corruption and Crime Commission Handles Allegations and Notifications of Police Misconduct” — Tabling Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting. MR F.A. ALBAN (Swan Hills) [2.57 pm]: Before I was interrupted by 90-second statements, I believe I was — The SPEAKER: Members, we have moved to committee reports. If there are other issues you wish to discuss, feel free, but discuss them outside of this place. I would like to hear from you, member for Swan Hills. Mr F.A. ALBAN: I believe I was registering my thanks to my committee colleagues: the chairman, Hon Nick Goiran, member for South Metropolitan Region; deputy chairman, John Hyde, member for Perth; and Hon Matt Benson-Lidholm, member for Agricultural Region. I also acknowledge that this committee has undertaken a considerable body of work. During the course of this past reporting period, the committee met 37 times, held 10 public hearings attended by 18 persons, held 10 closed hearings attended by a total of 27 persons, met for six briefings at which a total of 17 persons provided information, formally interviewed three persons, considered 262 items of incoming correspondence, dispatched 167 items of outgoing correspondence, made 177 formal resolutions, and tabled 13 reports in Parliament. Today’s report is the fourth extra report, including the annual report, since July 2012. Given this volume of work, it is also appropriate to thank the staff of the Joint Standing Committee on the Corruption and Crime Commission. I thank, firstly, Scott Nalder, our former principal research officer, now Clerk Assistant (Committees); secondly, current principal research officer John King; and last, but not least, our research officer Michael Burton. I acknowledge Michael’s outstanding contribution to this committee. It has been said often that a committee is only as good as its staff; a final compliment to the staff of the JSCCCC. JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON DELEGATED LEGISLATION Sixtieth Report — “Metropolitan Region Scheme Major Amendment 1221/41 — Banjup Urban Precinct” — Tabling MR P.T. MILES (Wanneroo) [3.00 pm]: I present for tabling the sixtieth report of the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation entitled “Metropolitan Region Scheme Major Amendment 1221/41 — Banjup Urban Precinct”. [See paper 5596.]
8776 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012]
Mr P.T. MILES: The Banjup major amendment rezones 151 hectares from rural water protection zone to urban and urban deferred zones in the Banjup locality. The area is being developed by the proponent for housing on a 30-year-old sand quarry, which has been extensively mined and degraded. The quarry has been closed for the last three years. The focus of the committee’s report is the health impacts of aircraft noise at Jandakot Airport on potential new residents. The committee was alerted to this by the Department of Environment and Conservation when it made a submission to the Western Australian Planning Commission, which failed to critique DEC’s claims of adverse health impacts. The committee asked the Minister for Health for his views on DEC’s submission. The minister said that the proponent should engage appropriately qualified consultants to undertake a health-risk assessment of the impact of Jandakot Airport on the proposed subdivision and that both the Department of Health and the Department of Environment and Conservation should review that health assessment prior to any approval or rezoning. I commend this report to the house. MS J.M. FREEMAN (Nollamara) [3.01 pm]: I also rise to speak very briefly on the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation’s sixtieth report. The essence of some of the issues outlined in this report went to the Western Australian Planning Commission’s forecast of noise based on what it believed would be the number of planes and helicopters using the runway. That forecast seems to fall very short of what is in the Jandakot Airport master plan; in fact, it quite significantly underestimated that. One of our major concerns was that an expectation people have of WAPC’s management of these sorts of issues is that it will accurately reflect what will be the air traffic and, therefore, will accurately reflect the level of noise. Equally, in terms of consultation it was clear that the WAPC, although it requested comments from departments, when it got it, merely ticked it off; it did not in any way make a response to the concerns of the Department of Environment and Conservation. This is somewhat concerning. We know that in question time there was a discussion about the major Perth Airport and the issues of noise and airports. Therefore, it is a major concern of the committee that the WAPC should proceed at this time without proper consultation and without proper management of the reports. WAPC also asked for a submission from the Department of Health, but Health unfortunately did not post a submission and the WAPC never followed up on the submissions. Those matters are of serious concern, given that noise is a major aspect of health concerns for many people in our community who find themselves near airports. I note that the Minister for Health’s response on page 19 of the committee report states — The science linking noise (especially aircraft noise) to specific aspects of human health is complex and not well defined … … If the committee requires an immediate decision, then I support the views of DEC and recommend the Government not expose future residents to an avoidable potential impact on health and amenity. On that basis, the committee has brought this report before the house. Sixty-first Report — “Annual Report 2012” — Tabling MR P.T. MILES (Wanneroo) [3.04 pm]: I present for tabling the sixty-first report of the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation entitled “Annual Report 2012”. [See paper 5597.] Mr P.T. MILES: The Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation is pleased to table its “Annual Report 2012”. This report outlines the committee’s activities in 2012 and comments on significant issues arising from the committee’s scrutiny of delegated legislation in 2012. The committee continues to scrutinise a large number of instruments of delegated legislation. Between 1 January 2012 and 9 November 2012, the committee was referred 413 instruments including 238 regulations and 96 local laws. The committee takes this opportunity to thank the ministers, departments and local governments who provide assistance to the committee. The committee appreciates the work performed by local governments, which often, with limited resources, undertake the difficult challenge of drafting local laws. The committee also appreciates the contributions made by the Department of Local Government and the Western Australian Local Government Association in drafting local laws. I also thank the committee staff who have done an excellent job throughout the year—namely, advisory officers Suzanne Veletta, Felicity Mackie and Anne Turner; and Talweez Senghera, our committee clerk. I also acknowledge my colleagues who have been on the committee throughout the past four years—namely, Janine Freeman, MLA, member for Nollamara; Hon Alyssa Hayden; Hon Jim Chown; Hon Helen Bullock; Vince Catania, MLA, member for North West; Andrew Waddell, MLA, member for Forrestfield; and Hon Sally Talbot, who came on board earlier this year when the former chair, the member for Jandakot, stood aside. I thank everybody for their great support throughout the four years. It has been a very enlightening committee, sometimes very boring, but on the delegated legislation committee we do learn how the process of this place works.
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8777
MR A.J. WADDELL (Forrestfield) [3.07 pm]: I also rise to speak on the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation’s “Annual Report 2012”. Delegated legislation, of course, is the catcher’s mitt for subsidiary legislation that we pass. Members who pay attention know that most legislation has a regulation- making power that applies the meat to a lot of the skeletal legislation that we pass and it is our committee’s job to review that. A considerable amount of our energy is used in largely dealing with the Local Government Act and reviewing by-laws that local governments bring before us. The first comment I make is that there seems to be a woeful lack of understanding of the actual process, the nature of subsidiary legislation, what its powers are and the role of the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation and, consequently, Parliament in reviewing that. This year, we received some press coverage on a couple of issues that we dealt with, most recently to do with the fact that we have brought in numerous reports knocking back many local laws due to processing and sequencing errors. It is fair to say, as we have heard in some comments from local government, that we are hard taskmasters and hard bureaucrats who are very inflexible. It is a very unfortunate view because it is our view that we are anything but that; however, we have to follow the law as much as everyone else. Allowing a law that has been improperly made to go through would really just set somebody up for some unfortunate consequences down the track whereby they try to enforce that law, it is found to be invalid, people have relied upon it, and the whole thing comes crashing down around their ears. The committee has asked the government on numerous occasions to look into particular problems associated with local laws. Flexibility needs to be provided in the way that local laws are gazetted and brought before us. The Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation dealt with fees and charges in other reports. We had a close look at the fees and charges associated with hospital parking. There is an ongoing debate in delegated legislation as to what forms a tax and what forms a fee or a charge. Unless an act is specifically a taxing act, it only has the ability to achieve cost recovery. Over my four years on the delegated legislation committee I have pretty much formed the view that most government departments charging fees have no frigging idea what it actually costs them to run their services. To be honest, from a number of the explanatory memoranda that have come before us, we have clearly felt that departments have just pulled the figures out of the air to justify what they have done. In many circumstances what was provided to us simply did not add up. It is high time that government departments gained a full and proper understanding of what it costs them to deliver their services so they can properly cost reflect what they charge, and not use fees and charges as simply a way to bolster their budgets as they come under increasing scrutiny. The committee came under criticism over hospital parking. That came down to the fact that the delegated legislation committee found itself somewhat at odds with the advice provided to it by the State Solicitor’s Office. This is not a new circumstance. The committee found itself, not only in its current incarnation but also in previous incarnations, at odds with state solicitors. If one was to apply a liberal approach to the kind of advice that the state solicitor actually provides, essentially everything is fair game as far as they are concerned in terms of a fee. They would never actually consider anything to be a tax. They would find a loophole in a back door, which, in the committee’s view, is trying to undermine the original intent of Parliament. If the original intent of Parliament was to create a taxing act, it would actually declare it as a taxing act. If we do not do that, any attempt to go beyond cost reflectivity is really a backdoor attempt to create that tax. That is often something executive government does in order to increase its revenue base, but that was not the original intent of the Parliament in those cases. Consequently, the committee has consistently resisted any sort of clever legal engineering attempts to try to get around it when we ran into that problem. I presume the member for Nollamara will speak about standards, so I will leave that matter to her. The final thing I want to do is thank the committee staff over the past four years. They have educated me; they have taught me a great deal. Some of them have been absolutely terrific and very helpful in hand-holding. I would like to add to the member for Wanneroo’s list my thanks to Susan O’Brien, who I found to be possibly the most knowledgeable person I have ever dealt with on these sorts of matters. If someone ever wants a forensic, in- depth analysis of something, she is certainly the person for the job. The successes that we have had on the committee were largely due to the fact that she was able to educate a lot of us on these basic points when we first started. As the member for Wanneroo said, at times it can be an absolutely boring committee. When one is faced with the prospect of reading several hundred pages of regulations on a Sunday night prior to a meeting, the temptation to go for a glass of wine is sometimes irresistible! We work through it because it is very important work. It provides a safety net. We have been able to overturn some ridiculous local laws that really tried to undermine people’s rights. The delegated legislation committee is a very important committee. I hope in my next term I will be able to join a slightly different committee to see another aspect of the law-making process. I wish whoever is on the delegated legislation committee in the thirty-ninth Parliament the best of luck.
8778 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012]
MS J.M. FREEMAN (Nollamara) [3.14 pm]: I also rise to speak on the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation’s “Annual Report 2012”. I would like to begin by thanking the staff who have worked with us. I have been on the committee for the full period since being elected, during which time there has been a turnover of staff. Susan O’Brien was on the committee but since then there have been some changes. We have always had supportive staff assisting us, including David Driscoll, who was a great asset to our committee. I want to briefly reiterate what the member for Forrestfield said about fees and charges. We will need to have a major debate about that when we return to this chamber next time around. Anyone following the New South Wales audit of financial documents would have seen that overcharging was one of the major concerns of the NSW Auditor General. There was an inability to forecast how fees would impact on departments. Many departments would forecast receiving a certain amount of revenue but they got a lot more than that through fees and charges. We have asked for the methodology to be made clear. Members who read the committee’s sixty- first report will see that for many years we acquiesced to departments that said, “This is simply a CPI increase.” We recommended involving the Auditor General in the process so that he talks to the departments and assesses how departments are doing that and what their methodologies are. On the basis of a report by the Auditor General, the committee placed greater requirements on departments to ensure that there are sound methodologies behind the imposition of fees and charges. The committee outlined in paragraph 4.7 its great disappointment that court fees still seem to confound us because of the methodology applied by the Department of the Attorney General. Those court fees have a significant impact on many of the people we represent when they try to access the court process. It is very important to have a sound methodology. Despite bringing down a report on court fees, over the years we have had undertakings from Hon Christian Porter early in the piece and then Hon Michael Mischin that a pilot project is being developed to ensure that an appropriate model for court fees is in place, yet when we ask them where the model is, we are constantly told that it is still being developed. At paragraph 4.7, the committee points out that it is disappointed that the cost–based fee pilot project has still not been finalised. In August 2012 the committee wrote to the current Attorney General, Hon Michael Mischin, advising that it expects this project to be finalised as a matter of urgency and the findings provided to the committee. That is an important thing for us to note. Local governments are increasingly trying to deal with disputes between councillors through the standing orders local laws, which is undermining the ability of councillors to represent people in council meetings. On a number of occasions the delegated legislation committee has disallowed local laws. The committee noted that this has been an ongoing and serious concern of previous committees. The footnote to paragraph 6.33 names all the reports of the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation that raised the issue of standing orders local laws. It is a major principle of legislation and regulations that standards should be freely available to people so that they know the laws that govern them. It costs people money to access those standards because it is run by an international standards organisation. Examples of standards include the types of chemicals that pest controllers use, fencing standards, or some very simple standards around the day-to-day management of community issues. Those standards should be accessible, just as regulations are accessible. We recommend that the government require departments, agencies and local governments to advise on their internet site where standards called up in subsidiary legislation can be accessed at no cost. We have done that previously, but the response was that basically the government had not got around to looking at that. So again we have put it in our recommendations and request that departments take that position very seriously. It is a principal position that if laws are created for people and regulations are referred to—they are things that govern people—people should be able to gain that knowledge, because, if they cannot access those standards, they could inadvertently be in breach of the law. Finally, I point out that although we tabled a committee report about the trial of iPads, which referred to the effectiveness of conducting electronic meetings, as of 9 November we have not received a response. Given that the committee is no longer constituted, obviously we will not require them for that purpose. It is a disappointment that that issue was not resolved before we tabled our annual report. JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE COMMISSIONER FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE Eleventh Report — “A Review of the Exercise of the Functions of the Commissioner for Children and Young People” — Tabling DR E. CONSTABLE (Churchlands) [3.21 pm]: I present for tabling the eleventh report of the Joint Standing Committee on the Commissioner for Children and Young People entitled “A Review of the Exercise of the Functions of the Commissioner for Children and Young People”. [See papers 5598 and 5599.] Dr E. CONSTABLE: It has been a long day for reports, so I hope the best has been left until last. The position of the Western Australian Commissioner for Children and Young People was established in 2006 and the first
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8779 commissioner, Ms Michelle Scott, was appointed in December 2007. This report is essentially a review of the functions of the commissioner. In that review of her functions, it also looks at the last two annual reports of the commissioner, as well as her inquiry into the mental health of children and young people. Given that the Commissioner for Children and Young People Act 2006 is now due for statutory review, this is a very timely report. The other thing that is important is that the recent announcement by the Premier concerning the government’s response to the Blaxell report is very much in people’s minds. I consider this report to be a very timely one, and one that offers advice and recommendations to both the commissioner and the government. I am sure that those who read the report will find it is a thorough report that should provide assistance to those charged with reviewing the act. The act will require an amendment to accommodate the Premier’s recent announcement that the commissioner is the government’s preferred authority to provide a one-stop shop for children and young people’s complaints regarding child abuse. I certainly agree with the finding in the Blaxell report that there must be an avenue that children and young people can go to to present their complaints about child abuse. However, the report outlines some cautions and observations with regard to the Premier’s announcement. It is not that we do not agree with it, but there are some things related to the position of the commissioner and her office that I think need to be taken into account. One of the things that concerns me greatly is that not all children are capable of presenting their complaints on child abuse to any authority. They might be too young to be competent to do this. We know, unfortunately and very sadly, that children who are abused are often below the age of five years, and they are not competent to make such a complaint. So they need assistance to do so and they usually need an adult to advocate on their behalf to some authority. I think that just having somewhere for children to go is only part of the story. We want somewhere that adults can represent children when child abuse has been an issue for them. The other point is that it is quite possible—it does happen—that older children and young people are so traumatised by sexual abuse that they are not competent or able to make a complaint themselves. Again, they need responsible adults to represent them by letter or in some other way to an authority that takes these complaints. I think that needs to be looked at when the government considers changes to the act. It is important that some provision be made to allow another person to make such a complaint on behalf of a child or young person. Finding 9 on page 69 of the report states — The government’s proposed broad remit for the Commissioner to provide a one-stop shop for complaints in relation to child abuse is broad and ambiguous, and will fundamentally change the Commissioner’s advocacy and complaints functions. In making this change and taking this step so that the commissioner is the authority that takes these complaints, the government must be very mindful of the major advocacy role of the commissioner and make sure that the commissioner’s work is not swamped by child abuse complaints. Resources will need to be added to the commissioner’s office to make sure that she is able to take those complaints, as well as continue her own good work. Recommendation 8 on page 69 of the report states — Prior to proposed changes being made to the Commissioner’s remit and the resulting amendments to the Commissioner for Children and Young People Act 2006, the Attorney General refer the matter of the Commissioner taking on the ‘one-stop shop’ responsibility to the Joint Standing Committee on the Commissioner for Children and Young People of the 39th Parliament for consideration. This is a matter that concerns us all. We all want to get it right and, given our inquiry, we want to make sure that this is looked at very carefully before the commissioner takes on the role of the complaints authority in this regard. We do not want to water down the work that is able to be done by such a commissioner. There is no doubt that the commissioner has covered a lot of ground during the first five-year term of her position. The first challenge was to set up her office and then to prioritise the functions set out in the act, because the act gives functions to the commissioner that are very broad and imply a great deal of activity. Our review of the exercise of the commissioner’s functions indicates that these functions are indeed very broad and extensive. The report highlights much of the good work and achievements of the commissioner, which include developing guidelines for a number of areas, especially with regard to complaints handling, reviewing agencies reviewing legislation, and drafting new legislation that relates to children and young people. The commissioner has also undertaken a number of research projects that impact on the wellbeing of children and young people, including in the very important area of mental health. She has had in the last two years a successful Thinker in Residence program that has been very well received and well supported by a range of agencies, in both people attending workshops and other activities and a number of agencies and departments providing funding to support the Thinker in Residence program. Indeed, it is everybody’s Thinker in Residence; it is the state’s Thinker in Residence. The commissioner’s inquiry into the mental health of children and young people is reviewed in this report. It is important to note that the mental health inquiry was the first inquiry—in fact, it was the only inquiry—
8780 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] undertaken by the commissioner during her first five years. We examined the processes of the inquiry in some depth and, to this end, the committee took evidence from the commissioner on a number of occasions. We also took evidence from the independent reviewer by videolink to Melbourne in order to understand the role that he undertook. Members of the expert reference group also gave evidence to the committee. The committee has recommended at recommendation 12 that, in future inquiries, there should be a better explanation of the methodology employed. This was hard for us to sift through in the report as it was presented. The report indicates that we found the title of “independent reviewer” somewhat misleading, as the role undertaken by this person was not independent, but, in reality, the person who led the inquiry was more of a chief investigator than someone who independently reviewed the inquiry. I certainly found it misleading when I saw that term “independent reviewer” because it was not what I thought the term implied. The primary focus of the commissioner’s work is advocacy for children and young people. There is no doubt in my mind that the commissioner takes this role very seriously. There are many examples of the commissioner’s advocacy work over the past five years in the report. Over these five years the commissioner has consulted widely with children in rural and remote areas and also in the metropolitan area, as she is required to do. I was uncertain whether the children and young people that she consulted with were representative of children across the state. That data needs to be collected so we can understand who she is talking to and where her information is coming from. As I have indicated, the commissioner has engaged in a range of activities to promote the wellbeing of children and young people and to advocate on their behalf, and I commend her for those efforts. The report indicates that there are some issues with complaints monitoring. Recommendations 14 and 15 deal with these matters. I think the member for Bassendean, a member of the committee, will be taking up some points relating to those recommendations and complaints system and monitoring. The committee considered the length of the appointment of the commissioner. We looked at this issue with regard to other commissioners in other jurisdictions in Australia as well as overseas. We recommended that rather than a five-year appointment—presumably, the appointee can be re-appointed—the government should make an appointment for eight years, a one-off appointment. This would provide the person holding the office with sufficient time to make a mark with regard to their advocacy and their inquiries and other work on behalf of children and young people and they would fulfil the functions of the office. A new appointment after eight years would bring fresh ideas and perhaps a new approach. I think that is important in this area. The Commissioner for Children and Young People Act 2006 does not make it clear whether the functions of the commissioner are discretionary or obligatory. Given that the functions are broad, it is unlikely that any commissioner could fulfil these functions to the extent intended in the act. This is a thorough report, which includes much of the work of the committee over a number of years. As I did not join the committee until August this year, I would like to acknowledge the work of the previous chairman, the member for Kingsley, and Hon Helen Bullock, who was a member until June this year. The report is a thorough review of the functions of the commissioner and provides timely advice to government, which I am sure will be a valuable asset as the Commissioner for Children and Young People Act is reviewed in the coming months. The report was completed in a relatively short period. I am particularly grateful to the work of the longstanding members of the committee, the member for Bassendean and Hon Nick Goiran, for bringing to the report their collective experience from the time the committee was constituted in 2008. I would also like to thank Hon Linda Savage, who joined the committee more recently in June this year and has played an active role in the development of this report. I thank her for her work. The committee’s thanks and gratitude go to our principal research officer, Loraine Abernethie, whose dedication to the task of completing this report on time and under a very tight timeline was remarkable. Even when she was not well, she soldiered on, despite my protestations that she should be home recovering from illness. I thank her for her excellent work on this report. I also express my appreciation to the commissioner, Ms Michelle Scott, who worked within the tight time line, providing evidence and submissions on a number of occasions. I commend this report to the house. MR M.P. WHITELY (Bassendean) [3.34 pm]: I begin by thanking the principal research officer, Loraine Abernethie, who did a remarkable job pulling together such a comprehensive report. Given that she was new to the committee and given that we put on such a sprint at the end, she deserves great credit. With the indulgence of the house, I thank the staff of the Parliament for the service that they have provided me in the time that I have been here. I want to thank the catering staff, particularly Deb and Lee, and Vince La-Galia for his great humour. What a great asset he is to the Parliament. Dr E. Constable: Numero uno. Mr M.P. WHITELY: Numero uno indeed. I thank my fellow committee members, including the chairperson, Liz Constable, who certainly came along with a flourish and worked incredibly hard. It is hard to believe that we achieved so much since she was appointed in
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8781
August. I also thank Nick Goiran. He is a real asset to the Parliament. He has a different world view from me. Unfortunately, I think he might be similar to me in his career trajectory. I understand he is prone to tell the Premier when he is wrong in the party room. I think someone who stands up is a great asset in Parliament. I have come to admire his work ethic over the years that I have worked with him on the committee. I also thank Hon Linda Savage, who certainly brings an alternative perspective to issues and is a passionate advocate in the things that she argues for. I want to make a comment by way of not apology but explanation to the Commissioner for Children and Young People. The commissioner is in a new role. She has been in the position for some five years and she is the initial commissioner. All things considered, as an advocate for children she has done a good job. However, without making too much of a point about it, we found some deficiencies in the way that her office has fulfilled those functions, and they have been addressed in the report. We have acknowledged her considerable success in advocacy for children and made some recommendations on how she might improve fulfilling some of those functions. I hope that she responds in the way that the recommendations were made and takes on board the feedback that the committee has provided. Perhaps it all did come as a rush at the end of the committee process and perhaps we could have drip-fed some of this information a little more evenly over the past four years but nonetheless it is out there and I think that is a good thing. I am trying not to cover the issues that were covered by the chairperson. I particularly want to talk about finding 15, which states — The Commissioner currently has the power to investigate individual cases and circumstances where the Commissioner considers it may reveal system failure. I think there was some degree of confusion by the commissioner and perhaps some disagreement between myself and the commissioner. Section 23(1) of the act states — It is not a function of the commissioner to investigate or otherwise deal with a complaint made by, or any other matter relating to, a particular child or young person. That says that the commissioner does have a complaint function. However, subsection (2) states — … does not preclude the Commissioner from — … (c) investigating or otherwise dealing with any matter affecting the wellbeing of children and young people generally which is raised through a matter relating to a particular child or young person. I am a great believer that systemic failure is often revealed when we burrow down into the circumstances of an individual case. When we look at an individual case, it will reveal that the system failed a child in a particular way and that has revealed a systemic failure. I think that is a capacity and an obligation that the commissioner has, although she seemed to have a somewhat different viewpoint to me. The majority of the committee made it clear that it believes the commissioner has the power to investigate individual cases and circumstances where they are likely to reveal systemic failure. That is set out in the current act. In response to the issues coming out of the sad saga at Katanning, the Premier made some statements about changing the function of the commissioner. I am not commenting on whether that is an appropriate decision. The committee suggests that if the commissioner takes on a role as a one-stop complaint function, that fundamentally changes the role of the commissioner from one of advocacy to a complaint-handling function. If the Premier wants to interject, I welcome the interjection. Mr C.J. Barnett: I understand the point you make. All the agencies that accept complaints will continue to do so, but there is a feeling that there is a cohort of people who will not go near any sort of sense of authority. The proposal was that if they didn’t want to go to the police or whoever else, they could actually go to the Commissioner for Children and Young People. It wasn’t to be a one-stop shop. Mr M.P. WHITELY: Premier, no-one is criticising the approach. I am not doing that; I am not being political. I am suggesting that it has to be handled carefully — Mr C.J. Barnett: I agree with that. Mr M.P. WHITELY: — and they have to view the initial advocacy role the commissioner was set up to implement, so hasten slowly. Mr C.J. Barnett: The government hasn’t made that decision. Mr M.P. WHITELY: Should the Premier be re-elected, which, obviously, I hope he will not be, I suggest that consideration of the implications for the other roles of the commissioner would be prudent. With that word of caution, I want to talk about the Joint Standing Committee on the Commissioner for Children and Young People’s recommendations 12 and 10, which refer to the lessons learnt from the commissioner’s first
8782 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] inquiry. The commissioner conducted a very broad-reaching inquiry into the mental health of young people. The terms of reference were very broad and some of the practices that were used in that inquiry process were different from what I am used to in the parliamentary inquiry process. I think lessons can be learnt from the parliamentary inquiry process that the commissioner may well want to take on board. The parliamentary committee system in Western Australia has evolved with the parliamentary system over many decades, but, generally, over hundreds of years. The parliamentary committee system’s procedures and processes are very effective at capturing information and ensuring the independence of the people involved in the process. I think the commissioner could learn from examining the way the parliamentary process deals with conflict of interest issues, for instance. It was a particularly useful inquiry in the sense that the mental health and the children’s commissioner were new to their positions. One of the issues we were concerned about was whether having the Mental Health Commissioner sitting on the expert reference group was a conflict of interest. That is something I was very concerned about. However, having heard the explanation from the Commissioner for Children and Young People, the Mental Health Commissioner and other members of the expert reference group, I was less concerned about it, frankly. It encouraged a collaborative information sharing approach. Nonetheless, there was the potential for the children’s commissioner to say unfavourable things about the Mental Health Commissioner. Therefore, given that the children’s commissioner’s role is now more mature and she may be dealing with other roles that are more mature, I think those conflict of interest issues would need to be handled in a more process- driven manner in future inquiries. The other recommendation of the inquiry I thought was interesting—I agree with the idea—was that the commissioner should have a single eight-year term. I think it is a very good idea. We need to be very careful about ensuring the independence of the commissioner. The commissioner was very keen to protect her independence. A single eight-year term position would not be subject to the vagaries of offending a government—I am not suggesting this government—and risking not continuing in the role. It would allow a sufficiently long time frame to make an impact, while not being open to being influenced by the prospects of re- employment. I think that is something we need to consider. I congratulate the commissioner on her time as Western Australia’s inaugural Commissioner for Children and Young People. I think she has done a very effective job and a careful reading of the report will make her an even more effective commissioner in the time she has left. WESTERN AUSTRALIAN FUTURE FUND BILL 2012 Returned Bill returned from the Council without amendment. PROSTITUTION BILL 2011 Restoration to Notice Paper — Postponement Motion On motion by Mr C.J. Barnett (Premier), resolved — That notice of motion 1, Prostitution Bill 2011, be postponed until a later stage of the day’s sitting. NATURAL GAS (CANNING BASIN JOINT VENTURE) AGREEMENT BILL 2012 Introduction and First Reading Bill introduced, on motion by Mr C.J. Barnett (Minister for State Development), and read a first time. Explanatory memorandum presented by the minister. Second Reading MR C.J. BARNETT (Cottesloe — Minister for State Development) [3.44 pm]: I move — That the bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this bill is to ratify and authorise the implementation of an agreement, scheduled to the bill, between the state and Buru Energy Ltd, Diamond Resources (Fitzroy) Pty Ltd, Diamond Resources (Canning) Pty Ltd and Mitsubishi Corporation, to promote the natural gas exploration and development of the area of certain petroleum exploration permits in the Canning Basin region of Western Australia. Buru Energy Ltd, Diamond Resources (Fitzroy) Pty Ltd and Diamond Resources (Canning) Pty Ltd are collectively the joint venturers under the agreement. Mitsubishi Corporation is the guarantor of the obligations of its subsidiaries Diamond Resources (Fitzroy) Pty Ltd and Diamond Resources (Canning) Pty Ltd. The agreement seeks to facilitate the establishment by the joint venturers of a domgas project subject to them proving up sufficient reserves of natural gas from the agreement’s title areas to underpin the establishment and sustained operation of such a project and the joint venturers otherwise being satisfied that such a project is technically and economically viable. The agreement also seeks to facilitate the joint venturers, if they wish,
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8783 undertaking a liquefied natural gas pipeline project to deliver natural gas from within the title areas, and other areas with the consent of the state agreement minister, to an LNG production facility within an LNG precinct in the north west of Western Australia, or to a third party pipeline to such LNG production facility, for the production of LNG for export. The title areas will initially comprise the area of the five key petroleum exploration permits set out in the schedule to the agreement. These are held by the joint venturers under the Petroleum and Geothermal Energy Resources Act 1967 over part of the Canning Basin region of Western Australia. The title areas are prospective for both conventional and unconventional natural gas resources. The joint venturers are already actively exploring the title areas for petroleum, including for the purpose of evaluating the technical and economic viability of the natural gas resources within those areas. The state wishes to encourage accelerated expenditure by the joint venturers in such continuing exploration and evaluation of natural gas resources. Accordingly, for the purposes of the agreement, certain provisions of the Petroleum and Geothermal Energy Resources Act 1967 will be modified, as set out in the agreement, including to allow the abovementioned petroleum exploration permits to be renewed twice—that is, within a limited suspension period, without the normal 50 per cent relinquishment obligation. The Petroleum and Geothermal Energy Resources Act 1967 was not drafted with the recently emerging unconventional gas sector in mind. The limited suspension of relinquishment obligations recognises that proving the technical and economic feasibility of the Canning Basin’s commercial shale gas potential will require some years of high-level expenditure and technical development. This has been the case for shale gas in the United States of America despite the presence of the most experienced petroleum services sector in the world. The agreement in return obliges the joint venturers to continue to explore and evaluate the title areas in accordance with their obligations under the Petroleum and Geothermal Energy Resources Act 1967, as modified by the agreement, as holders of the relevant petroleum exploration permits. It also obliges them, in addition, to undertake field and office investigations, appraisals and studies, and in due course marketing and finance studies and other matters necessary for them to prove up sufficient reserves of natural gas within the title areas to underpin the establishment and sustained operation of a technically and economically viable domgas project and subject thereto, to finalise and to submit proposals for a domgas project within specified time frames. The agreement recognises the current uncertainty as to the extent of natural gas reserves within the title areas and the technical and economic viability of a domgas project. Accordingly, the state has agreed that the agreement be determined upon notice from the joint venturers given not earlier than 31 December 2015 or later than 31 March 2016 under clause 35 of the agreement for any one or more of the following reasons — the joint venturers have been unable to prove up sufficient reserves of natural gas within the title areas to underpin the establishment and sustained operation of a technically and economically viable domgas project; or the joint venturers’ preparatory work under the agreement leads them to conclude that the production of natural gas to underpin the establishment and sustained operation of a domgas project is not technically viable; or the joint venturers’ preparatory work under the agreement leads them to conclude that the establishment and sustained operation of a domgas project is otherwise not economically viable. The agreement does not include oil discoveries and their commercialisation, although the joint venturers are optimistic that shale oil will also be found. The focus of the agreement is on exploring and proving up natural gas resources. Petroleum titles: As mentioned above, the agreement is based on the area of five key petroleum exploration permits held by the joint venturers within the Canning Basin. These will comprise the initial petroleum titles and title areas as defined in clause 1 of the agreement. The agreement allows for further petroleum exploration permits or petroleum drilling reservations held solely by one or more of the joint venturers within the Canning Basin to also be included in the agreement after 31 March 2016 and with the approval of the state agreement minister. However, the state agreement minister must be satisfied that the land the subject of the title is prospective for natural gas and such approval would more efficiently or satisfactorily implement or facilitate the objects of the agreement. The domgas project: The domgas project will in summary involve the production of domgas in a treatment plant from natural gas obtained from within the title areas, and other areas with the consent of the state agreement minister; and the construction and operation of a pipeline commencing from a treatment plant within the title areas and extending to and connecting to the domestic gas pipeline network near Port Hedland or near Dampier—unless the state otherwise approves another location in the north west of Western Australia, in which case near that other location—for the conveyance of domgas into the domestic gas pipeline network. The agreement provides in clause 10 for the joint venturers and the state agreement minister to agree to a corridor
8784 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] within which the joint venturers may construct their domgas pipeline. The agreement provides in clause 34 for the joint venturers, after the domgas project operation date and with the state agreement minister’s consent, to sell or otherwise dispose of such pipeline out of the agreement. Liquefied natural gas project: The LNG Project will in summary involve the construction and operation of a pipeline commencing from within the title areas and extending to and connecting to an LNG production facility within an LNG precinct or to a third party pipeline to the LNG production facility. It would transport natural gas obtained from within the title areas, and other areas with the consent of the state agreement minister, to the LNG production facility, or to the above third party pipeline, for the production of LNG for export. The LNG pipeline must be a separate pipeline to the domgas pipeline. The relevant LNG precinct, within which the LNG production facility may be located, will be agreed between the joint venturers and the state agreement minister as part of the clause 20 process for them to agree to a corridor within which the joint venturers may construct their LNG pipeline. The LNG pipeline project may be undertaken by the joint venturers if they so wish in addition to their obligation to undertake the domgas project. However, they may not submit proposals for the LNG pipeline project until after all their proposals required to be submitted for the domgas project have been submitted. Furthermore, their proposals for the LNG pipeline project may not be approved by the state agreement minister until all the joint venturers proposals for the domgas project have been approved. The agreement provides in clause 35(6), after the LNG project operation date, for the agreement to determine in relation to the LNG pipeline project; that is, for the project to continue outside the agreement. I also mention the following important provisions of the agreement. Community and social benefits: The joint venturers acknowledge in clause 6 of the agreement the need for community and social benefits to flow from the agreement. Clause 6 provides for the preparation by the joint venturers and approval by the state agreement minister of a plan that describes their strategies for achieving social and community benefits in connection with the initial domgas project. The state agreement minister may require that a similar plan be prepared in connection with an expansion of the domgas project, the LNG pipeline project and any expansion of that project. Local industry participation benefits: The joint venturers acknowledge in clause 7 of the agreement the need for local industry participation benefits to flow from the agreement. Clause 7 provides for the preparation by the joint venturers of a plan that contains in connection with the initial domgas project, and in addition to the other matters specified in clause 7, a clear statement on the strategies the joint venturers will use to maximise local industry uses and procurement as referred to in clause 7. A similar plan will be required to be prepared in connection with an expansion of the domgas project, the LNG pipeline project and any expansion of that project unless the state agreement minister otherwise requires. Domgas commitment: Under clause 8 of the agreement, the parties acknowledge their common aspiration that, subject to the joint venturers proving up of sufficient reserves of natural gas within the title areas, they will progressively and continuously make available for sale into the Western Australian domestic gas market a certain quantity of domgas produced as part of the domgas project from natural gas obtained from within the title areas over a certain period as set out in that clause. Clause 8 of the agreement sets out the joint venturers’ obligations with respect to the marketing and making available of domgas for sale, including petrochemical feed stocks which are high-value components of natural gas, with great potential for downstream processing. In the event liquefied natural gas for export is being produced, or is to be produced, from natural gas obtained from within the title areas, the joint venturers shall be obliged to market and make available for sale into the Western Australian domestic gas market a quantity of domgas from the title areas, which is to be consistent with the state’s domestic gas reservation policy that applies at the time. As part of their domgas commitment, the joint venturers agree to reserve or procure the reservation of natural gas from within the title areas sufficient for the sustained operation of the domgas project in accordance with approved proposals and otherwise for them to meet their domgas commitment generally. Access obligations in respect of project pipelines: Clause 18 of the agreement requires the joint venturers to comply with and observe the laws for the time being in force in Western Australia with respect to the provision of access by persons to the project pipelines or either of them, including use by persons of the services provided by the project pipelines or either of them. Commercialisation of natural gas from the title areas: Clause 24 imposes restrictions on the joint venturers’ ability to sell, dispose or otherwise to commercialise or permit the commercialisation of natural gas obtained from within the titles areas other than by means of infrastructure and activities comprising the domgas project or the LNG project. Local content obligations: Clause 27 of the agreement imposes standard state agreement local content obligations upon the joint venturers in respect of both the domgas project and the LNG project and any expansions of those projects.
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8785
Term of the agreement: Clause 46 of the agreement provides for an initial term of 25 years with the ability for the state agreement minister to extend it for a further period of up 25 years. By entering into this agreement, the government is encouraging accelerated large-scale investment in the exploration and evaluation of natural gas resources in the highly prospective Canning Basin region of the said state with a view to the proving up of natural gas reserves to underpin the establishment and sustained operation of a domgas project and, if the joint venturers so wish, an LNG pipeline project. The state desires to facilitate such developments for the purposes of promoting industrial development in Western Australia generally and energy security in the said state in particular. I commend the bill to the house Debate adjourned, on motion by Mr D.A. Templeman. LOAN BILL 2012 Second Reading Resumed from 14 November. Question put and passed. Bill read a second time. Leave denied to proceed forthwith to third reading. Consideration in Detail Clauses 1 and 2 put and passed. Clause 3: Power to borrow money for public purposes — Mr B.S. WYATT: I rise to ask the Treasurer a couple of questions. I have already given him some indication of the questions I have to ask, so I will not keep the Parliament for hours on this bill. In debate on the Loan Bill 2009 when $8.3 billion was authorised, some $1.2 billion was authorised for 2012–13, the current financial year. In the Treasurer’s speech on the current Loan Bill 2012, he made the point that there is around $1 billion left for 2012–13, and that he was seeking another $3 billion for 2012–13. I read that, therefore, as meaning that the Treasurer needs borrowings of $4 billion for the current financial year. There was some discussion during the consideration in detail stage back in 2009, and I made the point that the Treasury officers had provided to the opposition a breakdown of the consolidated account during the briefings on the 2009 bill. What I would like from Treasury is a breakdown of which areas of government are driving that debt and where the debt is being allocated. Obviously to arrive at the figure of $5 billion there must be some idea of which government departments are driving those levels of debt. The opposition is therefore very keen to get a breakdown of those figures. Mr T.R. BUSWELL: My understanding is that for this year there will be $2.965 billion of borrowings. Mr B.S. Wyatt: For the 2012–13 financial year? Mr T.R. BUSWELL: Yes, for 2012–13. Of that, $2.078 billion of borrowings will flow from the passage of this bill. That is as I understand it. In other words, there is a carryover of available borrowings from the previous bill that obviously makes up the difference between the $2.078 billion and the $2.985 billion. Mr B.S. Wyatt: I am sorry—while the Treasurer is on his feet—I do not understand that. If there was $1 billion from the last period, 2012–13 — Mr T.R. BUSWELL: It is $887 million. Mr B.S. Wyatt: Okay—and then you are seeking another $3 billion for 2012–13. Mr T.R. BUSWELL: No, there are not two. Total borrowings in 2012–13 are $2.965 billion. Of that, $887 million is what we can call the carry forward, and $2.87 billion is new borrowings authorised by this bill. In 2013–14, the anticipated borrowings are $2.099 billion, and in 2014–15, the anticipated borrowings are $261 million. That gets to about $4.5 billion. That will leave, obviously, another half a billion dollars, which no doubt will be carried forward subsequent to that or to cover unanticipated fluctuations. Mr B.S. Wyatt: Within that $5 billion, is there some capacity for this unanticipated amount? Mr T.R. BUSWELL: Yes. At the moment, it is about $500 million. Clearly, that will not be drawn down unless required, but there is about half a billion dollars of capacity to absorb—let us call it at this stage—unanticipated fluctuations. Mr B.S. WYATT: The other question I asked the Treasurer was about which areas of government are driving the borrowings—health, education or law and order. The Treasurer gets the idea. For a department to come to
8786 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012]
Treasury, there must be an idea that it is saying, “We need to construct this or do that over the next few years.” I gave the Treasurer an indication of this question yesterday, so hopefully he will be able to provide a document that will save questions and answers during consideration in detail and will allow the opposition to run away with that document, if perhaps he has it. Mr T.R. BUSWELL: It is probably best if I draw the member’s attention to appendix 6 of the Economic and Fiscal Outlook, which provides a quite detailed breakdown of the asset investment program. It has the summary of expenditure generally by agency. Then on page 303 it provides the total anticipated asset investment program, and then there are the funding sources for that. That then shows the agency borrowings—the total capital appropriation—and this bill funds capital appropriation. It is there by agency so it is quite a detailed breakdown. Mr B.S. WYATT: Further to appendix 6 of the Economic and Fiscal Outlook, does the Treasurer therefore anticipate, in the event that his government is re-elected next year and it continues with the asset investment program as contained in the budget, that at some point during the next term he would seek to introduce another loan bill? Is this something that will then carry through the current planned asset investment program? Back in 2009, it was $8.3 billion that was sought, and now it is another $5 billion. Is the Treasurer anticipating another loan bill to satisfy the asset investment program that is in the current budget? Mr T.R. BUSWELL: That is a good question. One of the points I should have pointed out when I gave the member that time line of the drawdown of the borrowings is that in 2015–16 the credit was nil. So the anticipation is that the borrowing that this Loan Bill facilitates will enable the asset investment program that is currently laid out across the forward estimates as at last budget to be delivered. Mr W.J. Johnston: I understand that there are items in the budget which have been allocated to a program but which are unexpensed. Does that take account of that issue—so that royalties for regions are unexpensed moneys? Mr T.R. BUSWELL: The advice I have is that this will enable those moneys to be appropriated, for example, into the royalties for regions fund. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I just want to put the Treasurer’s Loan Bill into a bit of context. Could he advise us what the authorised borrowing capacity of the state was when he came to office? How much was the 2009 bill for, just so that we can get a picture of the request now for an additional $5 billion in authorisations. Is that information the Treasurer has to hand? Mr T.R. BUSWELL: Yes. This Loan Bill, which will become an act one hopes, is for $5 billion, as the member pointed out. The previous one was for $8.316 billion, again as the member pointed out. The Loan Bill prior to that was in 2004 for $250 million. If I look back, either through general purpose borrowings or an agreement with the commonwealth that is known as a financial agreement debt redemption—I am assuming that is still, effectively, permission for the state to borrow—I find that the previous one from that was in 1999 for $260 million; then they flow back. I think the other period when there were probably significant borrowings was relatively historic—I have skipped over a few—perhaps in 1992, when the amount, by my maths, was about $540 million; and the year before when, by my maths, the amount of those combined sources was about $509 million. Mr B.S. Wyatt: Which includes that financial agreement debt? Mr T.R. BUSWELL: Yes. Mr W.J. Johnston: Just while you’re on your feet, do you have a figure for what the authorised borrowings were when you came to office? Mr T.R. BUSWELL: Not off the top of my head. Someone may have it. Mr B.S. WYATT: Just — The SPEAKER: I can only have one person on their feet. You can provide it by interjection, member for Victoria Park. Mr B.S. Wyatt: By way of interjection, just again going back to the Treasurer’s Loan Bill second reading speech of 2009, there was some $446 million outstanding as at 2009. Mr W.J. Johnston: No; what was the total authorised? To 2009, how much did the Parliament authorise for borrowings? Mr T.R. BUSWELL: I do not know. Mr W.J. Johnston: That’s fine; that’s cool. It would be interesting to know. Mr B.S. WYATT: I do not know if the member for Cannington wanted to pursue that, but I wanted to ask a question again. We had this debate last time, Treasurer, in respect of clause 3 regarding —
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8787
… from the Western Australian Treasury Corporation or elsewhere, for public purposes. It was the issue of where the sum will be borrowed from. I would have thought the Treasury Corporation is the only vehicle through which the state will borrow, and I again want to get the Treasurer’s comments in respect of “or elsewhere”. In 2009 the Treasurer made the point that there were no circumstances that the Treasurer could foresee when the state would use any organisation other than the Treasury Corporation to borrow money, and in the event it did, Parliament would most certainly be told. My question again is: why does this continue to form part of the bill, when clearly there do not seem to be any circumstances in which the Treasury Corporation would not be utilised to borrow on behalf of the state? Mr T.R. BUSWELL: I think, member for Victoria Park, that point is acknowledged, and hopefully in five years, when we do another one, we might address that point. Mr B.S. WYATT: But will the Treasurer make the point that, at least now, there is no anticipation of the government using anyone other than the WA Treasury Corporation? Mr T.R. BUSWELL: No, there is not. We deal exclusively with the WA Treasury Corporation. I think the member raises a fair question, being that if that is what we do, why does it read “or other”? I am not aware of any bagmen or bagpersons who have been visiting the state offering us money, and even if they were, we would send them down to the Treasury Corporation. As a little aside, members may find it interesting that I recently met with a group of investors—a large number of them international—who invest in Treasury Corporation paper. Members may not know, but the Treasury Corporation went to the market within the week of the Standard and Poor’s announcement, and I think it was — Mr B.S. Wyatt: This is when there was not the downgrade, but the warning? Mr T.R. BUSWELL: Yes; the watch. The demand was two or three times the amount; there is a lot of interest in Australian — Mr W.J. Johnston: Russian reserve — Mr T.R. BUSWELL: Polish! I met the Polish reserve bank representative. Dr K.D. Hames: There are only four bills to do after this! Mr B.S. Wyatt: Treasurer, I am interested. Mr T.R. BUSWELL: As an aside. Mr B.S. WYATT: The Treasurer has opened up a very interesting avenue of discussion. That is a good point; I have no doubt that the Polish are interested. My question now is: how soon will the Treasury Corporation be going to the market again to tap into the borrowings? Mr T.R. Buswell: I don’t know. Mr B.S. WYATT: The Treasurer does not know? Mr T.R. Buswell: No. Mr B.S. WYATT: I have one other question that the Treasurer may not have an answer for. In 2009 we talked about the financing costs—the costs of borrowing the $8.3 billion. Is there an anticipated financing cost to that $5 billion that the Treasury Corporation will ultimately pay? Mr T.R. BUSWELL: I am assuming somewhere in the accounts there is an interest bill from government, but I can give the member our assumed cost of funds. Mr B.S. Wyatt: Yes. Mr T.R. BUSWELL: The projections are: 2012–13, 4.6 per cent; 2013–14, 4.6 per cent; 2014–15, 4.9 per cent; and 2015–16, 4.9 per cent. So, I am assuming that if we applied those assumed rates across the borrowing profile that I outlined earlier, that would give the approximate cost. Clause put and passed. Clause 4 put and passed. Clause 5: Principal, interest and expenses payable out of Consolidated Account — Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I just want to ask a question because the clause states — The principal moneys, interest and other expenses of borrowings under the authority of this Act are payable out of the Consolidated Account and that Account is appropriated accordingly by this section. In other words, the Treasurer does not have to come back with separate appropriation bills for dealing with the repayment and interest et cetera. I am just wondering whether the government has a plan for when the principal moneys from this Loan Bill will be repaid.
8788 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012]
Mr T.R. BUSWELL: The short answer is that although we may have plans and be developing plans to pay down general government sector debt, in relation to the moneys that will be appropriated as a result of this Loan Bill and this particular set of borrowings, the advice I have on our current cash flowing is that repayments will start in 2015–16, and that will be the sum of $356 million. I do not have any cash-flowing profile beyond 2015– 16. Clause put and passed. Title put and passed. Leave granted to proceed forthwith to third reading. Third Reading MR T.R. BUSWELL (Vasse — Treasurer) [4.16 pm]: I move — That the bill be now read a third time. MR B.S. WYATT (Victoria Park) [4.17 pm]: I rise to make a few comments on the third reading of the Loan Bill. This bill has been discussed at some length in the Parliament; the Treasurer introduced it some time ago, and we have seen it slowly progress through this house to find its conclusion in our house on the last day of Parliament before we rise for the year, and it is likely to be, I guess, until we return after the next election. This is, of course, this government’s second Loan Bill, making a total of $13.3 billion in borrowings by this government authorised for the general government sector. A member interjected. Mr B.S. WYATT: It is absolutely a record! The member for Cannington asked some questions of the Treasurer during the brief consideration in detail stage on how much had previously been borrowed, and the Treasurer did not know about the outstanding moneys, so of course we do not know at this point. But what is interesting, member for Cannington, is that from 1987 through to 2009—the first Loan Bill under this government—the highest amount of authorised borrowings was $390 million. That leapt up, of course, to $8.3 billion, and now to $5 billion. This has most certainly been a government that has ratcheted up the debt levels of the state. We have debated ad nauseam the debt levels of the state, and I do not intend to continue that subject, but I wish to make a couple of points. One of those points I made in the second reading debate was about the Premier’s previous statements on debt when he moved motions in Parliament in 1991 and comments he made when he was Leader of the Opposition in 2003 in which he demanded the then government cover the liabilities of the unfunded superannuation. At that time in 2003 it was, to quote the Premier, “an immense $3.6 billion”. That figure is now up to about $8 billion. Certainly, at the time of the budget estimates this year, when the member for Bateman was the Treasurer, they remained unfunded. In 1991, the Premier made the point again when he moved a substantial motion around debt, demanding that a parliamentary committee examine the issue. I subsequently moved a motion, replicating that motion, in about 2010 and, of course, the Premier then did not see fit to support the motion as I moved it. However, the Premier made the point back then that what matters is the amount of debt and the interest paid because that is money not being spent in other areas, such as on teachers, police, nurses and all the key things that we spend taxpayers’ money on. The Premier said that there needed to be a clear plan to pay that debt down because, ultimately, services would have to be cut to meet increasing interest payments. Subsequently, we saw that he changed his position fundamentally on that issue when he became Premier, deciding that it does not matter and in reality the government does not have to pay down the debt; what matters is keeping debt under control. As a guide, the Premier decided $20 billion was his cap and we are now looking at a debt level of $23 billion by 2015–16. As I said, I do not intend to spend half an hour to go through the many debates on debt that we have had in this place, but I want to highlight the fact that the Premier has indeed been incredibly contradictory in his comments in the past, both in the 1990s and as Leader of the Opposition in the 2000s, about his concerns about the debt level. In 2008, the member for Vasse, before he became the Treasurer, made the point that debt at $11.4 billion by 2011–12 was a threat to the state’s AAA credit rating. Ultimately, by 2011–12, debt was at $15.2 billion and is now well on its way to $23 billion. Certainly, the Treasurer made the point last night that the opposition moaned about the state’s finances, but the Treasurer did not appreciate that many of the arguments made by the opposition were identical to the arguments that the Treasurer made not that long ago when he sat on this side of the chamber. The Treasurer railed against the debt level of $11.4 billion by 2011–12, and that became $15.2 billion in reality, which is why we recently had a warning shot fired by Standard and Poor’s across the bows of our AAA credit rating. Standard and Poor’s made the point that not only has our revenue base become exceedingly narrow over the last four years—our royalties have increased dramatically from about $3.2 billion to about $4.8 billion since this government has been in power; an extraordinary increase—but also there has been growth in expenditure, averaging 10 per cent each year under this government. That is another question Standard and Poor’s posed about the state’s finances and it is one reason that Standard and Poor’s recently put that watch on Western Australia.
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8789
Last night I talked about the very famous letter dated 23 June 1998 from former Under Treasurer John Langoulant, making the point that announcements by the then education minister, the current Premier, were made — … with no regard to the state of the overall budget and with no examination or consideration of existing budgetary capacity within a portfolio. I can appreciate the frustration that the then Under Treasurer must have felt back in 1998 to write this letter to the then Premier and Treasurer, Richard Court, to draw his attention to what was clearly ill-disciplined financial management by the Premier, other ministers and the cabinet in endorsing unfunded proposals. I think that historic issue the then education minister had continues in his current premiership. Last night, I went through—I will not do it again—a number of those commitments ranging from Midland university through to a Midland train station and the Treasurer’s own airport. Various commitments were unfunded, certainly, as Mr Langoulant suggested “with no regard to the state of the overall budget”. Mr C.J. Barnett: Just for the historic record—I am not going to get into an argument with John Langoulant— the expenditure that you didn’t name but referred to was the introduction of universal kindergarten and preprimary for every child in this state, and I will never apologise for doing that. Mr B.S. WYATT: I will read what Mr Langoulant said. The Premier may appreciate that I was not in Parliament in 1998. Mr Langoulant states — … and the Education Minister’s announcements on matters such as reduced class sizes which are not funded. There appears to be some disagreement between Mr Langoulant and the Premier, but the Premier was in cabinet at the time and, clearly, Mr Langoulant had a different view in the letter, which he expressed to the then Premier and Treasurer, Richard Court. Mr Langoulant went on to make this point — While the end result and the current quite critical situation is entirely attributable to the lack of discipline shown by Ministers in general and Cabinet in particular, there is a significant contributing factor which must be recognised and dealt with and that — Mr E.S. Ripper: How kind of you to read this on my last day! Mr B.S. WYATT: The quote continues — is the poor performance of the majority of chief executive officers. This is a letter that, no doubt, the member for Belmont would have had some enjoyable times with, I would have thought, back in 1998 — Mr E.S. Ripper: It’s an oldie but a goodie! Mr B.S. WYATT: — when he got his hot little hands on a letter like this. Mr C.J. Barnett: I seem to remember the phrase “Barnett’s budget black hole”! Mr B.S. WYATT: Barnett’s budget black hole! I hope Hansard picked up the fact that it was the Premier himself who raised in Parliament this afternoon the phrase “Barnett’s budget black hole” and not me. I was outside this place, but certainly the Barnett budget black hole — Mr E.S. Ripper: I think the technical term was “the Barnett budget blow-out”. Mr B.S. WYATT: Although Mr Langoulant does not write the words “the Barnett budget blow-out” or “black holes” in his letter, he is clearly alluding to those black holes or blow-outs that caused the then Under Treasurer so much frustration. However, I am delighted that it appears that the Under Treasurer and the Premier have indeed fixed their somewhat patchy relationship; they seem to be working well together these days, perhaps better than they did in 1998. Just quickly, while the Premier is in the chamber, I want to take advantage of the fact that this is a general debate on the Loan Bill 2012. Minister Collier will receive a letter from me, as he already has from Dennis Eggington at the Aboriginal Legal Service, regarding the stolen wages reparation scheme. I acknowledge that the government has already extended the time frame by which people can apply for that scheme. I think it needs to be extended again. The letter will not be concerning any issue other than the time line. The scheme was extended through to 30 November, but the ALS in its letter to me dated 13 November—and it has written to the Minister for Indigenous Affairs—states — ALSWA considers the current nine month time limit to be onerous and exclusionary, given the State Government’s failure to publicise the scheme, and the considerable difficulties associated with assisting applicants, including the vast distances in Western Australia and the challenges communicating with many eligible people.
8790 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012]
ALSWA has already lodged several hundred applications. We believe that with a more realistic time limit, all potential applicants could have the opportunity to learn of the scheme and apply. ALSWA has written to the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Peter Collier MLC, seeking an extension to March 2017. This would make the scheme operational for five years, and bring it into line with similar schemes in Queensland and New South Wales, which operated for approximately four years and five years respectively. We are yet to receive a response. Premier, I think there is much merit in extending the time by which this scheme can be applied. I was recently in Laverton and caught up with a number of people who have come in from the lands, as they do into Laverton, and they had not heard of the scheme; a lot of them simply had not heard of it, as the Premier would appreciate. Advertising such a scheme is difficult for many of the people who actually need to apply. It is ultimately up to the government whether it wants to extend it another 12 months or another four years. That certainly would generate a lot of goodwill and allow organisations such as the Aboriginal Legal Service of Western Australia in particular, which is out on the ground in those places, to advertise the scheme and ensure that sufficient applications are made for that scheme. I spoke a little longer than I originally intended. It is somewhat appropriate that my last words in this place will be about debt. I seem to have spent four years and two months speaking about debt. There has been much discussion about finances for this term of government. We have had an extraordinary increase in debt over such a short period. The member for Belmont made the point that the government has effectively used the entire financial capacity for the next two terms—effectively the next decade—in such a short time. That eliminates any flexibility for unforeseen and unknown contingencies that the state may need to respond to in the future. That is an issue and a problem that future governments will need to rectify. The member for Belmont also made the point that the government elected in 2017 will have to make some pretty tough decisions. I may be taking the member for Belmont’s valedictory comments further than he intended, but certainly the government elected in 2017 will have to make some pretty tough and brutal decisions about the state’s finances—as the Premier pointed out back in 1991 when he railed against the then debt levels of the state. In 1991 the Loan Bill authorised borrowings of $390 million — Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Mr B.S. WYATT: I do not have it all before me, unfortunately. I brought the matter on for debate in 2009 or 2010. I brought on the exact same motion that the now Premier moved in 1991; that is, to set up a parliamentary committee to inquire into this. There has not ever been this rapid a rise in debt. I made that point whenever I brought my motion, back in 2009 or 2010. I simply applied the demands made back then by the now Premier— that is, to have a plan to repay the debt and at least provide some guidelines. Ultimately, as the member for Belmont pointed out, the government elected in 2017 will have to make some tough decisions. As the Premier said back in 1991, that will evolve. Cutting services will involve cutting the discretionary spending of the government of the day. The now Premier made that point crystal clear in 1991. That is ultimately what will happen. The Premier of the day cannot say the debt does not have to be repaid and then impose a cap of $20 billion and blow through that cap. The reason that we had a $20 billion cap two years ago no longer seems to apply. As the Treasurer pointed out in 2008—not back in 1991—$11.4 billion in debt would impose some providence for retaining the AAA credit rating. That $11.4 billion in 2011–12 became $15.2 billion—well on the way to $23 billion. I have spoken about debt enough. The Loan Bill will of course proceed through to the upper house. When we look at the Loan Acts between 1987 through to 2012, the largest amount authorised prior to 2009 was $390 million, in 1991. Between 2009 and 2012 we have authorised another $13.3 billion. Clearly, debt is a problem that will come to haunt a future government, and that government is not too far away. Question put and passed. Bill read a third time and transmitted to the Council. MINING AMENDMENT BILL 2012 Second Reading Resumed from 25 September. MR W.J. JOHNSTON (Cannington) [4.34 pm]: Here we are on the last day of regular sittings in the Parliament and there is some talk we may have to come back to deal with anything that might emerge from our friends in the upper house, but I get 60 minutes on the clock and an anxious shadow Minister for Health! I am sure we could provide much entertainment at 4.37 pm. Mr R.H. Cook: You’ll be entertaining yourself, member! Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: That is right. The rest will be out in the courtyard drinking with the journalists! Mr C.J. Barnett: You and I will be here, member for Cannington, hurling insults at each other!
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8791
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: That is right, yes. The opposition supports the Mining Amendment Bill 2012. I will not speak very long, but I will make some comments about what the bill intends to do. The first thing it does is extend the Mining Act onto commonwealth lands. This is to clear up situations such as defence land that falls under the commonwealth’s control. Western Australia will ensure there is a proper regime of protection of those lands. That is an important change. The bill changes the surrender requirements of people with exploration leases. At the moment, exploration leases are granted for a period of five years and then 50 per cent of the land is surrendered, but people can apply for a 12- month extension. The extra 12-month period is being included so that there is no extra paperwork for the extension. The lessee just gets six years and then the surrender arrangements come into place. Underground coal gasification has never happened in Western Australia. I understand from the briefings I was given that there is currently no proposal for underground coal gasification, but there was always a discussion about whether this should be included as a petroleum activity or a mining activity. The government has made the decision to regulate it through the Mining Act rather than through petroleum legislation. I think that is actually quite an important issue and it is worth making a few comments on it. Western Australia has coal measures that are quite deep and may well be uneconomic to mine. It may be that at some time in the future somebody will come to the government and make a proposal to gasify them. I am no chemist and I do not understand how it operates, but apparently if the gas is burnt underground, it can give off methane. I have no doubt that this will be a controversial issue when the proponents come forward at some future time. Who knows, it may be in five years’ time or it may be in 10 years’ time. It will be important to have a proper regulatory framework around those applications when they eventually arrive, and that is what we are doing here today. I make the point that because the opposition supports creating a regulatory environment to review underground coal gasification, that is not to say that any individual project somebody might be talking about or speculating on will be approved. It will be very interesting to see what happens when those proposals start to come forward. There have been problems with underground coal gasification. The technology is being applied in Queensland but the Queensland government, having approved a project, subsequently withdrew the approvals because of problems with the way that particular proponent was going about the project. It is inevitable that these projects, when they arise, will draw commentary and discussion. It is probably something that people will have to have a longer discussion about rather than on the last day of Parliament. It is something that we need to talk about. The bill contains a series of administrative changes in increased penalties, but I will not discuss them. Another part of this regulation is to deal with mining operations on former pastoral leases that have been purchased by the state of Western Australia with former Howard government funding. This proposal started under the Court government in the late 1990s. The process to identify which leases would be taken back started back then. It was not until the Labor government was in power in the early 2000s that the acquisitions came about. There has been a long process. At this stage, because the state of Western Australia cannot own a pastoral lease, those former pastoral leases have been converted back to unallocated crown land. The Economics and Industry Standing Committee, with the member for Riverton as chair, reviewed the Department of Environment and Conservation’s management of those former pastoral leases and had a very detailed look at this issue. The Minister for Police also was on that committee. The member for Kalgoorlie is particularly interested in this issue, and I know that he has an active watching eye on what is happening here. Everybody agrees that there is a need to create a new form of tenure for those former pastoral leases. This legislation anticipates that change to allow a continuation of mining activity, prospecting and exploration on those former pastoral leases. The point is that if there were to be any decision about particular mining activity at any of those locations, there would still have to be an environmental approvals process, but at least there will now be a set of procedures that everyone understands. It was a recommendation of our committee. It is a worthwhile issue to take care of. It is not intended that these pastoral leases be A-class reserves; they will be some other form of tenure. It is true that less of the state of Western Australia is listed as environmental heritage than in other states. Western Australia is a very big state and there are a range of issues around that. I am not saying that that is a bad thing or a good thing; I am just making the point that that is the case. I visited with the committee a couple of the pastoral leases that have been included in the DEC purchase. I talk in particular about Lorna Glen, which is way out in the middle of nowhere behind Wiluna. The member for Kalgoorlie is not here so he will not object to me saying that! It is extraordinary and very beautiful country. With the management by DEC, it has recovered dramatically. I can see why that land is valued. In some other places, people comment that the land is not so valuable. Some of the land was chosen because the pastoral operations on those lands were not sustainable; others were chosen because they had very high conservation values. One way or another, it is important. Western Australia is a mining state. Western Australia needs mining because it supports the whole economy; even those who are not involved in the mining industry benefit from the mining activity that takes place in this state. We need to ensure that we continue to have a viable mining and resource sector in this state. Of course, the mining and resource sector—everyone in the industry makes the point—needs to be sustainable and
8792 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] environmentally responsible and, I think, in general, that is the case now. We have had a big change in attitude in the resource sector to a range of issues, and the environment is amongst those. That is what we are doing with this piece of legislation. I thank the shadow Minister for Mines and Petroleum, Jon Ford, and his staff for helping me to understand the bill. I thank the Minister for Mines and Petroleum, Hon Norman Moore, for talking to me about what was involved and for the briefings from the departmental staff; I appreciate the opportunity to talk to them. I note that I also had the opportunity to talk to people from the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies on issues around this bill, and I appreciate their advice. With those few words, the Leader of the House will be very pleased that I got it done in nine minutes! The opposition is happy to support the legislation. MR C.J. BARNETT (Cottesloe — Premier) [4.44 pm] — in reply: I thank the opposition and the member for Cannington for support for the legislation. He summarised the provisions, so I do not need to go through those. Most of the Mining Amendment Bill 2012 is really a technical tidying up of the Mining Act 1978. But, as the member said, it starts to set the scene for legislation and regulations relating to what will more likely be shale gas rather than coal seam gas in this state. On the east coast, the unconventional gas is coal seam gas. It is near the surface and interplays with the watertable. In WA, particularly in the Canning Basin, it is coal seam gas, which is two to four kilometres down. Hopefully, we will not have the issues of the east coast, but I do accept the point that there will be a fair bit of debate about that industry as it develops. I thank members for their support for the bill. Question put and passed. Bill read a second time. Leave granted to proceed forthwith to third reading. Third Reading Bill read a third time, on motion by Mr C.J. Barnett (Premier), and passed. MENTAL HEALTH AMENDMENT (PSYCHIATRISTS) BILL 2012 As to Third Reading Leave denied to proceed forthwith to third reading. Consideration in Detail Clause 1: Short title — Mr M.P. WHITELY: I realise that the minister wants to get through this bill as quickly as possible, so I think if we can be cooperative rather than combative, we can do that more effectively. I want to start with a few short comments about the seriousness of the bill and why I think we need to pay some due attention to the bill. We are talking about retrospectively authorising—to make legal, in effect—foreign-trained psychiatrists’ involuntary detention of patients and their involuntary treatment of those patients with drugs. They are acting within the health system. They were employed to serve the people of Western Australia. I understand that we need to give them this legal protection. I do not have a problem with the retrospective aspect of the legislation, but Parliament is delegating to these doctors the capacity to interfere in people’s lives in a very intrusive way by detaining them involuntarily and drugging them against their will. We need to consider for a moment whether they are appropriately trained. I will try to keep this as simple as possible so that we do not talk at cross-purposes. As I understand it, there are effectively two lists—those who have ticked all the boxes and are fully trained and those who are considered to be near enough, if you like. I appreciate that the bill will pass but I want the minister to tell us what contributes to that distinction. It is important because, as I said, extremely intrusive powers are granted to this class of people that are not granted to any other class of people in Western Australia. The police certainly do not enjoy these sorts of powers. No other group does. Hopefully, the circumstances surrounding the patient Maryanne Connor that I discussed last night are isolated. Hopefully, that was a single incident of incompetence—I used the word “incompetence” and I stand by that word—by a foreign-trained doctor. In this profession, as in every profession, there are inadequate practitioners. Hopefully, this was an isolated case of an inadequate practitioner and hopefully it had nothing to do with the fact that they were foreign trained. Nonetheless, we need to be concerned. Psychiatry is a very important profession. I have spoken many times about problems that come about when insufficiently trained people are given this authority. We suffer tragically from a shortage of appropriately trained people. We are in this catch-22 situation in which psychiatrists are given extreme powers, yet we do not have enough sufficiently trained people. When we allow other people in and we open the gateway, it is important to consider how far we open it. Without going through the stuff that I discussed last night, that is the nub of my concern for this bill. I have taken four minutes to express that. I do not intend to labour the point at this stage. When we come to particular sections of the bill, now the minister has had a little sleep and he is a little fresher than he was last night, I am sure we can enjoy the cooperative progress of this bill.
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8793
Dr K.D. Hames: I will respond when we get to those specific clauses, if that is okay. Clause put and passed. Clauses 2 and 3 put and passed. Clause 4: Section 3 amended — Mr M.P. WHITELY: I invite the minister to comment without making any further comment. Dr K.D. HAMES: I sought answers to some of the issues that were raised by the member last night. As the member knows, we are not giving psychiatrists new powers; they have those powers now and have had them all the time, right back to 1996 and previously. We are saying that these people, through an error of the bill that went through, do not have those powers any more unless we fix it. In fact, we are ratifying the powers that they have used between then and now. The critical area that the member expressed concern about is that when the bill was under WA control, there were two groups—the standard one and the one that was given special approval. We have the same now but the member asked whether they are the same. Did they have to meet certain standards back in 1996? Now we have federal legislation that takes whatever happens over the rest of Australia, are these special psychiatrists that we now want to add in as good as the ones that we were adding in 1996? Mr M.P. Whitely: The 1996 legislation did not make any reference to the two groups. There was a lack of clarity. The point I was making was that prior to 1996—when they were considering the 1996 legislation—did it effectively have two lists or is that something that came along afterwards and we just informally — Dr K.D. HAMES: The answer that I have from the Chief Psychiatrist is, yes, they did have two lists and, yes, they are the same. The conditions under which they were appointed in 1996 and the conditions under which they are now appointed under the new legislation are the same. They have, in effect, now been rolled over. I will just remind the member of some of those conditions. I know he knows them but I want to get them on the record again. A lot of these are in areas of unmet need. What does a psychiatrist need to do to get full specialist registration? Now they have conditional registration. Because they have only conditional registration, they are not on the National Register of Health Service Providers in Psychology, which means that unless we change this legislation, they are not allowed to practise and do those things that a normal psychologist would be able to do. They get conditional registration. To get that in the first place, they have to show that their qualifications and experience are substantially equivalent to those in Australia. To get the full specialist registration, they have to prove that their experience and qualifications are absolutely equivalent. Where we have areas of need and we are not able to get psychologists in, we look at a country that has training and does pretty well—we do not do it; the board does it—and say, “To all intents and purposes, that training that they do there is pretty good so we will bring them in, but we will bring them in with restrictions.” The restrictions may be that they have to work in a particular hospital, they have to work under supervision and they have to do exams to upgrade their training and qualifications until we can be absolutely sure that they are an absolute equivalent of what is in Australia. That is why they get this conditional approval. Until they have met all those other qualifications, they do not get the full approval. The point the member makes is that those doctors may not be as good as the ones who are an absolute equivalent, but that is why they operate mostly under supervision or with some degree of restrictions until they get that. The point is that they have been doing that for some time. The same applies to lots of doctors working out in the community doing medical stuff. The member says that they are not able to commit patients. I do not know what those workers are who are GP trained, but, as a GP, I have a lot of power to manage patients, including being able to commit patients. Without labouring it any further, my point is that in answer to the question that the member raised as to whether they are the same, the answer is yes. Mr M.P. WHITELY: I will be quick. I will not drag this out to five minutes if I can say what I want to say in 30 seconds. The minister can answer by way of interjection if he wants to speed this up as much as possible. Clause 4 sets out the three different ways of qualifying under the proposed legislation. I presume paragraphs (a) and (b) are both on the list already and we are adding paragraph (c). Dr K.D. Hames: Yes. Mr M.P. WHITELY: The minister made the distinction that they can be on the conditional list if they are substantially equivalent rather than absolutely equivalent. I am having a little difficulty getting my head around what the distinction might be. The printed examples I was given that were prepared by the minister’s advisers made reference to examinations. Examinations obviously are somewhat more of a barrier than just ticking the administrative box. Examinations are conducted so that people can prove competence. Does the minister have any more detail on the sorts of examinations that people are undertaking? I will not labour the point any further; I have taken less than a minute and a half to express my concerns. If the minister can answer that, I would appreciate it.
8794 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012]
Dr K.D. HAMES: They are on the list that the member was provided with. One thing they can do is obtain recognition from the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists that they are experienced and have qualifications. The first is that they are substantially the same. They come here and produce further evidence that shows what they have done, treatments they have administered and all the training they have undertaken and satisfy the psychiatry board that they are an absolute equivalent, not a near-miss equivalent. The other thing is that if they are unable to satisfy the college that that is the case, they can do additional examinations. Those examinations would be set by the college itself. It is the same in general medicine; we have an independent standard that determines accreditation standards required in medicine. They set exams for these doctors. The doctors do them all the time; in fact, they fail them on regular occasions. Mr M.P. Whitely: People are practising without having sat the exams—that is my point. They haven’t done the exams. Dr K.D. HAMES: No; to get the absolute qualification — Mr M.P. Whitely: I know; that is the point I’m making. Dr K.D. HAMES: — they would have to sit a specific additional exam other than showing that in their country of origin—it might be the UK, for example—they studied and passed certain degrees in psychiatry, and to all intents and purposes that looks pretty much the same as the people here in Australia did, but sometimes the college requires further confirmation of their skills and ability. Mr M.P. WHITELY: This is the last time I will rise, but I will probably take most of the five minutes to express my concern and to seek an undertaking. This legislation will pass, as it should. People in the system who act in good faith should enjoy the protections they assumed had been delivered by the Parliament. We should not leave them legally liable. As I said, I have no problem with that aspect of it. However, there is an issue of the equivalence of foreign training and I did see direct evidence of it. I will not go through the whole details of Maryanne Connor again, except to say that the foreign doctor who treated her did not take appropriate account of her case history. Even when it was explained to him in the Mental Health Review Board hearing, which I outlined on, I think, 24 May, he was ignorant of the contraindications of the drugs. It was in fact Maryanne’s mother who — Dr K.D. Hames: I have heard those stories and you have done them a couple of times now. That is not necessarily related to the fact that it was a foreign-born doctor. Doctors trained here are sometimes incompetent and not up to the standard and get through the system. Just because he was foreign trained does not mean that is the case for all foreign-trained doctors. Mr M.P. WHITELY: That is true, but we are supposed to have gateways and pathways that stop people — Dr K.D. Hames: For all doctors, and there are systems to deal with that. Mr M.P. WHITELY: That is true; I accept that. The one thing we do with domestically trained doctors is control the pathways. When we talk about equivalence to our standard being the standard — Dr K.D. Hames: I can tell you, if you look at the standard of doctors that come through — Mr M.P. WHITELY: I was only going to take my five minutes. Dr K.D. Hames: All right. Mr M.P. WHITELY: I want to put my concern out there. I appreciate that the Minister for Health is not the minister responsible for the bill, but he is influential in terms of Parliament and medical training, possibly as much as anyone is. There was a case with a foreign-trained doctor who I think lacked cultural sensitivity with this patient, as demonstrated by the way he behaved in the hearing, although I appreciate those hearings are intimidating processes for most people. Even when it was pointed out to him by the patient’s mother, who was effectively the carer and now is the authorised carer, if you like, that the drugs were contraindicated, he did not acknowledge that, and proceeded unchecked, as did the others at the Fremantle health system. Maybe it is a more systemic problem, as the minister indicated; maybe the problem is not just with foreign-trained doctors. It is important, and I am glad the minister is paying a bit more attention to this legislation now than he did last night. Do not encourage me to be mischievous, please! Mr R.H. Cook: Sorry; I smiled! Mr M.P. WHITELY: We are giving incredible authority to people to intervene in people’s lives, and we need to make sure that they are appropriately trained. I want to put on the record that I introduced legislation into this Parliament that would have removed the provision that allows people to be made involuntary patients because of potential damage to reputations. I think there was broad agreement that it was a good initiative. The defence of the Minister for Mental Health was that we would deal with it in the omnibus bill, which we now find will be introduced in the next term of Parliament. I
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8795 note that we are rushing to protect the interests of the doctors. We are not applying the same level of urgency to the patients. I encourage the minister to ensure two things: first, that the new bill provides the protections outlined in my legislation; and, second, that adequate training is given to both domestically and foreign-trained doctors. Because of the case I have outlined and because of the findings of the Stokes inquiry, the minister cannot say that this is an abstract issue. I do not expect the minister to respond. I am asking him to be mindful because I will not be here to bug him about it anymore; it will fall to others. Clause put and passed. Clause 5: Section 216 inserted — Mr M.P. WHITELY: I want to talk now about proposed section 216(1), which refers to an act of omission. When I was talking to the minister’s advisers, one was parliamentary counsel and a lawyer. The lawyer was given the task of providing protection to the doctors, who inadvertently did not have the protection we thought they had. Lawyers being ultracautious say, “Well, that’s my brief; I will make this as strong as possible.” Proposed section 216(2) provides the protection; it protects them from any act they take if they had that status. My concern is that proposed subsection (1) is not necessary and may, in fact, give protections that are not warranted. In the case of Maryanne Connor, the doctor was certainly a foreign-born doctor and I presume he was a foreign-trained doctor. He committed an act of omission because he did not take a full patient case history. I would argue that it was negligent, which is an act of omission rather than of commission. I think doctors should have legal protection when they make someone an involuntary patient because they are acting as an employee of the state, but I am not sure they should have protection from incompetence and omission—not taking a patient history and not finding out that the person had been on drugs to which she had had severe life-threatening adverse reactions in the past that would have contraindicated the treatment that was applied when she was in Fremantle Hospital. I am worried that this will give doctors a cover in those circumstances. I think it is a result of who drafts the legislation. The draftspeople are lawyers, and they were given the task of protecting these doctors. My concern is that they have overprotected them, and everything they are trying to achieve is achieved by way of proposed subsection (2), and proposed subsection (1) may be unnecessary. I am seeking from the minister now an explanation. Examples always help, but they do not necessarily provide the full spectrum. I want some parameters around what is an omission. Perhaps an omission that constitutes negligence should not be covered. Is it an omission because it is reasonable judgement and standard practice not to do something? Perhaps risks of something are considered to be so low that a particular test is not taken—the one in 30 000 cases happens and because they did not have the particular test, they did not find it. That is fair enough; I understand they need that protection, but not taking a full-case history is an omission of negligence. I think the minister understands my point. My concern is that proposed subsection (1) may provide protection for omissions of negligence, not just omissions made because someone makes a defensible clinical judgement that a particular action is not necessary. If the minister responds to those comments, I will see whether I need to rise again. Dr K.D. HAMES: The Minister for Mental Health made a commitment to Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich that she would provide, before the end of the Legislative Council’s sitting, a list of those omissions. I do not yet have that list, but what I do have as advice is the point that is made by the member for Bassendean that involves negligence by the specialist through omission, which is something that is dealt with by medical boards, particularly when there are complaints systems against doctors about their treatment and things they did or did not do, and particularly the cases that the member refers to, in which there are clear omissions by the specialist involved in looking after those patients. In my view, from the description the member got, that would clearly be negligence on the part of the doctor. Those things are not included in those omissions. These relate purely to management by the doctor in terms of things that were or were not done, when someone is of the view that something should or should not have been done, and those are just covered in the normal course of practice. So that is the advice I have. I am advised that the particular point the member makes, that negligence is therefore made okay by this clause, is not the case and I am happy to put that on the record. Mr M.P. WHITELY: Can the minister show me where and how it is not the case? It may not be intentionally the case. Can the minister show me why it is not the case? It is one thing to say it is not the case. We have two houses of Parliament, and the other house of Parliament has passed this legislation. If we do not amend it, it will become law. Just saying that omissions do not include omissions of negligence does not make it the case, unless the minister can actually provide us with evidence. Maybe we should be amending it. Maybe we should remove it completely, because I think it is unnecessary, or say something like, “In this section, ‘act’” includes an omission except omissions of negligence”. Maybe that is the sort of wording we need to put in there. Just saying that it is so does not make it so. I am not suggesting it is anybody’s intention to create some sort of backdoor way of covering the doctor down in Fremantle; I appreciate that the minister is taking what I say at face value. I do not think it is something so Machiavellian as intentionally providing that coverage, but I think it effectively could, unless the minister can show me where it says that nothing in this legislation removes the patient’s right to seek redress for negligence. Unless the minister can show me somewhere else that that protection is provided, I
8796 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] am wondering why we are leaving it in. The other house is still sitting and, if I am right and my concern is valid and there is no other coverage, we may be passing legislation with an unintended consequence, and this is the last chance to amend it. To go back to the substance of this legislation, whilst it may be intended to correct an unintentional oversight, the consequences of this legislation are significant. The powers that it gives to certain people are incredibly significant—as significant powers as this Parliament can provide—so I ask the minister to show me where and how omissions of negligence are exempted from proposed section 216(1); otherwise, perhaps we can talk about how we can amend it, because the other house is still sitting and we could put up a simple amendment and, with the concurrence of the other place, we could make sure that we do not pass legislation with an unintended consequence. Why are we doing this legislation? If we take the government’s argument at face value, we are doing this legislation because we did not fully think something through before. What I am asking is: are we compounding the problem? Are we about to pass legislation which we think will do the right thing, but which will have an unintended consequence? If an “act” includes an omission, I ask the minister to show me where that does not include omissions that, in fact, constitute negligence. Dr K.D. HAMES: I am not able to do that, but can I say that the law as it is read and understood, particularly through the courts, does not include just the written word; it includes the spoken word and things said by ministers and their agents in this house. It is my understanding that the Minister for Mental Health, who is the minister responsible for this legislation, went through that issue in the other place and addressed it. The advice that I have from her is that it is very clear that negligence is not included. I cannot say more than that, because what I have before me is the legislation as it stands. The minister has given us certainty that that is the case, and I assume there are definitions of “omissions” in the standard acts, including the Mental Health Act, that more clearly define those things, and this relates to those acts and the current Mental Health Act. I am unable to give any more information than that, but I say again that it is understood by courts that the stated word of a minister in debating a bill carries weight in determining how the bill should be interpreted. It is my very clear view that clear negligence by a doctor managing a patient in any capacity could not constitute an omission that therefore excuses the doctor from undertaking that act. Ms M.M. QUIRK: I beg to differ with what the minister said about the utterances in the upper house of the Minister for Mental Health—that the Minister for Health is bound by certain things she has already said in the upper house. The law is that if there is ambiguity, what has been said in Parliament by a minister is an aid to interpretation of that ambiguity. However, if the legislation is clear at face value, the courts, in interpreting legislation, will not look at any of the debates in Hansard. Mr M.P. WHITELY: I thank my learned colleague for her advice. I do not have legal training, but that raises my level of concern, because I would read that as “an act includes an omission”—not a subset of omissions, but all omissions—and an omission of negligence is an omission. Am I right, member for Girrawheen? Ms M.M. Quirk: I was just going to look up the Interpretation Act on that. Mr M.P. WHITELY: That might be useful. I have not seen the Hansard; does the minister have a copy? It is not satisfactory. I appreciate that this is the last sitting day and all the rest of it. We all want to go out to the courtyard and join the media for drinks. In fact, we should be sipping our first red wines right now, but there is a higher duty and we need to clarify this. I will resume my seat, and the member for Girrawheen can perhaps enlighten us as to what she has been able to establish. Ms M.M. QUIRK: Just to clarify the member for Bassendean’s point, section 5 of the Interpretation Act 1984 states, in part — … act used with reference to an offence or civil wrong includes an omission and extends to a series of acts or omissions or a series of acts and omissions … Mr R.H. Cook: Good! That clarifies that point! Mr M.P. WHITELY: That is great, and I appreciate that. I am feeling a bit like Homer Simpson when it all just goes, “Blah, blah, blah”! The member for Girrawheen has legal training, so perhaps she might enlighten us as to what that actually means. In the member’s opinion, does an act that includes an omission include all omissions? Ms M.M. Quirk: Yes, I think it does include omissions. Mr M.P. WHITELY: So, the member for Girrawheen’s reading of my amendment to clause 5 is that proposed section 216(1) includes omissions of negligence. That is my understanding of her interpretation. Perhaps the member for Girrawheen might like to join the minister at the table! Ms M.M. Quirk: An omission can amount to negligence, yes.
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8797
Mr M.P. WHITELY: So, the minister can see the point; he can see the concern of the opposition. As I say, we are dealing with this legislation because we got a bit of legislation wrong previously. Are we not just compounding the error here? I am really concerned. I have to go to Maryanne Connor and her mother, Mary, and say, “The last thing I did in Parliament was support legislation that removed your right, removed your legal protection, even though you were drugged with a whole range of drugs that in the past had almost disastrous life- threatening effects on you, and the last thing I did as a member of Parliament was to retrospectively authorise negligent actions.” I know that the minister has to go somewhere and speak at 7.30 pm, but this is the last substantial issue I wish to raise. Perhaps we could adjourn this debate. Perhaps the minister could see whether the minister in the other house is open to considering an amendment along the lines I suggest to proposed section 216(1) so that it would read that an “act includes an omission except for omissions of negligence” or “that constitute negligence”. The lawyers in the chamber may have a more sophisticated form of words than that, but maybe the minister could seek the authority of the minister in the other place. I do not know how the process works and whether he needs to have a chat with the Minister for Mental Health. Perhaps we could adjourn briefly. I need not say much more on the bill. I am not being obstructive. I just want to make this clause better. I am concerned because the lawyers who drafted the clause were tasked with protecting the doctors. That was their task. They were probably told, “Those doctors are exposed. They were working in good faith in the public health system and we need to provide them with protection.” In our rush to be all inclusive in that protection, the clause has been overcooked a little, and, in fact, we are giving protections that they would not usually enjoy and that this Parliament would have no intention that they enjoy. I do not want to speak for too long, if the minister says that he will go to the other place and have a word with the mental health minister to see whether that amendment can be made. I do not want to, on the run, convince my side of the merits of what I am saying and then find that we lose the vote. Let us make good legislation here. If it means adjourning this clause and going onto something else for a little while and coming back and spending five minutes supporting this amendment, surely that is what we should be doing in this place. I would be interested in hearing the minister’s thoughts and I will respond accordingly to what he says. Clause put and passed. Clauses 6 to 8 put and passed. Title put and passed. Leave granted to proceed forthwith to third reading. Third Reading DR K.D. HAMES (Dawesville — Minister for Health) [5.23 pm]: I move — That the bill be now read a third time. MR M.P. WHITELY (Bassendean) [5.24 pm]: I have learnt a lesson in this Parliament: if we want to progress things quickly, we do it properly. I raised a very real concern about an unintended consequence arising from legislation that is necessary because of an unintended consequence of some other legislation that was rushed into this place and approved without being properly thought through. All I suggested to the minister was that we adjourn consideration of this clause and that he go upstairs to the other place and ask the mental health minister whether we could include a simple amendment that would provide protection for patients. The minister did not even respond. The minister did not even deign to respond. This is the last legislation that I will pay active attention to while I am a member of Parliament and it is dispiriting to see that that is the quality of the process. It is absolutely dispiriting to see that. As I pointed out briefly without going into any great detail at the consideration in detail stage, the Minister for Health and the government were prepared to rush in legislation because doctors are exposed unnecessarily. I support the basic intent of the legislation; I outlined that. The minister and the government were not prepared to pay any attention to the very real concern that I raised about the treatment of involuntary patients and the legislation I brought into this Parliament previously. I know that legislation will wait until we bring in the Mental Health Bill and it will all be dealt with in the Mental Health Bill. This bill could have waited until we dealt with the Mental Health Bill. It could have waited until the large Mental Health Bill is brought in next year to fix up all the problems with the Mental Health Act. I am not saying that doctors should not matter and that they should not have this legal protection—they should—but why is it that doctors matter more than patients? The other side slams people on my side for kowtowing to their union bosses on occasions. I would suggest that you kowtow, minister, to the most powerful union bosses in the country. The minister takes his orders from the Australian Medical Association. Clearly, it seems to me, it has said, “We want this protection because doctors are exposed here.” Dr K.D. Hames: Can I tell you that I have not spoken to the AMA a single time? Mr M.P. WHITELY: It is hard not to be suspicious.
8798 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012]
Dr K.D. Hames: I understand you are being suspicious. I am just telling you it’s not true. Mr M.P. WHITELY: The minister was not prepared to just go and have a word with the Minister for Mental Health. I raised a very real concern that this bill may be giving coverage — Dr K.D. Hames: And I answered it that I had advice. Mr M.P. WHITELY: No, the minister did not. He said that he thought it might and I asked whether he had the Hansard. The minister said that he did not even have the Hansard. He could not even quote the Hansard. The member for Girrawheen said — Dr K.D. Hames: You’re suggesting it’s ambiguous. That’s what you are suggesting. Mr M.P. WHITELY: What the minister said in the second reading speech only applies in any case when it is ambiguous. Then we looked at the particular part and asked whether proposed section 216(1) was ambiguous in any sense. Then the member for Girrawheen did some research and it became clear that it is not ambiguous. An act of negligence is an act of omission. So, in passing this bill, we are going to provide legal protection to psychiatrists who have been negligent. We are going to rob Maryanne Connor of her rights to seek legal redress because it happened after 18 October 2010. Her appalling treatment happened on the minister’s watch over his appalling health system at the appalling Fremantle Alma Street clinic. It was unfortunate that it happened to this poor woman after 18 October 2010. As soon as I sit down, we will be passing legislation that removes her legal rights, which presumably was never the intention. I said that I did not think this was some great conspiracy. Maybe it is! Maybe the minister is covering his backside because he knows how incompetent the staff are down there and what they did to this family and this vulnerable woman, and the minister knows the system is subject to complaints of negligence. Maybe there is a hidden agenda here. Maybe we are trying to cover acts of omission that constitute negligence. It is appalling behaviour. The processes of this Parliament, such as consideration in detail, are designed to nut out the merits of particular issues. Just because the opposition comes into this place and says it supports this bill does not abrogate our responsibility to sit in this place and go through the detail of it. We say, “We support the thrust of the bill. We want to provide legal protection to doctors acting in good faith. Doctors acting competently and in good faith should enjoy our legal protection.” That is what the opposition said when it said it supported this bill. But when we do our jobs and it gets disclosed in consideration in detail that we in fact might be providing cover for negligence and the minister cannot answer, and when we put to him the proposal, “Let’s just think about it; let’s take 10 minutes to go and have a chat with the minister and see whether she is okay about adding a few simple words”, being “an act includes an omission but not omissions of negligence”, he cannot even be bothered to take the 10 minutes it would have taken. We would have had it done by now. In the time I have been in this place, every time someone perverts the processes of this Parliament, it just makes the whole thing drag on longer and longer and longer. Things move slowly. It is Christmas party time, so we cannot consider the merits of this legislation because we all need to go outside and have a drink with the journalists. I would like to do that—in fact I intend to do that very shortly. But we have a responsibility in this place. It is a pretty sad note I am leaving on, actually, when the consideration of such a simple idea is rejected. The minister did not even say, “I don’t agree with you, member for Bassendean, because the flaws in your argument, as I perceive them, are these. I will not be talking to the Minister for Mental Health because I think you’re wrong and these are the reasons I think you’re wrong.” He did not even have the respect for the processes of the place to provide that explanation. I support what I thought was the intention of this legislation. I took the government at face value. I tried to ensure that we improved it. The opposition indicated its support for it, but I am sure, Deputy Leader of the Opposition, we supported the intention of providing legal coverage to doctors acting in good faith. We did not for a moment think we would be providing legal coverage to doctors operating negligently, which we may have done. Hopefully, my interpretation is wrong, but we did not hear the evidence as to why it was wrong. We heard the minister say, “Well, the minister in the upper house said no, it is not going to do that”, and then we had the member for Girrawheen saying that it is only relevant if it is ambiguous. Then we looked at the form of the words—“act includes an omission”—and we asked, “What’s ambiguous about that? That includes all omissions, by implication”. We raised a real concern, but the minister was not even prepared to take a few minutes to think about it. Maybe someone will be back amending this legislation, because if Maryanne Connor wants to seek legal redress now that things are sorted out in her life, she will find she has no right to do that. I am not going to take any more of the Parliament’s time. I have 21 minutes left, and I feel the responsible thing to do would be to stand for 21 minutes and take my full time so that the minister suffers the full pain of it and just to hammer home to him that if things are done properly, sometimes they move more quickly than doing a bodgie job. This is a low point to be leaving on, simply because the minister could not be bothered going up there for a few minutes and asking a simple question. I note that the form of words I proposed would not have changed the intention of the bill or diminished the protection available to competent doctors. All it would have done is created an inconvenience for the Parliament because the bill would have needed to go to the upper house again.
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8799
Two things would have needed to happen: there would have to have been a chat with the Minister for Mental Health; and it would have had to go the upper house again. It is a pretty sad state of affairs. Prior to this legislation being passed, I would have thought Maryanne Connor would have had a fairly substantial case she could have taken to the court. She could have said, “I was made an involuntary patient, dragged out of my bed on a Friday night by two police officers because a 23-year-old occupational therapist did not like the fact that I shouted at her. I was put in hospital and put on a range of psychotropic drugs that had nearly killed me previously, by a doctor who did not even know when it was pointed out to him in the Mental Health Review Board hearing that these drugs were contraindicated. I want legal redress; my rights were violated by your system in your hospital.” Now what is she supposed to do? “Well, I’m sorry, the judge has great sympathy for you, Ms Connor, but Parliament passed legislation that says that all omissions after 28 October 2010 are exempt. Your actions happened in early 2012, so therefore you have no coverage. On your bike; you lose. In fact, you don’t even have a case.” Legislation that has been drafted to correct legislation that was previously drafted by this government that had unintended consequences now appears to have a very serious unintended consequence. It is appalling. It is an appalling abrogation of responsibility. I thought more of the minister; I really did. All he needed to do was move on to something else, because we have other things we could have debated—we could have been debating them now—and we could have come back and the minister could have explained the circumstances and why the answer was yes or no. We would have had a brief debate, and that would have been the end of the process. But, no, it is all too hard and too inconvenient; it would have meant that he would have had to go and find the mental health minister and we might have had to pass a message up to the other house. Some patients may lose and suffer as a result of that inaction. We need this legislation to protect doctors’ rights, but it is interesting that the government regards that as urgent. One thing I have learned in my time in politics is that nobody has the capacity to bring down governments more quickly than doctors. If the doctors are kept happy, even if they are doing a bad job, the sources of all the horror stories that happen in the health system dry up. So if the government complies and does exactly what the doctors tell them to—they say “jump” and the government asks “how high?”—then the horror stories about the health system dry up. I suggest that the minister has been relatively successful in selling his public message because he is not prepared to tackle institutionalised power; the sorts of things we hear are going on at Peel Health Campus are starting to make a lot of sense to me. I am appalled and disappointed. I thought this legislation was being brought in in good faith; the opposition certainly supported it in good faith. Now we find that the government is not prepared to just follow through the processes that this Parliament set in train to protect the interests of the people of Western Australia. This is not a happy note to finish on, but I will resume my seat because it seems to be a futile argument. I will pass to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition so that he may follow on from what I have said. MR R.H. COOK (Kwinana — Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [5.38 pm]: I will not detain the chamber longer than is necessary. I thought the member for Bassendean gave a very good valedictory speech the other night summing up his career, but I think he has actually done one thing better last night and today—he has demonstrated the true nature of his contribution to this place, which is that he is an unceasing and uncompromising pursuer of the rights of people in our community. Mr T.G. Stephens: Hear, hear! It was a great speech! Mr R.H. COOK: He also demonstrated the need for us in this place to be ever vigilant about those rights and make sure that we brook no quarter in defending people’s rights and ensuring that the laws we pass in this place do not unnecessarily comprise the rights and liberties of the individual. He has very genuine concerns about that part of the bill in relation to the definition of “omission” under an act in that it may compromise people’s rights, and in particular he talked about Maryanne Connor. Member for Bassendean, I think ultimately whether an act is a positive thing to do or an omission, I think if it is negligent it will continue to be captured as a negligent act, either by positive action or omission. Dr K.D. Hames: I’ve been seeking information, and, member for Bassendean, I understand a bit your angst. I will put the information I’ve got. What I’ve got now says that all this does—that particular section—under the act, is ensure that a consumer can’t bring a complaint against the doctor for not being registered. So, it has nothing to do with things of what the doctor does or doesn’t do and what they can be sued for or can’t be sued for. The omission does not relate to missing out on doing medication. If there is any other action or any other act of omission, the consumer can still go through the normal complaint process, regardless of this act. So, that’s the more written answer. Mr M.P. Whitely: While you’re interjecting, because I’ve finished now, what’s the source of that advice? Dr K.D. Hames: The minister’s staff are listening and provided that. Mr M.P. Whitely: If you don’t mind —
8800 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012]
Mr R.H. COOK: No, not at all! Mr M.P. Whitely: I’m now getting an answer that we should’ve got in consideration in detail. Dr K.D. Hames: I don’t disagree with you. I’m sitting here somewhat embarrassed by the whole process that I didn’t have better information. Mr M.P. Whitely: If we could just do this interchange for a couple of — Mr R.H. COOK: Yes, I am happy to stay on my feet. Dr K.D. Hames: That’s all the information I’ve got. Mr M.P. Whitely: Okay, but you read it once—I haven’t got it in front of me—and I couldn’t hear it. Dr K.D. Hames: I’ll give it to you. Mr M.P. Whitely: Perhaps we might let you resume your comments and I’ll have a read. Dr K.D. Hames: Excellent speech you’re giving there! Mr R.H. COOK: I am pausing for effect! As I pause, I find that people are interjecting all over the place. Dr K.D. Hames: I thought that was the world’s smallest violin! Mr R.H. COOK: The importance of the member for Bassendean’s contribution is that it really underscores how we must always be vigilant in this place, as I said, to protect people’s rights. This is in part what the stuff of parliament is about: we go into consideration in detail, and out of that discussion comes a range of points of view, concerns, questions and lines of inquiry. For instance, I did not receive an offer of a briefing on this bill and perhaps I should have sought one, understanding that debate on the bill would come up soon. Perhaps the minister should have had advisers available to him to ensure that we did not get tripped up by these sorts of things. This is perhaps a really good lesson in how we conduct ourselves in this place—never to underestimate the legislative process and make sure that we clarify these points and have at our disposal the advice that gives us confidence to pass these laws or to oppose them, as the case may be. The Labor opposition confirms our indication given in the second reading debate that we intend to support this legislation, as we did in the other place. Although this is not tidy law, it is perhaps, as the member for Bassendean pointed out, necessary law to make sure that we are not exposing these psychiatrists in the way the legislation is conducted. Mr M.P. Whitely: Can I have one of these three-way conversations? Mr R.H. COOK: I am happy to pause for effect again, yes. Mr M.P. Whitely: Are you responding to the third reading debate? Dr K.D. Hames: Yes. Mr M.P. Whitely: Let’s have some of that exchange that we could’ve had then. Do I have that undertaking? The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is very difficult for the Hansard reporter to record a three-way conversation. This is not going to work, so we are not going to have a three-way conversation. Mr R.H. COOK: I think that the minister is indicating that when he rises to his feet, he may take one or two very small interjections that will not overly burden the Parliament. On that basis, I am happy to resume my seat. I commend the bill to the house. DR K.D. HAMES (Dawesville — Minister for Health) [5.44 pm] — in reply: I thank the opposition for its support of the Mental Health Amendment (Psychiatrists) Bill 2012 and also the members who have spoken on this issue. It quite clearly showed the problem of not having advisers in the chamber, because I have been harassed by members for being nasty when, I have to say, that it was not with any great deliberation on my part. However, members will understand the process that sometimes happens on the last day; advisers were available but when we were supposed to deal with this bill, which was a significant time ago — Mr M.P. Whitely: In terms of my relationships with Ministers for Health, I thought I had a good one with you! Dr K.D. HAMES: We were not aware at the start of the day that we would spend four hours on committee reports and we were prepared to deal with this bill at a different time. It just shows what happens when ministers do not have advisers with them to give details. Hopefully, the next ministers have their advisers sitting there waiting because there is plenty of time to anticipate. I gather that the member for Bassendean wants to interject. Mr M.P. Whitely: Yes. Effectively, this piece of paper that’s been handed to me says it’s not a problem. Dr K.D. HAMES: Yes. Can I table that piece of paper and make a difference?
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8801
Mr M.P. Whitely: Could you, because maybe that might add weight to it? Dr K.D. HAMES: I will read it into Hansard. Mr T.G. Stephens: If by any chance that advice proved to be wrong before the proclamation, would you be able to undertake to the house that the bill wouldn’t get proclaimed? Dr K.D. HAMES: Absolutely; I give that commitment. I will read in what this says with regards to omissions and that particular proposed new section in the act. It states — All this does, under this Act, is ensure that a consumer can’t bring a complaint against the Dr for not being registered. If there is any other action or any other omission of an action — the consumer can still go through normal complaints process, — Which can lead, in fact, to disciplinary action against the doctor or even deregistration of the doctor. It continues — regardless of this act. That clarifies what clause 5 of the bill is about. As we all understand, we are not lawyers and we do not write legislation and it is not always easy to understand a clause that sits before us in a bill. For the life of me, I could not work it out any better than members opposite could. I hope that clarifies the issue. Mr T.G. Stephens: Do you mind me seeking an assurance from the shadow minister, in case he’s the health minister by the time this legislation is enacted? Can you give the same absolute undertaking? Mr R.H. Cook: Absolutely! The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, thank you! Mr T.G. Stephens: Member, that’s very good; I think the house can be doubly assured! Dr K.D. HAMES: Given that this is the last day and there is other legislation to go through, I thank members for their somewhat cooperation on this bill and commend it to the house. Question put and passed. Bill read a third time and passed. COMMUNITY PROTECTION (OFFENDER REPORTING) AMENDMENT BILL 2011 Council’s Amendments — Consideration in Detail The following amendments made by the Council now considered — No 1 Page 12, lines 27 and 28 — To delete “form of identification or other document,” and insert — identification documents, No 2 Page 12, lines 30 and 31 — To delete the lines and insert — required by subsection (2A); No 3 Page 13, after line 2 — To insert — (2) Delete section 38(1)(c) and insert: (c) if not the reportable offender — present for inspection — (i) any passport that the person holds; or (ii) if the person does not hold a passport — the identification documents, relating to the identity of the person making the report, required by subsection (2A). (3) After section 38(1) insert: (2A) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a)(ii) and (c)(ii), the identification documents required are — (a) any one of the following — (i) a current driver’s licence that displays a photograph or digital image of the licence holder; (ii) an Australian naturalisation or citizenship document;
8802 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012]
(iii) an original birth certificate or a certified copy, or certified extract, of a birth certificate; (iv) a form of identification or document prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph; and (b) any one of the following — (i) a current signed credit or debit card, a passbook or a statement of account issued by a bank, building society or credit union; (ii) a current Medicare card; (iii) a gas, water, electricity or telephone account issued within 12 months before the report is made; (iv) a notice of rates from a local government (however described) or a notice of water service charges or land valuation; (v) a pensioner concession card, a Commonwealth seniors health card, an entitlement card issued under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Commonwealth) or another entitlement card issued by the Commonwealth government or a State or Territory government; (vi) a lease or rental agreement; (vii) a motor vehicle registration notice or certificate; (viii) a renewal notice for a home building or contents, or a motor vehicle, policy of insurance; (ix) a student identity card or a certificate or statement of enrolment from an educational institution; (x) an electoral enrolment card or other evidence of electoral enrolment; (xi) a form of identification or document prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph. (2B) A form of identification or other document is not valid for the purposes of subsection (2A)(b)(iv) to (xi) unless it was issued or entered into, as the case requires, within 2 years before the report is made. (2C) Except as stated in subsection (2A)(a)(iii), a form of identification or other document is not valid for the purposes of subsection (2A) unless it is an original. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 1 made by the Council be agreed to. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Can the minister give an explanation as to why this amendment is necessary? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: What this and the other two amendments on the notice paper effectively do is move the forms of identification previously prescribed by regulation into the legislation. For the purposes of officers from the sex offender management squad who investigate and indeed deal with reportable offenders, in order to ascertain the identity of these offenders, officers from time to time require offenders to present identification. That identification has, in the past, been a passport or other forms of identification as prescribed by regulation. This amendment will import the other forms of identification into the legislation. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Why was it decided to put this into the bill rather than leave it in the regulations, as was argued in this house? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: It was a Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review recommendation that was moved in the other place. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 2 made by the Council be agreed to.
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8803
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I seek an explanation from the minister as to why this amendment is required. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: As per my previous explanation, this amendment effectively activates the next clause, which is dealt with at amendment 3. It enables the other forms of identification to be used under the legislation for the purposes of the sex offender management squad. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Amendment 2 reads — Page 12, lines 30 and 31 — To delete the lines and insert — required by subsection (2A); Can the minister explain what subsection (2A) is? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Subsection (2A) is on the notice paper under amendment 3. It amends section 38(1) of the act. Subsection (2A) prescribes the identification documents into the legislation. It is on pages 9 and 10 of the notice paper. Mrs M.H. Roberts: That is actually in amendment 3. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Yes. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 3 made by the Council be agreed to. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: With amendment 3, there is a section to be deleted and a section to be inserted. I ask the minister why the section there to be deleted is being deleted? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: The words being deleted prescribed that a passport can be used as identification. With the subsequent parts of this amendment, a passport is the preferred and primary form of identification. The offender will be compelled to use it. In the absence of a passport, we have prescribed the other forms of identification that can be used. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Where has that list come from? Is it modelled on other legislation or is it uniform with what other states have in place? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: We had requirements in our previous legislation for offenders to provide their passport for identification. These additional forms of identification have come in part from other jurisdictions. They are recommendations from the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review. They were previously prescribed by regulation; they are now forming part of the legislation. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. The Council acquainted accordingly. CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION (COVERT POWERS) BILL 2011 Council’s Amendments — Consideration in Detail The following amendments made by the Council now considered — No 1 Page 2, after line 14 — To insert — authorising officer, for a law enforcement agency, means — (a) in relation to the Police Force or the fisheries department — the Commissioner of Police; (b) in relation to the Australian Crime Commission — the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Crime Commission; No 2 Page 2, line 15 — To delete the line and insert — chief officer, of a law enforcement agency, means — No 3 Page 5, after line 28 — To insert — Corruption and Crime Commission means the Corruption and Crime Commission established under the Corruption and Crime Commission Act 2003; No 4 Page 6, lines 12 to 14 — To delete the lines.
8804 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012]
No 5 Page 6, lines 26 and 27 — To delete the lines and insert — (b) an offence not covered by paragraph (a) that is prescribed for the purposes of this definition, being an offence under any of the following Acts — (i) the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1996; (ii) The Criminal Code; (iii) the Firearms Act 1973; (iv) the Fish Resources Management Act 1994; (v) the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981; (vi) the Prostitution Act 2000; (vii) the Weapons Act 1999; No 6 Page 8, line 19 — To delete “chief officer of” and insert — authorising officer for No 7 Page 9, line 2 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising No 8 Page 9, line 14 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising No 9 Page 9, line 21 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising No 10 Page 9, line 23 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising No 11 Page 9, line 27 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising No 12 Page 10, line 4 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising No 13 Page 10, line 10 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising No 14 Page 10, line 33 — To insert after “have” — been No 15 Page 11, line 11 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising No 16 Page 11, line 15 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising No 17 Page 11, line 20 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8805
No 18 Page 11, line 27 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising No 19 Page 12, line 12 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising No 20 Page 12, line 23 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising No 21 Page 12, line 27 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising No 22 Page 13, line 18 — To delete “be” and insert — be, or is likely to be, No 23 Page 14, lines 28 to 30 — To delete the lines and insert — (8) The authorising officer must, as soon as practicable after granting an urgent authority, make a record in writing of the particulars referred to in subsection (6) relating to the authority. No 24 Page 15, line 6 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising No 25 Page 15, line 7 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising No 26 Page 15, line 11 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising No 27 Page 15, line 16 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising No 28 Page 16, line 4 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising No 29 Page 16, line 30 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising No 30 Page 17, line 5 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising No 31 Page 17, line 7 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising No 32 Page 17, line 11 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising
8806 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012]
No 33 Page 17, line 15 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising No 34 Page 17, line 24 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising No 35 Page 18, line 11 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising No 36 Page 19, lines 16 to 18 — To delete the lines and insert — (6) The authorising officer must, as soon as practicable after making an urgent variation of authority, make a record in writing of the particulars referred to in subsection (5) relating to the variation of authority. No 37 Page 19, line 20 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising No 38 Page 19, line 23 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising No 39 Page 20, line 17 — To delete “jurisdictions specified in the authority; or” and insert — jurisdictions; or No 40 Page 20, lines 18 and 19 — To delete “jurisdictions specified in the authority,” and insert — jurisdictions, No 41 Page 21, line 7 — To insert after “hours” — (or any longer period that the authorising officer may, in exceptional circumstances, allow) No 42 Page 21, line 8 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising No 43 Page 21, line 11 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising No 44 Page 21, line 12 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising No 45 Page 21, line 14 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising No 46 Page 21, line 17 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising No 47 Page 21, line 22 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8807
No 48 Page 22, line 30 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising No 49 Page 23, line 3 — To delete “A chief” and insert — An authorising No 50 Page 23, line 4 — To delete “Parliamentary Commissioner” and insert — Corruption and Crime Commission No 51 Page 23, line 10 — To delete “Parliamentary Commissioner” and insert — Corruption and Crime Commission No 52 Page 23, line 10 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising No 53 Page 23, line 12 — To delete “Parliamentary Commissioner’s” and insert — Corruption and Crime Commission’s No 54 Page 26, line 1 — To delete “chief officer of” and insert — authorising officer for No 55 Page 26, line 8 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising No 56 Page 28, lines 26 and 27 — To delete “an authorised operation” and insert — a controlled operation for which an authority is or was in force No 57 Page 29, after line 11 — To insert — (ca) for the purpose of seeking legal advice; or (cb) to a government agency for the purposes of a law enforcement operation conducted by that agency or for intelligence-gathering purposes; or No 58 Page 30, after line 8 — To insert — (g) details (to the extent known) of any loss of or serious damage to property, or any personal injuries, occurring as an indirect result of the operation; (h) information as to whether — (i) in the course of the operation, any participant engaged in unlawful conduct (other than controlled conduct that the participant was authorised to engage in for the purposes of the operation); and (ii) any unlawful conduct (other than controlled conduct) was engaged in during the operation; and (iii) any person is, because of section 31, not criminally responsible for ancillary conduct (as defined in that section); and (iv) any variations were made to an authority for the operation; and (v) any of those variations were to extend the period of validity of the authority; and (vi) any retrospective authority was granted in respect of the operation; and
8808 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012]
(vii) any urgent authority was granted in respect of the operation; and (viii) any conditions of an authority for the operation were breached. No 59 Page 30, line 12 — To delete “Parliamentary Commissioner” and insert — Corruption and Crime Commission No 60 Page 30, line 18 — To delete “chief officer,” and insert — authorising officer for the agency, No 61 Page 30, line 20 — To delete “chief officer,” and insert — authorising officer for the agency, No 62 Page 30, line 24 — To delete “chief officer; and” and insert — authorising officer for the agency; and No 63 Page 30, lines 25 and 26 — To delete “chief officer; and” and insert — authorising officer for the agency; and No 64 Page 30, line 29 — To delete “chief officer,” and insert — authorising officer for the agency, No 65 Page 31, line 11 — To delete “chief officer” and insert — authorising officer for the agency No 66 Page 31, line 16 — To delete “Parliamentary Commissioner” and insert — Corruption and Crime Commission No 67 Page 31, line 31 — To delete “Parliamentary Commissioner” and insert — Corruption and Crime Commission No 68 Page 32, lines 14 to 16 — To delete the lines and insert — (3) The Minister must — (a) exclude information from the report if satisfied on the advice of the chief officer of any of the grounds set out in subsection (2); and (b) insert a statement to the effect that information has been excluded from the report under paragraph (a). No 69 Page 32, lines 22 and 23 — To delete “Parliamentary Commissioner” and insert — Corruption and Crime Commission No 70 Page 33, lines 10 and 11 — To delete “chief officer;” and insert — authorising officer for the agency; No 71 Page 35, line 20 — To delete “Parliamentary Commissioner” and insert — Corruption and Crime Commission No 72 Page 35, lines 25 to 28 — To delete the lines and insert —
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8809
(2) For the purposes of an inspection under this section, the Corruption and Crime Commission — (a) after notifying the chief officer of the law enforcement agency, may enter at any reasonable time premises occupied by the agency; and (b) is entitled to have full and free access at all reasonable times to all records of the law enforcement agency that are relevant to the inspection; and (c) may require a person employed or engaged in the law enforcement agency to give the Corruption and Crime Commission any information that the Corruption and Crime Commission considers necessary, being information that is in the person’s possession, or to which the person has access, and that is relevant to the inspection. (2A) The Corruption and Crime Commission may delegate to an officer of the Commission (as defined in the Corruption and Crime Commission Act 2003 section 3(1)) a power or duty of the Corruption and Crime Commission under this section and, for that purpose, the Corruption and Crime Commission Act 2003 section 185(3) to (6) apply as if the delegation were a delegation under section 185. No 73 Page 35, lines 30 and 31 — To delete “Parliamentary Commissioner” and insert — Corruption and Crime Commission No 74 Page 35, line 31 — To delete “Parliamentary Commissioner” and insert — Corruption and Crime Commission No 75 Page 36, line 1 — To delete “Parliamentary Commissioner” and insert — Corruption and Crime Commission No 76 Page 37, lines 3 to 12 — To delete the lines and insert — senior officer means — (a) in relation to an authorising officer or chief officer who is the Commissioner of Police — a police officer of or above the rank of Commander; or (b) in relation to an authorising officer or chief officer who is the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Crime Commission — (i) an SES employee as defined in the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Commonwealth) section 4(1); or (ii) a person holding a prescribed office in the Australian Crime Commission; or (c) in relation to a chief officer who is the chief executive officer of the fisheries department — a fisheries officer holding a prescribed office in the department. No 77 Page 37, line 14 — To delete “of a” and insert — of an authorising officer or No 78 Page 37, line 16 — To delete “chief officer of” and insert — authorising officer for, or chief officer of, No 79 Page 37, lines 17 and 18 — To delete “of the agency any of the chief officer’s” and insert — any of his or her No 80 Page 40, line 14 — To delete “chief officer of” and insert — authorising officer for
8810 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012]
No 81 Page 41, line 2 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising No 82 Page 41, line 30 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising No 83 Page 42, line 1 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising No 84 Page 42, line 5 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising No 85 Page 42, line 9 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising No 86 Page 42, line 15 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising No 87 Page 43, line 27 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising No 88 Page 44, line 2 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising No 89 Page 45, lines 13 to 15 — To delete the lines and insert — (7) The authorising officer must, as soon as practicable after granting an urgent authority, make a record in writing of the particulars referred to in subsection (5) relating to the authority. No 90 Page 45, line 30 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising No 91 Page 46, line 5 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising No 92 Page 46, line 11 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising No 93 Page 46, line 17 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising No 94 Page 47, lines 12 to 14 — To delete the lines and insert — (10) The authorising officer must, as soon as practicable after making an urgent variation of authority, make a record in writing of the particulars referred to in subsection (9) relating to the variation of authority. No 95 Page 47, line 16 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8811
No 96 Page 47, line 17 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising No 97 Page 47, line 20 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising No 98 Page 47, line 26 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising No 99 Page 48, line 2 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising No 100 Page 48, lines 25 to 27 — To delete the lines and insert — (9) The authorising officer must, as soon as practicable after making an urgent cancellation of authority, make a record in writing of the particulars referred to in subsection (8) relating to the cancellation of authority. No 101 Page 48, line 29 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising No 102 Page 48, line 30 — To delete “chief officer or a delegate of the chief” and insert — authorising officer or a delegate of the authorising No 103 Page 49, line 5 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising No 104 Page 49, line 8 — To delete “chief” and insert — authorising No 105 Page 50, line 18 — To delete “chief officer” and insert — authorising officer for a law enforcement agency No 106 Page 50, line 26 — To insert after “officer” — of the law enforcement agency No 107 Page 50, line 29 — To insert after “officer” — of the law enforcement agency No 108 Page 51, lines 23 and 24 — To delete “an authority granted under section 48 authorises” and insert — the authorising officer for a law enforcement agency grants an authority under section 48 authorising No 109 Page 51, line 25 — To delete “who grants the authority” and insert — of the law enforcement agency No 110 Page 55, line 8 — To delete “chief officer of” and insert — authorising officer for
8812 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012]
No 111 Page 55, line 10 — To insert after “officer” — of the law enforcement agency No 112 Page 56, lines 22 and 23 — To delete “an authority granted under section 48 authorises” and insert — the authorising officer for a law enforcement agency grants an authority under section 48 authorising No 113 Page 56, line 24 — To delete “who grants the authority” and insert — of the law enforcement agency No 114 Page 61, line 11 — To delete “both Houses” and insert — each House No 115 Page 61, lines 18 to 20 — To delete the lines and insert — (3) The Minister must — (a) exclude information from the report if satisfied on the advice of the chief officer of any of the grounds set out in subsection (2); and (b) insert a statement to the effect that information has been excluded from the report under paragraph (a). No 116 Page 63, lines 15 to 22 — To delete the lines and insert — (a) in relation to an authorising officer or chief officer who is the Commissioner of Police — a police officer of or above the rank of superintendent; or (b) in relation to an authorising officer or chief officer who is the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Crime Commission — (i) an SES employee as defined in the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Commonwealth) section 4(1); or (ii) a person holding a prescribed office in the Australian Crime Commission; or (c) in relation to a chief officer who is the chief executive officer of the fisheries department — a fisheries officer holding a prescribed office in the department; or No 117 Page 63, line 28 — To delete “of a” and insert — of an authorising officer or No 118 Page 64, line 1 — To delete “A chief officer of” and insert — An authorising officer for, or chief officer of, No 119 Page 64, line 2 — To delete “of the agency any of the chief officer’s” and insert — any of his or her No 120 Page 65, lines 22 and 23 — To delete “or by either or both Houses of Parliament”. No 121 Page 65, after line 27 — To insert — court proceeding means any criminal, civil or other proceeding before, or inquiry, reference or examination by, a court, and includes an arbitration;
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8813
No 122 Page 66, after line 8 — To insert — parliamentary committee means a committee or other body established by either or both Houses of Parliament to inquire into any matter; parliamentary proceeding means any proceeding before, or inquiry, reference or examination by, a parliamentary committee; No 123 Page 66, lines 16 to 18 — To delete the lines and insert — proceeding means a court proceeding or a parliamentary proceeding; No 124 Page 67, lines 12 to 18 — To delete the clause. No 125 New Clause 84A Page 70, after line 14 — To insert — Division 2A — Provisions applicable to court proceeding 84A. Application of Division (1) This Division applies in relation to a court proceeding in which an operative is, or may be, required to give evidence obtained as an operative. (2) To remove any doubt, this Division does not affect the operation of the common law in relation to the protection of the identity of a person who is not an operative who gives or intends to give evidence in a court proceeding. No 126 Page 70, line 17 — To insert after “to a” — court No 127 Page 72, lines 17 to 19 — To delete “(including any applications relating to the proceeding, such as those referred to in sections 86, 88 and 90)” and insert — (including any application relating to the proceeding, such as an application for an order under paragraph (b) or an application under section 86 or 90) No 128 Page 77, after line 8 — To insert — Division 2B — Provisions applicable to parliamentary proceeding 93A. Application of Division This Division applies in relation to a parliamentary proceeding in which an operative is, or may be, required to give evidence obtained as an operative. 93B. Witness identity protection certificate to be given to Parliament (1) A witness identity protection certificate for an operative in relation to a parliamentary proceeding must be given — (a) to the Clerk of the House of Parliament that established the parliamentary committee concerned; or (b) if the parliamentary committee concerned was established by both Houses of Parliament, to the Clerk of each House of Parliament, before the operative gives evidence in the proceeding. (2) The certificate must be given at least 14 days before the day on which the operative is to give evidence, unless in the circumstances it is not reasonably practicable to do so. (3) The person who gives the certificate must give a copy of it to the operative before the day on which the operative is to give evidence.
8814 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012]
93C. Effect of witness identity protection certificate (1) This section applies if a witness identity protection certificate for an operative is given in accordance with section 93B in relation to a parliamentary proceeding. (2) If this section applies — (a) the operative may give evidence in the proceeding under the assumed name, or court name, stated in the certificate; and (b) subject to any resolution passed under section 93D(4) — (i) a question must not be asked of a witness, including the operative, that may lead to the disclosure of the operative’s true identity or where the operative lives; and (ii) a witness, including the operative, cannot be required to (and must not) answer a question, give evidence or provide information that discloses, or may lead to the disclosure of, the operative’s true identity or where the operative lives; and (iii) a person involved in the proceeding must not make a statement that discloses, or may lead to the disclosure of, the operative’s true identity or where the operative lives. (3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b)(iii), a person involved in a proceeding includes — (a) a member of the parliamentary committee; and (b) a party to the proceeding; and (c) a person given leave to be heard or make submissions in the proceeding; and (d) a lawyer representing a person referred to in paragraph (b) or (c) or a lawyer assisting the parliamentary committee in the proceeding; and (e) any other person assisting the parliamentary committee in the proceeding; and (f) a person acting in the execution of any process or the enforcement of any order in the proceeding. (4) If this section applies, any evidence given by the operative in the proceeding must be given in private. 93D. Disclosure of operative’s true identity or location despite certificate (1) In this section — relevant House, in relation to a parliamentary committee, means — (a) if the parliamentary committee was established by a House of Parliament — that House; or (b) if the parliamentary committee was established by both Houses of Parliament — each House. (2) This section applies if a witness identity protection certificate for an operative is given in accordance with section 93B in relation to a parliamentary proceeding. (3) The parliamentary committee may seek the authorisation of the relevant House —
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8815
(a) to ask a question of a witness, including the operative, that may lead to the disclosure of the operative’s true identity or where the operative lives; or (b) to require a witness, including the operative, to answer a question, give evidence or provide information that discloses, or may lead to the disclosure of, the operative’s true identity or where the operative lives; or (c) for a person involved in the proceeding to make a statement that discloses, or may lead to the disclosure of, the operative’s true identity or where the operative lives. (4) The relevant House may pass a resolution authorising the doing of anything mentioned in subsection (3)(a), (b) or (c). (5) However, the relevant House must not pass a resolution unless satisfied about each of the following — (a) there is evidence that, if accepted, would substantially call into question the operative’s credibility; (b) it would be impracticable to test properly the credibility of the operative without allowing the risk of disclosure of, or disclosing, the operative’s true identity or where the operative lives. 93E. Restrictions on content of reports to Parliament If a witness identity protection certificate for an operative is given in accordance with section 93B in relation to a parliamentary proceeding, the parliamentary committee must not disclose in a report to a House of Parliament — (a) the operative’s true identity or where the operative lives; or (b) information that may lead to the disclosure of the operative’s identity or where the operative lives. Division 2C — Other matters No 129 Page 77, lines 17 to 21 — To delete the lines and insert — (3) If the chief officer cancels the certificate — (a) after it has been filed in a court and before the matter has been finalised by the court, the chief officer must immediately give written notice to the court and each party to the proceeding that the certificate has been cancelled; or (b) after it has been given to the Clerk of a House of Parliament and before the matter has been finalised by the parliamentary committee concerned, the chief officer must immediately give written notice to the Clerk that the certificate has been cancelled. No 130 Page 78, after line 23 — To insert — (3) Nothing in this section limits or otherwise affects the operation of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1891. No 131 Page 81, line 8 — To delete the line and insert — (i) an SES employee as defined in the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Commonwealth) section 4(1); or No 132 Page 82, after line 6 — To insert — 101A. Review of Parts 2 and 3 (1) The Minister must carry out a review of the operation and effectiveness of Parts 2 and 3 as soon as is practicable after the end of the period of 5 years beginning on the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent.
8816 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012]
(2) The Minister must prepare a report based on the review and must cause the report to be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as is practicable after it is prepared and, in any event, not later than 18 months after the end of the period referred to in subsection (1). No 133 Page 84, after line 10 — To insert — Part 7A — Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 amended 106A. Act amended This Part amends the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003. 106B. Section 13 amended In section 13(5) delete “section 27.” and insert: section 27 or the Criminal Investigation (Covert Powers) Act 2012 section 27, 31 or 34. 106C. Section 16 amended In section 16(5) delete “section 27.” and insert: section 27 or the Criminal Investigation (Covert Powers) Act 2012 section 27, 31 or 34. 106D. Section 17 amended In section 17(5) delete “section 27.” and insert: section 27 or the Criminal Investigation (Covert Powers) Act 2012 section 27, 31 or 34. No 134 Page 89, line 16 — To delete “34D” and insert — 34D or 34K No 135 Page 89, after line 21 — To insert — Subdivision 1 — Terms used No 136 Page 90, after line 13 — To insert — court includes — (a) a tribunal or other body established or continued under a written law and having a power to obtain evidence or information; (b) a Royal Commission established under the Royal Commissions Act 1968; (c) a commission, board, committee or other body established by the Governor or by the Government of the State to inquire into any matter; court proceedings means any proceedings in a court; No 137 Page 90, after line 17 — To insert — parliamentary committee means a committee or other body established by either or both Houses of Parliament to inquire into any matter; parliamentary proceedings means any proceedings before a parliamentary committee; No 138 Page 90, after line 25 — To insert — proceedings means court proceedings or parliamentary proceedings; No 139 Page 91, after line 17 — To insert — Subdivision 2 — Non-disclosure certificates for protected persons
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8817
No 140 Page 91, line 23 — To delete “court,” and insert — court or in parliamentary proceedings, No 141 Page 91, lines 27 to 29 — To delete the lines and insert — (3) The Commissioner may give a certificate for the protected person in relation to the proceedings and — (a) file a copy with the court; or (b) give a copy to the Clerk of the House of Parliament that established the parliamentary committee concerned or, if the parliamentary committee concerned was established by both Houses of Parliament, to the Clerk of each House of Parliament, as the case requires. No 142 Page 92, after line 17 — To insert — Subdivision 3 — Provisions applicable to court proceedings 34CA. Application of Subdivision This Subdivision applies in relation to court proceedings in which a protected person is, or may be, required to give evidence. No 143 Page 98, after line 6 — To insert — Subdivision 4 — Provisions applicable to parliamentary proceedings 34I. Application of Subdivision This Subdivision applies in relation to parliamentary proceedings in which a protected person is, or may be, required to give evidence. 34J. Effect of non-disclosure certificate (1) In this section — person involved, in proceedings, includes — (a) a member of the parliamentary committee; and (b) a party to the proceedings; and (c) a person given leave to be heard or make submissions in the proceedings; and (d) a lawyer representing a person referred to in paragraph (b) or (c) or a lawyer assisting the parliamentary committee in the proceedings; and (e) any other person assisting the parliamentary committee in the proceedings; and (f) a person acting in the execution of any process or the enforcement of any order in the proceedings. (2) This section applies if a non-disclosure certificate for a protected person is given under section 34A(3)(b) in relation to parliamentary proceedings. (3) If this section applies, in the proceedings — (a) a question must not be asked of a witness, including the protected person, that may lead to the disclosure of the protected person’s protected identity or protected address or both; and (b) a witness, including the protected person, cannot be required to (and must not) answer a question, give evidence or provide information that discloses, or may lead to the disclosure of, the
8818 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012]
protected person’s protected identity or protected address or both; and (c) a person involved in the proceedings must not make a statement that discloses, or may lead to the disclosure of, the protected person’s protected identity or protected address or both. (4) The parliamentary committee may disclose to each party to the proceedings — (a) that a non-disclosure certificate for a person who may be required to give evidence in the proceedings has been given; and (b) what the certificate states. (5) If the parliamentary committee makes a disclosure about the non- disclosure certificate under subsection (4), the committee must also inform the parties of the effect of the certificate. (6) This section applies despite any other Act, but subject to section 34K. 34K. Disclosure of protected person’s identity despite certificate (1) In this section — relevant House, in relation to a parliamentary committee, means — (a) if the parliamentary committee was established by a House of Parliament — that House; or (b) if the parliamentary committee was established by both Houses of Parliament — each House. (2) This section applies if a non-disclosure certificate for a protected person is given under section 34A(3)(b) in relation to parliamentary proceedings. (3) The parliamentary committee may seek the authorisation of the relevant House — (a) to ask a question of a witness, including the protected person, that may lead to the disclosure of the protected person’s protected identity or protected address or both; or (b) to require a witness, including the protected person, to answer a question, give evidence or provide information that discloses, or may lead to the disclosure of, the protected person’s protected identity or protected address or both; or (c) for a person involved in the proceedings to make a statement that discloses, or may lead to the disclosure of, the protected person’s protected identity or protected address or both. (4) The relevant House may pass a resolution authorising the doing of anything mentioned in subsection (3)(a), (b) or (c). (5) However, the relevant House must not pass a resolution unless satisfied about each of the following — (a) there is evidence that, if accepted, would substantially call into question the protected person’s credibility; (b) it would be impracticable to test properly the credibility of the protected person without allowing the risk of disclosure of, or disclosing, the protected person’s protected identity or protected address or both. 34L. Restrictions on content of reports to Parliament If a non-disclosure certificate for a protected person is given under section 34A(3)(b) in relation to parliamentary proceedings, the parliamentary committee must not disclose in a report to a House of Parliament —
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8819
(a) the protected person’s protected identity or protected address; or (b) information that may lead to the disclosure of the protected person’s protected identity or protected address. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 1 made by the Council be agreed to. Ms M.M. QUIRK: This amendment effectively makes the Commissioner of Police the authorising officer in the context of any applications made by the fisheries department, whereas previously it was the chief executive officer. Is that correct? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: That is correct. Ms M.M. QUIRK: Is this an amendment brought up by the committee or a government amendment? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: The Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review opposed fisheries officers being part of this legislation altogether. This is a government amendment to include fisheries officers but to have the Commissioner of Police be the authorising officer for fisheries officers’ covert operations. Ms M.M. QUIRK: In other words, the committee recommended that the fisheries department not be included. The committee’s recommendation has been rejected but then for some reason the Commissioner of Police has been put in. I just want to know what the rationale for that is. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: As with many pieces of legislation in this place, this is a compromise perspective where we are still allowing fisheries officers to conduct covert investigations and to take on the assumed identities as per this legislation. However, in order for those operations to be authorised, they now need to be authorised by the Commissioner of Police rather than the CEO of the fisheries department. Indeed, a number of amendments on the notice paper relate to the removal of the CEO of the fisheries department as the authorising officer for the fisheries aspect of this legislation. The authorising officer needs to be the Commissioner of Police. Ms M.M. QUIRK: The issue I have with this is that, presumably, the reason that a Department of Fisheries officer will go to the Director General of Fisheries is that there is a line of authority. If, for example, a fisheries officer does something wrong, he is effectively sanctioned by his departmental head. I am a bit concerned that now a fisheries officer will effectively go to the commissioner and there will be no direct discipline or sanctions. The commissioner has no authority in relation to that officer. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Any disciplinary matters in relation to the fisheries officers would be dealt with under the Public Sector Management Act in any event. This amendment makes the Commissioner of Police the authorising officer for the operations that will put together by the Department of Fisheries. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I am looking at the sixty-ninth report of the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review, which was finished in March 2012, so I wonder why this matter, with almost 150 amendments, has been brought on at this late stage. Recommendation 1 in the committee report states — The Committee recommends that in terms of the implementation of the policy decision to include “the fisheries department” in the definition of “law enforcement agency” in the Criminal Investigation (Covert Powers) Bill 2011, the Department of Fisheries should be excluded. It then suggests how that might be done. Why has the minister chosen not to exclude the fisheries department? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: There are a couple of aspects. Yes, indeed, the committee report is from March 2012 and this legislation has been debated over a long period of time in the other place. With regard to the recommendation in that report, the government believes that it is important that fisheries be part of this legislation. The Australian Crime Commission reports that there is some crossover between crime and fisheries operations. We think it is important that fisheries be part of this. Indeed, with legislation regarding the trafficking of fish, there is a need — Mrs M.H. Roberts: Did you say “trafficking of fish”? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Yes; it is an offence to traffic in fish. Mr J.R. Quigley: Trapping or trafficking? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I will need to get the actual wording for that! Basically, it is illegally catching fish and selling it on the black market. Indeed, there is often a crossover between those activities and organised crime. The Australian Crime Commission has documented the crossover between fisheries and organised crime. We think it is important that fisheries be part of this legislation, but we also believe it is appropriate that the Commissioner of Police be the authorising officer for those covert investigations of fisheries to ensure that each of those departments knows whether the investigations are occurring in the other department’s space.
8820 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012]
Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: I wonder how the minister has arrived at the cut-off point. We know from Corruption and Crime Commission investigations in Western Australia that the trafficking also extends to Australian wildlife and that officers within the Department of Environment and Conservation have been complicit in the trafficking of Carnaby’s cockatoo eggs and other precious wildlife. Ms M.M. Quirk: And numbats. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: What is the rationale of extending it to fisheries but not to DEC? Why is the priority for fish but not for Carnaby’s cockatoos and numbats, as the member for Girrawheen helpfully added? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: We are certainly not precluding the Department of Environment and Conservation from seeking to be part of this legislation at some later point. If we look at the report of the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review on this legislation, we can see that under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994, the serious offences unit has already loosely been conducting undercover operations into the more serious fisheries offences. That committee sought those offences to be included in this legislation. We believe it is appropriate that should fisheries be conducting those sorts of operations, they are authorised by the Commissioner of Police under this legislation. This legislation provides some parameters within which fisheries should be compelled to operate. Ms M.M. QUIRK: We debated this point long and hard when it was last in the chamber. Can the minister clarify this for me? A covert device or whatever can be used by a fisheries officer in accordance with the legislation; nevertheless, the officer now has to go to the Commissioner of Police to get it authorised. Can the investigation just be conducted by fisheries officers without seeking authorisation from the commissioner? In other words, is there no other police involvement other than the commissioner authorising it? Mrs L.M. Harvey: That is correct. Fisheries officers can conduct their own investigations and their own covert operations but they need to be authorised by the Commissioner of Police. Under this legislation, they also need to report on those operations. Ms M.M. QUIRK: In that context, does a minimum term of imprisonment need to be imposed in relation to a specific offence before covert operations can be deployed? Mrs L.M. Harvey: The more serious of the trafficking offences under the Fisheries Act come with a term of imprisonment of four years but the limit proposed in this amendment still stays at three years or more—an offence against the law of the jurisdiction prescribed for the purposes of this definition which we come to in further amendments. Ms M.M. QUIRK: For the purposes of what the commissioner is authorising the fisheries officers to do, what sort of fisheries offences would come within the three-year penalty that is being committed under this legislation? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: They would be under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994—the offence of trafficking in a commercial quantity of priority fish. Mrs M.H. Roberts: Is that a three-year offence or more than three? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: It attracts a term of imprisonment for four years or up to 10 years for some offences. Ms M.M. Quirk: I am asking what offences carry the three-year penalty and will be included. We understand about trafficking. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Offences under the Fisheries Act carry terms of imprisonment of four years and 10 years. We come to the other offences under different acts further along in the amendments. Ms M.M. Quirk: I am talking about the Fisheries Act. There must be offences that carry penalties of three years or more that would be caught within the ambit of this legislation. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: The penalty for trafficking in a commercial quantity of priority fish for an individual for a first offence is imprisonment of four years and for a subsequent offence, imprisonment for 10 years. There is not an offence that prescribes three years. Ms M.M. Quirk: Is that anywhere under the Fish Resources Management Act? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: That is the only offence that fits the threshold of the legislation. Ms M.M. QUIRK: I have one other question on this preliminary clause. I understand that when this legislation went to the Legislative Council, there were a number of government amendments unrelated to the report of the committee. I gather there are something like 143 of those. How many were government amendments independent of any recommendations of the committee, and why were they not included when the matter first came into this house?
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8821
Mrs L.M. HARVEY: The compromise position of the fisheries department being part of this legislation and changing the definition of the authorising officer to be the Commissioner of Police rather than the chief executive officer of the fisheries department are government amendments, and they relate to about 80 consequential amendments as part of this legislation as a result of that one change. There is another amendment of the government in changing the oversight of these operations from the Ombudsman to the Corruption and Crime Commission. That relates to around 20 government amendments. There are also government amendments—this is also a compromise position—around the protections for the operatives in consideration also of the preservation of parliamentary privilege. Those amendments relating to parliamentary proceedings account for about 15 of the government amendments. I have not separated them for the purposes of the council message; we are considering them as we go through. Ms M.M. Quirk: It might speed up things later. But, minister, just before you sit down, what I am asking is: how many amendments were put in of your own motion, not related to the recommendations of the committee? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: About 115 of these amendments are government amendments that have come from the compromise position that we have come to on the legislation. They are not — Ms M.M. Quirk: When you say “compromise”, is that a compromise with the legislation committee? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: It is a compromise regarding the recommendations of the committee that the government disagreed with, so we have worked with those members in the other place to come to a point at which this legislation can be suitable. Ms M.M. Quirk: What I am asking is: are any amendments that the government has put in not a result of committee recommendations? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Indeed, the amendments to do with changing the oversight body from the Ombudsman to the CCC are government amendments that have nothing to do with the recommendations of the committee. Ms M.M. Quirk: I will ask about that when we get to those sections. Thank you. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: One of the things that is noted in the report of the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review is that the bill provides for mutual recognition so that the release from criminal responsibility and the restriction of evidence of equivalent authorities issued by law enforcement agencies of other jurisdictions are given effect in Western Australia. What I am asking the minister is: given the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review and given the provisions related to mutual recognition, can the minister point me to any other states that have implemented similar criminal investigation covert powers legislation in which they have included their fisheries department in the legislation? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Similar legislation in South Australia and Victoria includes fisheries officers as part of the legislation. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Is the minister also able to advise whether any other state agencies are included in the South Australian and Victorian legislation? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I have not examined the South Australian and Victorian legislation, so I cannot tell the member whether other government agencies are included in the legislation, but I can tell the member that the fisheries departments are included in the legislation that covers these operations, and the Australian Crime Commission is included in the legislation covering covert operations in other jurisdictions. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The minister said that South Australia and Victoria include their fisheries departments. Can she advise me whether the authorising officer under their legislation is the Commissioner of Police or whether he is the chief executive officer of their respective fisheries departments? I ask this question because this clause is about an amendment to what was initially put before us in the Assembly. When this was debated in the Assembly it was approved by the Assembly and put to the opposition that it was appropriate for the chief executive of the Department of Fisheries to be the authorising officer for the fisheries department. That has been changed and justified because of the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review, despite the fact that that committee does not support fisheries being in the bill. I want to know whether there is a precedent in either the South Australian or Victorian legislation for having the Commissioner of Police, rather than the CEO of the departments, as the authorising officer. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I am advised that in the other jurisdictions that include the fisheries departments as part of their covert powers legislation, the executive officer of the fisheries department is the authorising officer. We have chosen to have the Commissioner of Police as the authorising officer for covert operations that fisheries in this state will be conducting. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: That takes me to my initial point that I do not think the minister actually answered; that is, why has she chosen to change the legislation in this state, which is different from what is being done in South
8822 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012]
Australia and Victoria? There is no point saying it is what the uniform legislation committee wants because that committee does not want fisheries to be in the bill at all. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I am advised that in those jurisdictions the operations are authorised by their fisheries departments and then the police are advised of those operations. For the reasons I outlined previously, we believe it is appropriate to include fisheries as part of this Criminal Investigation (Covert Powers) Bill. The government believes that the authorising officer for those operations should be the Commissioner of Police. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: When I look at amendment 1 on the notice paper, where it refers to the authorising officer in subparagraphs (a) and (b), there is reference to the “Australian Crime Commission—the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Crime Commission”. I note, for example, that there is a federal fisheries department or the equivalent. Maybe it is within a large department; I am not sure, but there are certainly significant commonwealth responsibilities in terms of fishing, so I am wondering why the commonwealth has not seen fit to include its fisheries department or whatever its name is. I understand it is a vastly bigger operation, with much more significant powers and responsibilities, than the state agency. I would have thought that department certainly would have knowledge of any of the trafficking offences that the minister was talking about. Why is there not some move to have the federal fisheries agency involved, even though the Australian Crime Commission is involved? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: The commonwealth fisheries department is not included in this legislation because it is empowered under commonwealth legislation, and it is not, therefore, empowered to interrogate fisheries offences that are covered under state legislation, whereas the Australian Crime Commission is enabled under this legislation to also investigate, within the parameters of this legislation, matters that fall under its jurisdiction within the states. So, the Australian Crime Commission under its legislation can investigate commonwealth and state matters. This legislation provides a framework for the Australian Crime Commission to operate within those parameters within this state. The federal fisheries department is not so enabled under its legislation at a federal level, and that is why it is not included in this legislation. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: There are, of course, a variety of offences that can be committed against the commonwealth fisheries legislation. Are those offences dealt with by that agency or by the Australian Crime Commission? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: The Australian Fisheries Management Authority, which is empowered under the commonwealth legislation, does not have Western Australian representation. The state fisheries department is the authorised authority that targets black market trafficking of fish within our jurisdiction. That is why it is part of the legislation. Ms M.M. QUIRK: I seek some clarification. If a fisheries officer gets authorisation from the Commissioner of Police, is it contemplated that they will then do a joint exercise with the police, or will it be an individual operation without any police supervision? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: There will be a number of ways in which this could work. The Department of Fisheries could put together its own covert operation, in which case that would be put together by the serious offences unit within the Department of Fisheries and authorised by the chief executive officer of fisheries, or director general of fisheries, who would then seek authorisation from the Commissioner of Police to proceed should they need aspects of this legislation in order to continue with their operation. There will be other operations that will be a joint initiative between the police and Department of Fisheries, in which case both the CEO of fisheries and the Commissioner of Police will sign off on the aspects of that operation that will be covered under their separate jurisdictions. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: The minister has just said that the Commissioner of Police can be the authorising officer on an operation that is being conducted by the Department of Fisheries—that was one of the alternatives that the minister has put. Does that not expose the commissioner in the sense that he is the authorising officer but has no control over the fisheries officers in the exercise of the considerable covert powers and sting operations that could be conducted under this legislation? Someone could go to the Corruption and Crime Commission and complain about the Commissioner of Police, who has authorised this operation, when it all happened without the commissioner, or anyone in his agency, knowing of an alleged abuse of power. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: The Commissioner of Police is the authorising officer for the overall covert operation that the CEO of fisheries will have authorised. But the CEO of fisheries is still responsible for managing the conduct of the officers in the serious offences unit and ensuring that they comply with this legislation; and, indeed, those officers are subject to the Public Sector Management Act and would need to make sure that they are complying with the legislation and with the conduct prescribed and expected of those officers. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I understand that the Leader of the House has a little issue with this legislation being proceeded with, and I understand that the government actually wanted to move to some other legislation. I just
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8823 seek clarification from the Leader of the House about whether he wants to adjourn consideration of this legislation now or whether we will proceed with this bill at this time. Dr K.D. HAMES: What was supposed to happen was that consideration in detail of this legislation was meant to come after the conclusion of the second reading debate on the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Amendment Bill 2012. Unfortunately, somebody did not stand up, so I need to adjourn consideration of this legislation and finish that—which the member for Mindarie tells me will not take very long—and then come back to this legislation. Debate adjourned until a later stage of the sitting, on motion by Dr K.D. Hames (Leader of the House). [Continued on page 8825.] CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) ENFORCEMENT AMENDMENT BILL 2012 Second Reading Resumed from 14 November. MR J.H.D. DAY (Kalamunda — Minister for Planning) [6.27 pm] — in reply: I thank members for their support for this bill. A number of members have contributed to the debate. As was explained in my second reading speech, it is important for this legislation to be agreed to by this Parliament because the commonwealth legislation in relation to the classification of computer games comes into effect on 1 January 2013. It is important for us to pass this bill so that classification enforcement can be undertaken in Western Australia. If this legislation does not pass, as I understand it, the new classification system cannot be adequately enforced in Western Australia from 1 January. The member for Mindarie sought confirmation that it was the government’s intention for the legislation to be proclaimed prior to 1 January, and that certainly is the intention. We are keen to get the legislation through; I imagine that the Attorney General will ensure that the bill is sent off to the Governor for proclamation as soon as possible after it has been agreed to by this house, given that it has already passed through the Legislative Council. A number of members made comments, as I said. I certainly do not intend to return to all of them, but there was an interesting suggestion made by the member for Forrestfield. In essence, he suggested that the sorts of people who are committing violent crimes on our streets are the sorts of people who would have been sent off to fight in wars in the past. That is certainly an interesting comment. I think it is a fairly extreme comment and one that those who actually have gone and fought for Australia in various theatres of war would probably have something to say about. It is not a feeling that I think would be shared very widely by many in the community. Having said that, I do thank members for their support for this bill and for their contributions to the debate. Question put and passed. Bill read a second time. Leave denied to proceed forthwith to third reading. Consideration in Detail Clause 1 put and passed. Clause 2: Commencement — Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: With respect to the commencement date, paragraph (b) outlines that the rest of the legislation will come into operation on 1 January 2013. Was that the date that was originally in the bill? If not, why has it been changed, and what is the significance of that date in terms of the enactment of this bill? Mr J.H.D. DAY: I am advised that an amendment was proposed and supported in the debate on this bill in the Legislative Council. The amendment was opposed by the government because it has a retrospective effect. Nevertheless, it was carried following a vote; there was a formal division and the majority supported the amendment. That meant that we now have the wording to clause 2 that is currently before us. The amendment was moved by Hon Adele Farina. Speaking partly in her capacity as Chair of the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review, she stated — The committee is of the view that unless we specify a date, while all the good intention may be there, the reality is—this is a fear that we all have and that we do not want to come about—that the gap between the operation of the commonwealth legislation and the enforcement provisions of our legislation coming into effect could lead to those games being made available to minors. The only way to ensure that that does not happen is to make it very clear that the enforcement legislation comes into operation on the same day that the commonwealth legislation comes into operation. That was the explanation given for the amendment that was moved. I understand the sentiment. It was not supported by the government or, clearly, by the Attorney General because it could theoretically mean that this
8824 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] legislation would have retrospective effect; it would impose a criminal liability on acts retrospectively if the bill were not passed until after 1 January 2013. However, assuming the bill is agreed to by this house this evening, that will be an entirely academic situation and the Department of the Attorney General will have sufficient time to prepare the relevant documentation so that the act can come into effect on 1 January 2013. It will simply not be an issue, assuming that we agree to the bill here this evening. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I am really just trying to clarify that. Firstly the minister said that on 1 January 2013 some aspects of the legislation will be retrospective. I was originally going to ask him what the practical impact of the retrospectivity would be and how it would practically affect the purchase or sale of publications, films or computer games. But now the minister has gone on to say—I am paraphrasing—words to the effect that some relevant documentation can be done within the Department of the Attorney General and retrospectivity will not be an issue. I think he said something like the situation is a bit academic. Am I now to believe that we can pass this legislation today, that the department can get its act together, that it can come into operation on 1 January 2013 in line with the commonwealth enactment and that retrospectivity will not be an issue? Mr J.H.D. DAY: The action that needs to be undertaken by the department, once the bill passes through this place, is to arrange for proclamation of the bill. That involves preparation of the Executive Council minute and presentation to the Governor in Executive Council. That can clearly be undertaken in the time available. I understand that two very minor amendments to the existing regulations need to be prepared. That will be a straightforward process, I am advised, and clearly it will be able to be undertaken and completed within the necessary time. Mrs M.H. Roberts: I can save time by just asking whether those regulations will be prepared well before 1 January. Mr J.H.D. DAY: Yes, that is correct, so that the legislation can fully come into effect on 1 January. Clause put and passed. Clauses 3 to 15 put and passed. Title put and passed. Third Reading MR J.H.D. DAY (Kalamunda — Minister for Planning) [6.37 pm]: I move — That the bill be now read a third time. MR J.R. QUIGLEY (Mindarie) [6.38 pm]: I rise to support the passage through this chamber of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Amendment Bill 2012 in its amended form. As I have commented on a previous occasion, although I am not personally in favour of the materials contained in R 18+ or RC being restricted classifications, we cannot hold back the tide. I predict that this legislation will become redundant probably during the life of the next Parliament when the whole marketing of these sorts of games becomes normal course on the internet. I had a burglary the other day, unfortunately, at night-time. I woke up in the morning to find that intruders had been in my house. I had to go out and buy a new iPhone and I could buy only a new one—the 4G. I said, “What is this LTE all about?” The speed with which a smart phone can suck down material off the internet is quite amazing. It is two or three times quicker than my 4S iPhone. I do not want to promote brands here; I am sure that the Androids and the Samsungs are probably achieving the same with their 4G network. The point is that it will take someone only a matter of minutes, even on a student’s iPhone or Samsung or something, to suck down one of these games and play with what I regard as the most abhorrent material. I notice that there seems to be some sort of inverse, or maybe direct, relationship between the content of these games—although all the academics tell us not to worry about it—and what is happening in society. By pushing a button, someone can eliminate a very life-like figure in dreadful circumstances; the person might explode and there is blood and everything else. When someone goes out on to the street and reacts in violent ways, they seem to have been inured to the violence. I harken to what the minister said about war and other things, but I think in previous generations when people had to deal with the destruction of human life at close quarters and the infliction of injury for the preservation of our country as a matter of duty, it nonetheless impacted on them in many ways. They appreciated the sanctity of human life and that it should not be violated by acts of violence, even though it was done in a war context. Some of the greatest pacifists in our society have been returned soldiers. Those soldiers have gone to war and not seen it as a colourful graphic representation, but have seen the actual human suffering caused by the infliction of violence on another human being and have been sickened by it. They did their duty and they stood fast and protected our country and we thank them for it. We thank them on Remembrance Day, Anzac Day and other days of remembrance. Nonetheless, the closeness of those people to that violence seems to have completely turned off those people from any act of violence or policies that would lead to violence.
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8825
I do not want to get too far off the point, but in many instances in agricultural communities, farmers and people connected with the land, even though they breed livestock for the abattoir, have a greater respect for the life of the animals, because of their relationship with the animals, than do those people who have seen a chicken only in a vacuum plastic bag on a supermarket shelf and have no relationship to what has happened during the course of that chicken’s life. Although we see graphically illustrated on our televisions the awful privations of those birds when held in small cages and exploited for commercial gain, here we see people capable of creating the most incredibly horrific graphic images applying to those in our community for commercial gain. I just think it is absolutely abhorrent. But, as I said, I stand in this place like Peter with his finger in the dyke; the flood is on. Where is it all going to end, minister? It is all going to go somewhere beyond the jurisdiction of this Parliament, out there in the ether and the internet, beyond what we can control. We note that the federal government had a policy of mandatory internet filters to try to stop this. These internet filters, of course, were opposed by the federal shadow communications minister, Mr Turnbull, and by Mr Abbott, as being impracticable; that point has been conceded by Hon Stephen Conroy, the communications minister. With all the best will and intent in world, how can the flood be stopped? The federal government has now limited itself to filtering those sites the offerings of which are regarded as clearly against other laws, and Interpol has moved to target particular sites that I understand are largely limited to the exploitation of children and pornography. How can it be stopped? In totalitarian countries, such as China, they have just closed down whole areas of the internet and big internet search engines, which is not viable in a democracy. I have thought about it; I have thought about laws concerning the internet and what has been happening on the internet with bullying et cetera. But then we had the very graphic illustration of the good of the internet and social media in how it reacted to the challenge by some radio shock jocks to attack the norms of our society, when people banded together on social network sites to respond. Although it has become all-invasive and pervasive, the internet and these social sites have the capacity to perform social good; but, as I said, they also have the capacity to render the dissemination of abhorrent material to children within our community, which is what this Parliament is seeking to restrict. As I said during my contribution to the second reading debate, it is not without regret that I stand to support this bill. I suppose it was not without some measure of regret and a somewhat heavy heart that the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General met to devise this scheme and decided to implement the measures they all agreed on—save for South Australia, which has now joined the scheme. I suppose in the short term it is, at least, an expression by this Parliament—although it is certainly not going to stop it—on behalf of the community that we do not want our children exposed to what is in a lot of this material. We want the warnings on the packages and we want some restrictions on how they are marketed, especially restrictive classifications. The whole community wants that but it is a losing fight. I can stand here and express regret for that on behalf of many families, at least in my electorate, and also across the state. Members on this side of the house come to the Parliament this evening to support the third reading of this bill. Even some members of the government who I have spoken to privately have, without naming names, sought to enlist me to move amendments against this legislation in this chamber. There is no doubt that there are people, as is widely known, on the right flank of the government party—if I can say that—who cannot bring themselves to the reality that this is everywhere, who want to try to hold the line and who, being in the government party, do not want to make the move themselves, I suppose for reputational reasons, within their own party. Therefore, they have sought to enlist me as the shadow Attorney General to do it from this side of the chamber while they cheer from the other side of the fence. Although I appreciate and have some sympathy for their position, nonetheless, it is totally unrealistic. I have heard some of the government backbenchers speak in this chamber in this regard—I am not saying that it was they who tried to enlist me and I do not want to get into the particulars— but the thoughts that they were expressing were very much along the lines of, “This has got to be stopped. This is regrettable.” I doubt whether the minister representing the Attorney General embraces this whole concept of the marketing of R 18+ and RC classifications with any enthusiasm either, being the family man that he is and that I know him to be, but we all have to approach the reality that this is where we have all arrived at and that me standing here, waxing lyrical about the benefits of the intellectual development that can occur through long and complicated engagements across the 64 squares of a chessboard is not really going to inspire the youth of today to turn back to the gaming challenges of yesteryear. They want the blood; they want the guts—if I can be forgiven for using colloquial language in this chamber. It is regrettable but there it is. With those very strong caveats and this element of regret, we nonetheless support the passage of this legislation through its third reading. Question put and passed. Bill read a third time and passed. CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION (COVERT POWERS) BILL 2011 Council’s Amendments — Consideration in Detail Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting after amendment 1 made by the Council had been partly considered.
8826 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012]
Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: I know that there are a lot of clauses in this message—an awful lot of clauses—that has come to this chamber late. Mr Speaker, I wonder whether you intend to afford us a dinner break at seven o’clock or to work on in circumstances of privation, because this is going to take some hours. The SPEAKER: It is not my opportunity to provide you with a dinner break, member. It is the house’s decision to have reached this point at this stage. I, like you, will be somewhat deprived of dinner for a considerable period. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Amendment 1 deals with who the authorising officer is for the police force, the Department of Fisheries and the Australian Crime Commission. We asked the minister why it is appropriate that the Commissioner of Police be the authorising officer for the fisheries department, especially given that is not the way it has been set up in other states. Indeed, we even asked why the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review’s position of not including the fisheries department was not adopted in these 143 amendments. We were advised that the impetus for this legislation was the decision in Ridgeway v The Queen. Paragraph 6.1 on page 8 of the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review’s sixty- ninth report states, in part — 6.1 There are two impetuses for the Bill. The first arises from the High Court of Australia decision in Ridgeway v The Queen. Ridgeway was arrested by the Australian Federal Police … with 203 grams of heroin in his possession and convicted of possessing a prohibited import. The prosecution alleged that Ridgeway initiated a deal to import heroin into Australia and to purchase the drug when it arrived. The importation of the drug had been undertaken by an informer with the assistance of the AFP and the Malaysian Police in a ‘controlled delivery’ arranged for the purpose of apprehending Ridgeway. The report went on to state that Ridgeway appealed his conviction and so forth and the court weighed up certain things, and that was one of the impetuses for the Criminal Investigation (Covert Powers) Bill 2011. Paragraph 6.6 on page 9 of the report states, in part — The emerging threat of organised crime 6.6 The second impetus is the belief that organised crime groups have reached “macro-economic proportions” and is an “ever evolving transnational phenomenon of immense size” though the Committee could find little statistical evidence for this belief … Looking at that as the impetus for the bill, it seems to me to be, in passing, strange that the fisheries department made its way in there. When I queried the minister earlier about why fisheries needed to be included and why she had not adopted the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review, the advice was a concern about fish trafficking. When I looked through the report to see what these issues are with fish trafficking, on page 10 I found that paragraph 6.8 states — 6.8 The Committee is dissatisfied with the assertion by the Department of Fisheries that there is evidence of organised crime. The little statistical evidence or other evidence such as the 2007 study referred to above, fails to indicate an emerging threat. I will not read all the words out, but it then goes on to say that, between 2007 and 2011, seven covert operations were conducted by the Department of Fisheries, and it refers to a black market in things like dhufish. Is this what the minister means by fish trafficking? Is it people offering dhufish on the black market? Is the minister able to provide me with any other details of fish trafficking that will somehow be covered by this bill? Is the minister suggesting there is any connection between so-called fish trafficking and things like illegal drugs, illegal firearms, money laundering or other activities that are regularly associated with organised crime? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: There certainly is evidence of organised crime activity in the abalone fishing industry, and in its 2012 report the Australian Crime Commission reported on increasing evidence of organised crime crossing over into the fishing industry. Problems have been identified in Tasmania with the trafficking of abalone. Mrs M.H. Roberts: Is this the poaching of abalone? Can the minister explain exactly what is happening with abalone? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: My understanding of the way these things work is that poaching occurs with abalone and many other species of fish, of which some members in this chamber may be aware. But, as far as the offence of trafficking of fish is concerned, high-value fish is exported to lucrative markets in Asia and other places. A range of different areas of fish trafficking will be covered under this legislation; hence, the view of the government that fisheries should be included as part of this legislation. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Is the minister able to provide me with any evidence at all of this, or can I clarify whether the minister is asserting that the regular things we associate with organised crime are in any way linked
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8827 to either abalone poaching or fish trafficking, as she referred to it? Do those organised crime groups include elements that may or may not include outlaw motorcycle gangs? Are those elements getting involved in fish trafficking, and is there a link with money laundering, drug importation or illegal firearms? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: There is certainly black market activity in the fisheries area that affects the viability of local commercial fishers and the sustainability of our fishing stock. Where no controls exist and we cannot get to the bottom of who these people are, we have a problem on our hands. That problem is dealt with by the serious offences unit in the Department of Fisheries. The 2007 Australian Institute of Criminology report looked at organised crime trends in fisheries and concluded that it was evident that within many fisheries jurisdictions, management and enforcement frameworks do not have the capacity to contain the likely expansion of organised crime into fisheries. Indeed, there have been cases of organised crime syndicates connected with some illegal fishing operations and involved in drug importation and distribution. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The minister has made the generalised assertion that there is evidence that organised crime syndicates are involved in drug trafficking. Is the minister able to provide any specific evidence of that? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Indeed it is envisaged that the purpose of this legislation is to bring some of those people to bear through covert investigations. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: What does the minister mean by “bringing them to bear”? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: It means to have them charged with offences and have them be made responsible for the offences. Our Department of Fisheries officers, our police officers who deal in these matters and the Australian Crime Commission need this legislation to uncover crime syndicates and organised crime bodies where they cross over into fish trafficking and into drug importation and distribution. We need the legislation to further prosecute these matters. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Would it be fair to say that there are likely to be many cases of potential prosecutions for fish trafficking utilising these powers that have no connection with organised crime whatsoever? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: It is likely that there will be some organised crime crossover into fisheries trafficking offences. There will be some offenders who deal in fish trafficking who may be involved in organised crime, and then there will be people who may have no connection with organised crime but whom the serious offences unit within Fisheries will be able to better interrogate for some of the serious fish trafficking offences. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Can the minister advise me what will occur if those fishers fishing from a boat travel into international waters? Will this legislation have jurisdiction there? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: The jurisdiction for the purposes of this covert powers bill means Western Australia, and for the purposes of any suspected criminal activity being investigated by the fisheries department, it includes any waters not within the limits of Western Australia that are WA waters as defined in the Fish Resources Management Act. Mr M.P. MURRAY: I am concerned about whether volunteer fisheries officers also come under this amendment and whether they could be part of that issue. Is there any age limitation at all? Some of those volunteers are very young—about the 15-year-old or 16-year-old mark—and I wonder whether the legislation applies to them or whether there are any rules about age. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: For the purposes of this legislation, fisheries officers who would be able to engage in these investigations are covered in the bill. Under the definition of law enforcement officer in “Terms used”, it is a prescribed officer within the Department of Fisheries. Fisheries department officers would be involved in these investigations. Mr M.P. MURRAY: I am still not sure because my understanding—I can certainly be corrected—is that volunteers would still have the same weight as a fisheries officer. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Officers of the Department of Fisheries are empowered to engage in covert operations for the purposes of this bill only for trafficking offences for fisheries. Those offences are investigated by the serious offences unit within the Department of Fisheries. Those are the officers who will use this legislation and will engage in covert operations—not volunteers. Mr M.P. MURRAY: I understand it is a serious crime, but I am concerned, even after what the minister just said, that people could be coerced or used in the operational part of this system. I am adamant that those sorts of people should not be used in the whole operation or covert operations. I do not see that at this stage. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: This legislation does not prevent a civilian from being used as part of a covert operation, with their cooperation. However, it is envisaged that the fisheries officers who would be engaged in these activities would be fisheries officers from the serious offences unit within the Department of Fisheries. Mr M.P. MURRAY: The minister used to have a vested interest! I now think the minister has muddied the waters in that the volunteers can be utilised in the process. I do not think that is the intent of the bill itself; nor do
8828 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012]
I think that it should be in the process that volunteers could be rolled up. In some cases, if they are young people—I do not see any age limit on that whatsoever—the intent is the covert operations but not to bring in volunteers or young people as young as 14 or 15 who wear those jackets. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I refer the member to clause 12(3) of the Criminal Investigation (Covert Powers) Bill where it prescribes the particular occasions around civilian participants. It is stated under clause 12 — (3) A civilian participant — (a) must not be authorised to participate in any aspect of a controlled operation unless the chief officer is satisfied that it is wholly impracticable for a law enforcement participant to participate in that aspect of the operation; and (b) must not be authorised to engage in controlled conduct unless the chief officer is satisfied that it is wholly impracticable for the civilian participant to participate in the aspect of the controlled operation referred to in paragraph (a) without engaging in that conduct. The person must have the appropriate skills or training to participate in the operation. I put to the member that the Department of Fisheries’ officers who are most likely to use the tools given under the Criminal Investigation (Covert Powers) Bill will be those officers from the serious offences unit within the Department of Fisheries. I put to the member that it is highly unlikely that this would involve minors. Mr M.P. MURRAY: For the sake of Hansard, I do not think that “highly unlikely” is strong enough. I would like the minister to say “it will not happen” under this bill. I see a gap there. “Unlikely”—it is unlikely that I am going to fly but I might fall out of an aeroplane! That is the point I am trying to make. I do not think they should be used at all, without the skills. With a yellow jacket on, officers become egotistic at times and get carried away with their own abilities and are not able to do the job properly. I am very concerned about this. We have seen the arguments—I am sure the minister has as well—on boat ramps alone, without covert surveillance, by what I see as an unauthorised person. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: The serious offences unit of fisheries engages in prosecuting people who are involved in the very serious crime of fish trafficking. That involves a potential term of imprisonment of up to four years and, for second and subsequent offences, up to 10 years’ imprisonment. I put to the member that these people will not be voluntary fisheries officers who are out there inspecting people’s eskies for yabbies or some such thing; these are people who are involved in serious fish trafficking offences. They will be investigated by fisheries officers from the serious offences unit of the Department of Fisheries. In addition to that, the Commissioner of Police has to sign off on these operatives being able to engage in these activities. The Commissioner of Police would need to be satisfied that every participant in these covert operations would have the necessary skills to undertake these tasks. I think that those are adequate and indeed quite stringent requirements of any officers of any department that are engaging in these covert operations. Mr M.P. MURRAY: The question I asked of the minister was whether she would give an undertaking that these volunteers would not be used. The minister has now made me more suspicious about what could happen here, because it is an individual’s view of that skill, because the fisheries officers or volunteer officers, they are people who just put their hand up and say, “I’m going to do that.” I am asking for the minister to give a commitment in this house that those volunteers would not be used under this act. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I put it to the member that it would be highly unlikely that a minor would ever meet the criteria and would ever have the skills that would be required. Mrs M.H. Roberts: Is that a miner or a minor? Mr M.P. Murray: A pair of binoculars and a biro. Mrs M.H. Roberts: I am interested in whether the minister is having a go at the member or whether she actually means minor with an “or”? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I am actually quite interested in seeing this important piece of legislation brought through the house this evening, and trite comments about whether it is a miner or a minor are not helpful. I have great confidence in the Commissioner of Police having the skills to be able ascertain the skills of operatives that are being authorised to undertake covert investigations to prosecute serious offences of fish trafficking. I am confident that between the CEO of the fisheries department and then the Commissioner of Police, we are going to have people who are appropriately trained and appropriately located participating in these activities. I am satisfied that the legislation is tight enough to ensure that appropriate people are involved in the activities that are prescribed by this bill. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The minister said at one point that she felt confident the officers were highly likely to be officers from the serious offences unit in the Department of Fisheries. Can the minister give me any idea of how many staff are in that unit or how many officers there are there?
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8829
Mrs L.M. HARVEY: At present, I am advised, there are 10 officers in the serious offences unit for the Department of Fisheries. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The point that I make here is that I expect those 10 officers would be fairly readily identifiable to those people involved in the fishing industry. I fail to see how officers will operate who are actually working in the serious offences unit of the Department of Fisheries, who presumably have as their regular job engagement with people in the fishing industry on a very regular basis. I expect that those officers will be well known. It is not like they are 5 000 strong. When you have 10 officers in the serious offences unit who are engaged directly with industry, their identities, I suspect, would be well known. How could they then operate as an undercover officer? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Indeed, the member makes a valid point. At present these officers are undertaking covert operations under a ministerial exemption. What this legislation will in fact do is enable us to set up assumed identities for officers within the serious offences unit of fisheries, to protect their identities as they undertake their activities in prosecuting the offences of fish trafficking. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: If I can just clarify, if this legislation is passed, there will then be people within the serious offences unit within the Department of Fisheries who will not work under their own regular name, who will on a continuous basis use an assumed identity. Is that what the minister is saying? How will it work? When they prosecute people on a regular basis, will they have one identity but when they are covert, will they have another? Does the minister anticipate that they will wear disguises? How will this work in a practical sense? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I am advised that the officers in the serious offences unit within the Department of Fisheries who take part in covert operations are trained by WA Police in covert investigations. Indeed, some of those covert investigations occur without the need for an assumed identity and have been occurring over time under a ministerial exemption for that purpose. This legislation will allow for covert identities to be created, should they be required, in consultation with the CEO of the Department of Fisheries and obviously with the sign-off of the Commissioner of Police. Mr M.P. MURRAY: I am sorry to hark back to my previous questions, but the answers have certainly added to my concerns. If only 10 of those officers will be available, there will need to be recruitment so that a proper surveillance job can be done on those people who are trafficking in fish. Mrs L.M. Harvey: Not necessarily. Mr M.P. MURRAY: Not necessarily? Give me the commitment that volunteer officers will not be used. I have now asked this for a second time. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: As I have said previously, any of the civilian participants who may be involved in covert operations under this legislation would have to fit the criteria that I have already outlined in my previous answers to the member. Mr M.P. Murray: Which, to me, is totally unsatisfactory. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: The member says that it is totally inappropriate. I think there are enough appropriate checks and balances and, indeed, stringent requirements for these operations to suitably protect any civilian participant and to ensure that any civilian participant in these operations would be suitably trained. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The minister asserted that not all covert operations that fisheries might be involved in would require anyone to have an assumed identity. Can the minister give an example of what kind of covert operations occur in fisheries that would not require an assumed identity? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I understand the member’s desire to get to the bottom of the methodology that the serious offences unit within the Department of Fisheries undertakes when it goes through its covert investigations. I am not willing to go into areas of operational sensitivity or into how the serious offences unit goes about its business. Ms M.M. Quirk: That’s code for you don’t know, minister. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: The member can stand and ask a question in a moment; I am giving my answer. I am saying that I am not prepared to disclose areas of operational sensitivity. Mrs M.H. Roberts: They could be hiding with night-vision binoculars in the bushes. Is that one of the things they do? I don’t know; you tell me. The ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Midland! Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Member, that is another trite comment. I am not going to disclose areas of operational sensitivity of either police who undertake covert operations or the serious offences unit of fisheries. That is my answer.
8830 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012]
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: What the minister said quite plainly was that not all covert operations that fisheries officers engage in require an assumed identity. For example, I believe they may do some form of covert operation that involves covert surveillance of some activities. That is an answer that the minister could have given. I do not think it would have given away any particular secrets, but that is an example I am aware of. There must be others. I am just seeking a bit of clarity. Those general things do not give away any particular operational secrets. To find out that fisheries officers use night-vision goggles and sometimes conduct covert surveillance would not be news to anyone, particularly those who are involved in illegal activities. If the minister does not know the answers to the questions that I am asking, why can she not just seek advice and provide it to the house? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: The advice I provide to the member is that the activities of the operators who engage in these covert operations for both fisheries and the police can be quite involved. Some of the work is very sensitive and quite dangerous. That is why we have afforded the protections for these operatives within this legislation further along in the amendments. Ms M.M. QUIRK: I can understand why matters might be sensitive if we are talking about a specific operation and specific individuals. I understand that the minister does not want to necessarily disclose operational methods that are not generally known to people. One of the issues that the opposition had when this matter was first before the chamber was the necessity for fisheries officers to have these powers in the first place. I am asking the question in general terms. What powers do they need that they cannot currently deploy to successfully get the prosecution? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Fisheries officers are already considered to be law enforcement officers under the Surveillance Devices Act. Fisheries officers can undertake covert surveillance activities via a ministerial exemption. This legislation allows them to engage in certain forms of illegal conduct for the purposes of investigating offences. It is important that fisheries officers are brought into this legislation because this tightens the parameters of some of those fisheries operations. It also gives them some protections in order for them to investigate those serious fish trafficking offences. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Would those fisheries officers be able to engage in entrapment activity; and, if so, under what circumstances? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Clause 12(1)(f) specifically precludes any operative engaging in activity that would fit entrapment. Mr M.P. MURRAY: Covert operations cover a lot of areas. I wonder why the Potato Marketing Corporation of Western Australia has not been included in the bill as well. Workers carry sacks of potatoes from one area to another, which causes grief and also pain to the pockets of many. Why has that corporation not been included in this bill as well? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I can make a further point on that. There has been an investigation into the operations of the Potato Marketing Corporation, the report of which I do not believe the government has tabled. There certainly seems to be advice around that that report talks about the potential for corruption within that industry. A further point was made by the member for Mindarie about endangered species and the like. They are quite reasonable questions. Why has fisheries, in particular, been singled out? As the minister said in part of her response, fisheries officers already have significant powers. They are already able to make use of the surveillance devices legislation, and they have powers under the Surveillance Devices Act. These are additional powers, and that is why we are asking the minister these questions. There is a broad assertion that organised crime is involved. I suppose we could argue the semantics of the definition of organised crime. It seems to me that the minister is taking the broadest definition that organised crime is just anybody who goes about criminal activity in an organised way; that is, if a person is trafficking in fish or perhaps fishing for dhufish somewhere that they should not be and then sending it overseas, and they do that on numerous occasions, that could be considered organised crime. I do not know whether that is the minister’s definition of organised crime—just crime that happens in an organised way—or whether she is referring to known criminal operations such as those associated with outlaw motorcycle gangs or drug traffickers. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: At present, member, this legislation covers the covert operations by the Department of Fisheries, WA Police and the Australian Crime Commission. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Of course, that takes us back to the amendment itself, in which there is reference to the authorising officer for the law enforcement agency. Not all states include the fisheries department. In fact, the minister has said that only two states do. When they do include fisheries, they do not have the Commissioner of Police in those states as the authorising officer. I again ask the minister: why should the CEO of the Department of Fisheries not be the authorising officer, and does the minister believe that any additional protection is afforded by having the Commissioner of Police in that role of authorising officer; and, if so, what additional protection does that provide?
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8831
Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I have already answered that question. Mr M.P. MURRAY: Having heard the minister’s answer that this bill covers only fisheries and the police, does this now override the likes of the potato board and others that may be using covert operations? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: This legislation covers those three departments—the Department of Fisheries, the Australian Crime Commission and WA Police—should they need to engage in a covert investigation that requires them to break some of our laws. I am sure that other organisations conduct covert operations and convert investigations; however, under this legislation, they are not enabled in any way, shape or form to break any law in the undertaking of those investigations. This legislation does not prevent any other department from conducting a covert investigation. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Taking the minister’s argument to its full extension, why is the Department of Fisheries singled out when it could also just make use of the powers that the police are given under this bill? Mrs L.M. Harvey: I have already answered that. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Why does the fisheries department have to be specially mentioned? The minister has not answered that. It could make use of the powers that police have. That is clearly what is happening in other states under the model legislation, so why could it not happen that way here? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: In other jurisdictions fisheries is managed by police. Fisheries need to be included in this legislation because fisheries operates its investigations under different legislation from police. However, it operates its covert investigations under a ministerial exemption. Fisheries officers need to be brought into this legislation because they need these powers to prosecute serious offences for fish trafficking. Ms M.M. QUIRK: I think we are being a bit circular, here minister. I said earlier I understand successful prosecutions must have occurred by the serious offences branch of fisheries without the use of these powers. The minister is saying that no successful prosecutions have been obtained without a ministerial exemption. Mrs L.M. Harvey: No; I am not saying that. I am saying fisheries officers will be able to undertake further operations and be more effective if they are empowered by this legislation. Ms M.M. QUIRK: The minister has summed it up in one. What is it about not having access to the powers under this legislation that will act as an impediment to fisheries officers in the serious offences division? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Fisheries officers can presently be exempted from offences only by ministerial exemption for offences under the Fish Resources Management Act. This will allow them to, for instance, continue with a covert operation should they need to break other offences in the course of their covert investigation. This bill provides protection to the operatives, with oversight ultimately by the CCC, which has not previously occurred. It will tighten investigations and operations by fisheries officers. Ms M.M. QUIRK: This is a problem because the minister has gone from saying fisheries officers need these powers to stop the trafficking of fish, but then she has talked about other offences that are not ones that are contemplated or have any nexus with organised crime. That is the nub of our issue. If fisheries officers have these powers, they will not use them just for trafficking; they might intend to use them for other things. That is what we are concerned about. I know the minister said only one activity carries the offence, but what is to stop someone saying, “Well, we were investigating trafficking but we were unsuccessful and couldn’t get the evidence for that, but we’ll get them under this other offence which carries a penalty of a year.” Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Can I inquire whether the minister intends answering the member for Girrawheen’s question? Mrs L.M. Harvey: I have already answered it. Ms M.M. QUIRK: With respect the minister has not. Mrs L.M. Harvey: I have, but I may not have answered it to your satisfaction. Ms M.M. QUIRK: No; the minister has not answered it at all. I will explain why she has not answered it. Some time ago she said the only offence that these powers were effectively required for was for fisheries officers to investigate offences of fish trafficking and that was particularly heinous because it was often linked with organised crime groups. Now the minister is saying, “If other offences along the way come to their attention, they will be able to use these powers.” That is not what I asked. I asked what impediments are there if they do not have these powers to successfully bring a prosecution for trafficking in fish under the fish resources legislation? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I have said many times, and I will say again, member, that, given the member’s strong opposition to fisheries being included in this legislation since this legislation was first brought to this place, I doubt that I will be able to prosecute an argument to the member that will satisfy her of the need for fisheries officers from the serious offences unit to be taken into this legislation. But I will say one more time that this
8832 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] legislation is required to ensure that, instead of having those fisheries officers from the serious offences unit operate by way of ministerial exemption, with very few checks and balances in place regarding their behaviour and very few protections afforded to them for the conduct that they may have to engage in during the course of a covert investigation, there will be protections for those officers, and also to allow them to conduct operations, in conjunction with the police, of a covert nature. Ms M.M. QUIRK: Am I correct in assuming, after that very helpful explanation, minister, that these powers are not needed to secure convictions for the offences that the fisheries officers are interested in investigating and prosecuting; they are needed to increase oversight and accountability? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: It may be, member, that the type of evidence that is required to prosecute some of these offences cannot presently be obtained without the Criminal Investigation (Covert Powers) Bill being enacted to empower fisheries officers to undertake these activities. It may be that there are offences that cannot be prosecuted because the evidence cannot be gathered at this time. Ms M.M. QUIRK: Is the minister saying that by these officers not being able to use these powers, or by using their existing powers, evidence will be gathered that might be inadmissible—is the minister saying that? Mrs L.M. Harvey: I am saying that. Ms M.M. QUIRK: So the minister is saying that? Mrs M.H. Roberts: What does “that” mean? Ms M.M. QUIRK: Presumably what the minister is saying is that the powers that they currently have are insufficient to ensure convictions in some cases. Is that what the minister is saying? Mrs L.M. Harvey: Correct. Ms M.M. QUIRK: Well, we could have saved about an hour. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: About 10 minutes ago, the minister said, in response to a question from the member for Girrawheen, that with the benefit of this legislation, fisheries would be able to conduct—I quote the words the minister used—“further operations” that cannot be undertaken under the ministerial directive. What does the minister mean by “further operations”? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Any operations that authorise them to break the law. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: Before I ask the question, I would say that we are at least protecting the crayfish stocks of this jurisdiction, because I am told the Speaker will not let them eat crayfish out in the courtyard until this debate has finished, and that might take most of the evening at this rate. What I want to ask the minister is this. The minister said that there is evidence of organised crime in fisheries. We have heard from the former Attorney General on the anti-association laws. He was able to identify broadly the organised criminal groups, and he referred mostly to outlaw motorcycle gangs. Given that the minister is asking this Parliament to confer these very, very extreme powers on fisheries officers, and in view of the findings of the Legislative Council committee, apart from saying, on the advice of the minister’s advisers, that there is organised crime in the fisheries sphere, could the minister help us by giving us an indication of the sorts of groups she is talking about? Is it the Coffin Cheaters, or the Rebels? Who are these organised criminals that the minister reasonably suspects of being involved in fisheries offences? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: With respect, the other piece of legislation that the member is referring to is specifically targeted at outlaw motorcycle gangs. We are talking about organised crime syndicates that operate in fish trafficking; we are talking about individuals that engage in fish trafficking. Some of the motorcycle groups to which the member has referred do, indeed, hold commercial fishing licences through other means, so there is a crossover. It has been demonstrated and identified in the reports that I mentioned earlier. The legislation is needed. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: The minister said that the other legislation is targeted at bikie groups. With respect, that legislation just provides for anyone who commits serious criminal offences. Is the minister saying that the department has evidence of organised criminal groupings acquiring and holding fishing licences; and, if so, whom? Let us get down to it: who are we targeting? Could it just be recorded that the minister is stumped for an answer. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr I.M. Britza): Member for Mindarie, you cannot stand again. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I would like to hear what the member for Mindarie was trying to say. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: I was asking: Which groups? Are we talking about Asian gangs, bikie groups? Generically, what sorts of groups is the government asking this Parliament to pass — Ms M.M. Quirk: The east coast criminal milieu is another one. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: Yes—or is the minister not prepared to say?
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8833
Mrs L.M. Harvey: I’m not prepared to say. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: Does the minister know? Without being prepared to say, does the minister know? We assume the minister does not know. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: In response to the question put by the member for Girrawheen, the minister advised that this legislation was necessary so that fisheries officers could potentially break the law while involved in covert operations. The suggestion appeared to be that they might be breaking laws other than laws under the Fish Resources Management Act. Let us assume that there could be, as the minister suggested, organised crime involved. A covert fisheries officer might be undercover with a group that the Department of Fisheries suspects of being involved in illegal activities, such as fish trafficking. The person might be an authorised covert officer using the powers of this legislation, investigating fish trafficking. It might be an operation in conjunction with Western Australia Police, and maybe they would need to break other laws, not necessarily related to fish trafficking activities. For example, in addition to working side by side with the fish traffickers, catching and processing dhufish to send it off to a foreign country, they might also be involved, as the minister suggested, with drugs and other activities. It appeared to me that the minister was suggesting that they would need protection for those other potential offences. If that is the case, can I inquire as to what training would be provided to those fisheries officers? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: As I have previously said, when these covert operations are put together, the types of offences that are covered are listed under clause 15(6)(g), (h) and (i)—(g) and (h)(i). The fisheries officers who are engaged in these covert operations will be trained by WA Police. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Does that mean that they remain fisheries officers? Is it the intention at all to make them auxiliary officers or in any way incorporate them into the police? Would they potentially be made special constables? When we are talking about training, is it a couple of days’ training or is it weeks’ training or is it several months? What is the substance of the training? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Fisheries officers are fisheries officers, and they are covered under the definitions in the act. Police officers are police officers. The whole purpose for having this legislation here is to enable fisheries officers to undertake these covert operations within their jurisdiction under the Fish Resources Management Act. Mrs M.H. Roberts: The police commissioner can make anyone a special constable. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: They receive training by WA Police. But, no, they are not going to be trained or converted into police officers in order to engage in this activity. The bill enables them to undertake these covert operations should they have sufficient training. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The minister did not answer part of my question and she ended her statement by saying provided they have sufficient training. I have inquired as to what would be sufficient training. Is it a few hours, is it days, is it weeks? What kind of training is involved here? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I am advised that they complete an undercover police training course; and that is all I am prepared to release with respect to that training. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: So the minister is not prepared to say whether that course is closer in duration to one day or one year, is that right? Mrs L.M. Harvey: No. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: So, what confidence can we have that these officers are being properly trained to undertake these activities, and what secret information would the minister be giving away just by saying how long they are being trained for? Does the minister know how long they are trained for? I think the advisers with the minister probably know. Mrs L.M. Harvey: It is an accredited course. Mrs M.H. Roberts: The minister needs to stand if she is speaking. Those are the rules of the place. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I am advised that it is an accredited course and that each state undertakes accreditation for these particular activities. I am not prepared to tell the member the duration or the content of those courses but I will say that there is a standard — Mrs M.H. Roberts: I’m not asking for the content; I’ve only asked for duration. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: There is a standard of accreditation that is accepted across Australian jurisdictions. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Is the minister able to guarantee to the house that the same standard of training and accreditation will apply in Western Australia as applies in other states, and that the length of training in Western Australia will be the same as in other states? Mrs L.M. Harvey: Yes, it is consistent. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
8834 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012]
Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 2 made by the Council be agreed to. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I wonder whether the minister would provide any explanation to the house as to why amendment 2 should be agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: This identifies the chief officer of a law enforcement agency for the purposes of fisheries. Clause 3 clarifies that the chief officer of the fisheries department is still the chief executive officer of that department. The reason that this amendment is necessary is outlined in — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: We are on amendment 2. The amendment is necessary because even though the Commissioner of Police is now the approving entity for controlled operations and assumed identities, the chief officer of the fisheries department will still be responsible for the administrative and record keeping requirements under parts 2 and 3 of the bill. Ms M.M. QUIRK: In that answer, the minister mentioned record keeping still being in the purview of the Director General of the Department of Fisheries. Can the minister explain what records she was alluding to? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Under division 4, subdivision 2, “Reporting and record–keeping”, clauses 36 onwards cover the record-keeping requirements. Ms M.M. Quirk: Which are? Mrs L.M. Harvey: You can read them in the bill. Ms M.M. Quirk: No, I am asking you. Mrs L.M. Harvey: Do you want me to read them out? I will read them out for you, if you like. Ms M.M. Quirk: Fine. The ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Girrawheen, stand if you want to make a comment. Ms M.M. QUIRK: The minister used the words “record keeping”, so I am asking her what she means by those words. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I mean record keeping consistent with clause 39 of the bill. Ms M.M. QUIRK: Under clause 39 of the bill, the director general has to keep records of each application made by a law enforcement officer of the agency. In this case, the director general is not the one to whom the application is made. Nevertheless, he will have to keep records of — (b) each authority granted to a law enforcement officer of the agency; (c) each variation application … (d) each variation of authority … (e) each order cancelling an authority … (f) each retrospective authority granted … (g) each report of a principal law enforcement officer of the agency under section 33(1) or 36. In other words, a party that has had no involvement in the authorisation, the variation, the granting of a retrospective authority and reports of principal law officers will be required to keep and maintain those records. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: This is an administrative requirement of the CEO or Director General of the Department of Fisheries, who has to first of all authorise the operations that are put together from within the serious offences unit of fisheries or operations prescribed under this act. The CEO of fisheries needs to sign off on that operation. They are ultimately responsible for the administration and record keeping of everything that falls under their purview. The Commissioner of Police then authorises that operation as put to the commissioner by the CEO of fisheries. Ms M.M. QUIRK: That means when the Commissioner of Police authorises a fisheries officer to use the powers under this legislation, the Commissioner of Police will not keep that authorisation; he will give it to the DG of fisheries. If that is the case, if the commissioner is called to give evidence on his authorisation, he will need to contact the director general so that he can refresh his memory on the nature of the application because he will not have in his possession any of those documents; is that correct? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Clause 37 of the bill refers to the chief officers’ reports. The chief officer is responsible for the reports that are put to the Corruption and Crime Commission as the oversight body. Therefore, the chief officer is responsible for the reporting for the operations that are authorised under that area. In the case of
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8835 operations occurring under Western Australia Police, the chief officer is the Commissioner of Police. For fisheries, it is the CEO of fisheries. Although the Commissioner of Police is the authorising officer for fisheries operations, the Commissioner of Police is not then required to be responsible for the record keeping of operations that are occurring within fisheries; that responsibility is with the CEO of fisheries. Ms M.M. QUIRK: I think the minister misunderstands. I will use the example of surveillance devices or telephone intercepts. From time to time in this place, a document is tabled that states in the last year police obtained X number of telephone intercepts or surveillance devices. That is tabled in Parliament but it is not primary evidence of the authorisation of the intercept itself. What I am saying is: primary evidence that an authorisation was given would be the authorisation document itself. Therefore, we have a situation in which the police commissioner is authorising that someone other than he has control over the custody and safe retention of that document. I see that as slightly problematical. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: WA Police have been consulted on this and the police commissioner does not perceive that there will be an issue with that. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I think that the member for Girrawheen made a very good point. It points to an anomaly that had not occurred to me before she raised it. I note that amendment 1 has been passed by this house. When this bill was before this house the first time, for the purposes that the member for Girrawheen was just talking of, the authorising officer and the chief officer, with respect to amendments 1 and 2, were essentially the same persons. Now it has been amended, they are really different people. Prior to amendment 1 being passed, clause 3 of the bill stated that the chief officer in relation to the fisheries department was the chief executive officer of the department. With the passing of amendment 1, there is now reference to an authorising officer. The authorising officer in relation to the fisheries department has now become the Commissioner of Police. When the bill was first before the house, the authorising officer was—if I am correct—the CEO of fisheries. So, there would have been some consistency in that the authorising officer and the chief officer for the purposes of fisheries were one in the same person—that is, the CEO of fisheries was both the authorising officer and the chief officer. Therefore, the person authorising the operations then had to keep the documents, as the minister pointed us to in clause 39, which states that “the chief officer of a law enforcement agency must cause all of the following to be kept”. That made sense and was very consistent when that chief officer was also, for the purposes of this act, the authorising officer. Under those circumstances, I think it was reasonable to expect that the authorising officer would keep those records. But now we have this anomalous situation that the member for Girrawheen pointed to in which the Commissioner of Police becomes the authorising officer, so he gets all the applications and so forth listed in clause 39, but we require the chief officer of fisheries to maintain all those records that he has not been the authorising officer for. That to me seems to be an inconsistency. Can the minister explain to the house why it is not inconsistent and unreasonable? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Under clause 37, “Chief officers’ reports”, the chief officer is responsible for reports on these operations, including the seizures, arrests and prosecutions arising from the organised operations. With respect to fisheries, the Director General of the Department of Fisheries will ultimately be the chief officer responsible for maintaining all of that information within the Department of Fisheries. The amendments to “authorising officer” will strengthen the authorisation of these operations by making the authorised officer in these circumstances the Commissioner of Police, so that the Commissioner of Police can look at the way the operation has been put together and authorise it as a higher oversight authority with respect to the operations of fisheries. That does not in any way, shape or form abrogate the responsibilities of the CEO of fisheries, who as the chief officer of fisheries, needs to be accountable for all of the activities within that organisation. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: What obligations fall to the authorising officer in reporting or document keeping? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: The authorising officer, being the Commissioner of Police, is also the chief officer for operations that occur under police. The chief officer of fisheries is the responsible officer under the Department of Fisheries. The Corruption and Crime Commission has oversight of all of these, and the chief officers’ reports need to be given to the CCC. The CEO of fisheries will report to the CCC on the reports of the operations within fisheries. The Commissioner of Police would be the chief officer reporting to the CCC in operations that occur under WA Police and also as an authorising officer. Should the commissioner choose to keep records of those operations that he has authorised, he is at liberty to do so, but he is not required to under this legislation. Under this legislation, the chief officer, the CEO of fisheries, is required to keep all of the records and report to the CCC, which will inspect their authenticity, accuracy and veracity. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I was trying to interject to get some clarification and to move things on a little more quickly, but the minister will not take my interjections so I will need to continue to repeat things that she has said and then ask my questions. One of the things that the minister said—I will probably have to stand three times and ask the questions one by one—was that the reports need to be given to the CCC. Is it a requirement to give all reports to the CCC or do reports need to be provided upon request from the CCC?
8836 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012]
Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I draw the member back, once again, to clause 37(1), which very clearly outlines that the reports need to be given to the CCC every six months for operations conducted on behalf of the agency. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 3 made by the Council be agreed to. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I inquire as to the necessity of amendment 3. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: This is a government amendment; it is new. With respect to this legislation, it enables the Corruption and Crime Commission to be the inspecting entity for controlled operations. Ms M.M. QUIRK: What is the rationale for this government amendment? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: The Corruption and Crime Commission was seen to be an independent oversight body. Ms M.M. QUIRK: Given that the Corruption and Crime Commission has been able to investigate maybe only one out of 400 complaints referred to it in relation to police misconduct, has the minister explored whether the Corruption and Crime Commission has the resources to take on this oversight role? What is the estimated cost of this oversight role; and how many full-time equivalents it will take for the Corruption and Crime Commission? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: The CCC is adequately resourced to take on this function. Ms M.M. QUIRK: I did not say it was not adequately resourced. I asked: has there been any estimation as to what level of resources will be required for the Corruption and Crime Commission to devote itself to this function? While I am still on my feet, what occurred between the time of the matter being debated in this place and it going to the upper house in terms of not using the parliamentary inspector? The reason the parliamentary inspector was used — Mrs L.M. Harvey interjected. Ms M.M. QUIRK: I have not finished; I was waiting for the minister to listen. The reason the parliamentary inspector was used in this chamber was that he was equivalent to a public interest advocate who oversights similar legislation in other states. Firstly, I ask: What level of resources will this take up for the CCC; has there been any calculation of that? What happened or occurred to make the government change its mind on the appropriate oversight body? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: My understanding is that through the period of consultation, committee deliberations and discussions amongst government committee members and of those in the other place, the government determined that the Corruption and Crime Commission would be the appropriate inspecting entity for controlled operations; hence the amendment. Ms M.M. QUIRK: I ask again: what level of current resources committed by the CCC to its various roles is it predicted will be required in this oversight role? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: We have not done detailed costings of what the cost or impost to the CCC will be with respect to this oversight function. However, I am advised that the CCC is confident that it is resourced to be able to perform this function. Ms M.M. QUIRK: Is it the case that the Corruption and Crime Commission approached or lobbied the government for it to be the oversight body in relation to this legislation? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I am not aware of that. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I wonder whether the minister is able to advise the house whether the equivalent of the Corruption and Crime Commission in other states has the same role under their legislation, given there is similar legislation working collaboratively in each state. If it is not the equivalent of the CCC in the other states, which body has this role in the other states? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I am advised that in Queensland the Crime and Misconduct Commission takes on this role, and in other jurisdictions it is the Ombudsman. The government believes that the Corruption and Crime Commission is the appropriate oversight body in Western Australia. Ms M.M. QUIRK: What is the basis for that belief? For example, the Ombudsman has the oversight role in relation to telephone intercepts, and I think acquits himself in that role very well. What is it that makes this different and makes the Corruption and Crime Commission a more appropriate body, in the government’s view? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: The Corruption and Crime Commission is currently the oversight organisation for WA Police. Ms M.M. Quirk: One investigation out of 400; I would hardly call that oversight! Mrs L.M. HARVEY: It has responsibility for the oversight of police.
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8837
Ms M.M. Quirk: And it is not doing it. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: The Corruption and Crime Commission has oversight under the Criminal Investigation (Covert Powers) Bill. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 4 made by the Council be agreed to. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Minister, why should amendment 4 be agreed to? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: This is a consequential amendment to the previous amendment. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: I do not understand what the minister is saying. She said this is a consequential amendment to the previous amendment. The amendment deletes lines 12 to 14 on page 6. As I understand it that takes out the definition of “Parliamentary Commissioner”, yet clause 38, for example, refers to the annual report of the parliamentary commissioner. The minister has gone to such extraordinary lengths to define in detail what the Corruption and Crime Commission is by adding to its definition. If the legislation still refers to the parliamentary commissioner, why is the minister taking out the definition of whom or to whom clause 38 is referring? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Much has been made of the fact that there are 143 amendments to this legislation. The insertion of the Corruption and Crime Commission as the inspecting entity for controlled operations has resulted in the need to remove references to the parliamentary commissioner. There are other consequential amendments as a result of the change to the “authorising officer” and “chief officer” roles. There are a number of consequential amendments. The deletion here makes sense in the context of amendments to this legislation contained further on in the notice paper. Mr J.R. Quigley: So will clause 38 be removed? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: No; it will be amended. The amendments are on the notice paper, member. Mr J.R. Quigley: Which amendment is the minister referring to? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: For clause 38, it is amendment 67. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The minister referred to the fact that there are 143 amendments to this bill. I ask why the minister did not provide to the house a consolidated version of the bill, as is often done when there are a significant number of amendments, and whether the minister has in her possession a consolidated version of the bill? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I do not have a consolidated version of the bill in front of me, member. I have the bill as it left this house and the amendments that are on the notice paper. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Can I ask the minister why she did not have a consolidated version of the bill printed so that it would be easy for people to follow the 143 amendments and we would not have had to waste our time asking a question about the parliamentary commissioner, which in the version of the bill we have is still there, yet at amendment 66 of 143 it is being taken out? I put it to the minister that this is very badly handled. That is one of the reasons that this committee stage is taking so long. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: My understanding is that it is not convention to provide a marked-up copy of the bill when dealing with — Ms M.M. Quirk: It is also not a convention to have 143 amendments coming back in, minister. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I accept that, member. I also put to the member that a number of those amendments are consequential amendments; they are almost administrative. If members went through the amendments on the notice paper, as I have done, and went through an original copy of the bill, as I have done, and cross-referenced them, a couple of hours’ work would have got them there. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I do not think insulting those people who are asking very reasonable questions will help progress this legislation. I would advise the minister against that. It is all very well for the minister to assert that it is not a convention to provide a marked-up copy of the bill. I would have said it was all but a convention when there were a significant number of amendments to the bill. It is often the practice, I would suggest, to provide a consolidated version of the bill when there are over 100 amendments to the bill. The minister has made the point that many of the amendments are consequential. I agree that many of them are consequential because they are changes to delete the word “chief” and insert “authorising”. Many of the amendments propose the change from “chief officer” to “authorising officer”. In some contexts, though, that can be significant in relation to that particular clause. It does not mean that they are one and the same. It means that they are actually now two
8838 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] separate roles, one of an authorising officer and one of a chief officer. In each of those cases it is relevant to have a look to see whether that change is appropriate. I would counsel the minister against gratuitous insults. I think the government has a lot to answer for in terms of a bill that was first brought into this house in 2011, well over a year ago. It has been upstairs. It has had 143 amendments. Some are because of the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review, and some are government amendments, where it just did not get it right when it brought it into the house in the first place or has subsequently changed its mind as to what it felt was appropriate when it first brought the legislation before the house. I think the question asked by the member for Girrawheen is certainly a very, very reasonable one. I just note that the member for Girrawheen worked for many years for the National Crime Authority and potentially knows a lot more about covert operations than the minister does. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I think it is important that I get on record that I certainly meant no insult or offence in my comments. I merely was making a pragmatic statement of the way I had undergone wading through this not insignificant raft of amendments. This Legislative Council message was lodged in the house on 18 October. Had any member opposite asked me for a marked-up copy of this bill with the amendments clearly illustrated, I certainly would have provided it to them. However, no request was forthcoming; hence no copy was made available. Indeed, we have what we have. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 5 made by the Council be agreed to. Ms M.M. QUIRK: Again, I would like an explanation of the rationale behind this amendment. I see that the offences for which these powers can be used are listed there. Firstly, is there still the capacity to prescribe other offences under regulations? Mrs L.M. Harvey: Only within those acts that are prescribed. Ms M.M. QUIRK: So, in effect, that limits the broader provision in the original legislation. Mrs L.M. Harvey: That’s correct. Ms M.M. QUIRK: What is the rationale for including some of that legislation? Is it about organised crime? For example, the Firearms Act, the Misuse of Drugs Act and the Weapons Act may have some nexus to organised crime. The minister has told us that the Fish Resources Management Act has some nexus to organised crime. I am a bit curious about the Prostitution Act, as the police are not currently prosecuting prostitution. I am a bit intrigued as to why the Prostitution Act is included with all that other legislation. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: The report into the model laws identified the type of relevant offences that should be covered under the legislation that this sits under. We have identified the relevant acts under which those offences described in the model laws would likely fall. Ms M.M. QUIRK: Presumably, the report on the model laws identified these pieces of legislation as in some way being associated with these more heinous and serious offences and maybe having a nexus to organised crime. Is that the situation, minister? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I will read out the recommendation of the report. The recommendation was that the definition of “relevant offence” in clause 3 should be changed from that proposed in the discussion paper so that the jurisdiction should be able to prescribe offences that fall below the three-year threshold from the following categories—child pornography, gaming, fisheries, firearms, prostitution and corruption. Ms M.M. QUIRK: Firstly, the Minister for Regional Development is distracting me a bit, which means that I have to talk slower, so it might take me longer to make my point. In response to a question I put to the minister, I was told that the police are not actively prosecuting prostitution, as they say that it is not in the public interest to do so. Given that there are no prostitution prosecutions here at the moment, I wonder why that legislation has been included, because at the moment it is not actively enforced. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: It is intended that there will be organised crime investigations and covert investigations into a range of criminal activity that will potentially fall under some of these acts. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: This amendment seeks to change the general category of offences outlined in paragraph (b) in the version of the bill that went through this house. The paragraph states — an offence against the law of this jurisdiction that is prescribed for the purposes of this definition; I am not sure where it was intended to prescribe them at that stage, but I note that this amendment lists those acts. Those acts can change. What happens if a future government puts the prostitution act 2013 in place? How is that covered under this amendment?
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8839
Mrs L.M. HARVEY: This would work the way that other legislation works in this place; that is, if an amendment to any of these acts is made, it is expected that should a subsequent amendment be required to this act, that would be made at the same time. Indeed, it was determined, certainly for the comfort of members in the other place, that it was better to have these acts listed in the legislation rather than having them prescribed by regulation. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Is the minister able to advise me whether any aspect of the Prostitution Act 2000 has been enforced or any charges laid at any time in the past four years? If not, why not, and why is the minister including the act in this legislation if it is not an act that the police force is currently enforcing? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I do not have information on the number of offences that have been prosecuted by WA Police under the Prostitution Act to hand. Certain sections of the Prostitution Act would be relevant to this legislation, such as seeking a prostitute or engaging in prostitution in a place where a child is present. There are a range of provisions in the Prostitution Act to which this legislation may be relevant. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I will just jog the minister’s memory. This would not have taken two hours’ study. The minister provided an answer to the member for Girrawheen within the past week or so. She advised that there had been no prosecutions under the Prostitution Act 2000 in the past few years. Since the containment policy had been in place since about 2005, there have been no prosecutions under the Prostitution Act 2000. In fact, the minister said in her answer that the police were not currently enforcing that act, and she gave reasons why they were not enforcing it. The minister said that there could be offences in there that should be prosecuted. Why is she not prosecuting them within the community here and now but she is interested in prosecuting them in relation to other offences? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I thank the member for jogging my memory to a question that was put to me on notice. These acts are prescribed. The joint working group determined that these are the appropriate acts. They will cover the types of offences that will be covered under the model laws for the purposes of this legislation. That is why they are in there. Ms M.M. QUIRK: The minister said that this legislation was included because they were part of the draft working laws. That is in relation to jurisdictions where they have functional prostitution legislation that is enforced. We have prostitution legislation that is not enforced. Frankly, that is not a response to the question that was asked. Secondly, does this mean that because prostitution is included in this list of legislation that people can assume the identity of a prostitute for the purposes of securing a conviction? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: The legislation quite clearly does not allow anyone to engage in any kind of activity that could be deemed as entrapment. Under the Prostitution Act 2000, sections 5, 6, 9, 15, 20 and 21, for example, are areas in which it is envisaged this legislation would come into play. I take the member’s point about the answer to the question on notice about prosecutions under the Prostitution Act. I suggest that is a debate to have at another time. For the purposes of this legislation, the Prostitution Act is prescribed because it is deemed to be appropriate and falls under the recommendations of the “Cross-Border Investigative Powers for Law Enforcement Report”. Ms M.M. QUIRK: The minister can see our confusion, because she is conferring quite significant and important powers in legislation that is not even actively enforced, and that, to me, seems to be a major anomaly. Mrs L.M. Harvey: Point taken. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 6 made by the Council be agreed to. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Can the minister explain to the house why amendment 6 should be agreed to? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: This refers to the applications for authorisation to conduct controlled operations. We are removing the chief officer as the authorising agent and inserting “authorising officer” as the authorising agent for the operations. It is a consequential amendment. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I find that answer inadequate. The minister has simply read out the heading at clause 10 under division 2, “Authorisation of controlled operations”, “Applications for authorities to conduct controlled operations”. Subclause (1), the subclause the minister is seeking to amend, reads — (1) A law enforcement officer of a law enforcement agency may apply to the chief officer of the agency for authority to conduct a controlled operation on behalf of the agency. When the legislation was before this house and debated before it was amended in the other place, the law enforcement officer, for example, an officer of the Department of Fisheries, would apply to the chief officer of that agency, which would be the fisheries agency. As it will now read with the amendment, that law enforcement
8840 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] officer—let us say again that it is a law enforcement officer of the fisheries agency—will now need to apply to the authorising officer. The authorising officer, because of the changes via the earlier amendments, will now be the Commissioner of Police. A law enforcement officer of a law enforcement agency may apply to the Commissioner of Police, who is the authorising officer. I would have thought that the person making the application to the authorising officer—that is, the Commissioner of Police—should in fact be the CEO of fisheries. Why would that not be the appropriate protocol? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: It is envisaged that a law enforcement officer of the serious offences unit, for example, will apply to the CEO for authority to put together a covert operation and the CEO of fisheries will need to then seek authorisation from the Commissioner of Police to authorise a covert operation. Mrs M.H. Roberts: That is not what the clause as amended would actually say, though. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Indeed, taken in context with the remainder of the amendments on the notice paper, that is what it will achieve. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I really am not satisfied here. I think that with these 143 amendments, someone has just done a word check, and they have just checked everywhere where it says “chief officer”, and that has pinged up on the computer and they have thought, “Is it appropriate to keep those words, or should it be changed to ‘authorising officer’ in this context?”, and they have just made a choice—do we keep it at “chief officer”, or do we change it to “authorising officer”, or vice versa? I think that in some circumstances in which this occurs, they needed to think a little further than this. I would have thought that making an application for authorisation to conduct a controlled operation—that is, applying to the Commissioner of Police—should be made by the CEO of fisheries or an officer delegated on his behalf or acting in that role at the particular time. I think this is simply lazy drafting or redrafting. More attention should have been turned to this. The chief officer of fisheries should be required to apply to the authorising officer. I quite agree with the minister’s point that in practice somebody within the particular unit in the Department of Fisheries would make the case to his or her CEO, and that CEO would in practice follow an appropriate departmental protocol and make application to the Commissioner of Police as the authorising officer. I think there is just slackness here in not actually spelling that out. If we look at the full context of clause 10, which this amendment applies to, it goes on to say, because it is dealing, as the minister has pointed out, with applications for authorities to conduct controlled operations — (2) An application for an authority may be made — (a) in writing (a formal application); or (b) orally (an urgent application), if the applicant has reason to believe that the delay caused by making a formal application may affect the success of the operation. (3) A formal application must be in a physical form, signed by the applicant. (4) However if it is impracticable in the circumstances for a physical document to be delivered to the — We now get to another potential amendment—“authorising officer” — … a formal application may take the form of — (a) a fax; or (b) an email … It goes on, and then there are other potential amendments to change “chief officer” to “authorising officer”, and we can get to that when we get to those other amendments. My point is simply that this was drafted consistently and correctly when it was first before this house, because prior to the amendment that went through earlier tonight, there would have been a consistency here. The law enforcement officer from the fisheries department would have been applying to the chief officer of the fisheries department for the authority to conduct the controlled operation. Now it reads that the law enforcement officer will not just have to make the application to the Commissioner of Police, but that the other parts of this clause must also apply. To me, that is sloppy drafting. On a simple reading of this, somebody much lower down the agency in fisheries could make, under clause 10(2), an urgent application to the Commissioner of Police, and of course we know that that would not be protocol. When we do not have good law and the law is not clear, we then have to rely on, rather than making good laws here, the department putting in place good protocols to ensure that things happen in an appropriate manner. I think it is much more important to get the laws right, and that is one of the reasons, minister, that I suggested that a marked-up version of the bill would have been helpful. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I understand where the member is coming from with this, but ultimately the authorising officer for the agency—whether that be fisheries or, indeed, WA Police—is the Commissioner of Police, so the term “authorising officer” in this context is correct. It is envisaged that the Commissioner of Police and the
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8841
Department of Fisheries will have a memorandum of understanding with regard to the flow of information. The law enforcement officer of the Department of Fisheries can only ever be authorised to conduct a controlled operation on behalf of the agency by the Commissioner of Police. That is why it is appropriate to have the definition of “authorising officer” as part of this amendment. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Can I ask whether that memorandum of understanding is a public document? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: It is not likely that the MOU would be a public document, given that it may contain operationally sensitive material. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I fully expected that to be the answer, and that is the very reason I asked the question in the first place. I am not sure whether the minister followed properly my original argument, but it is not just about the amendment that is before the house and whether the word “chief” or the word “authorising” is right in that particular position—that is, the second line of clause 10(1); it is about the impact that it has on the whole clause. I suppose I am querying the words in the first line of clause 10(1), “A law enforcement officer of a law enforcement agency may apply”. The minister is saying that under a memorandum of understanding it would not be just any law enforcement officer of an agency, or any law enforcement officer from fisheries applying to the Commissioner of Police; there would be a memorandum of understanding in place. The point I am simply making is that it is better to have clear law that is publicly available and that everyone can see and read, rather than us relying on memoranda of understanding between agencies that are not public documents. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I take the member back to our previous dialogue in respect of this. A law enforcement officer in the context of fisheries would be an officer from the serious offences unit in the Department of Fisheries, who would put together an application for a controlled operation that would be signed off on by the chief executive officer of fisheries and would then be put to the Commissioner of Police as the authorising officer for the controlled operation. The commissioner is then required to ensure that the controlled operation actually fits the parameters outlined in this legislation; as such, every application for a controlled operation needs to be made, ultimately, to the authorising officer of the agency, which has been previously defined. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I just make the point that the minister has actually outlined what is intended to happen in practice, rather than what is required to happen under this legislation. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 7 made by the Council be agreed to. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Can I ask the minister why the house should agree to amendment 7? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Once again, this is a consequential amendment that addresses process. To change the authorising officer for the Department of Fisheries from the CEO requires “chief officer” to be replaced with “authorising officer” and, indeed, that is the context of the amendments right through to amendment 13 on the notice paper. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Leave denied for amendments 8 to 13 to be considered together. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 8 made by the Council be agreed to. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Amendment 8 changes “chief officer” to “authorising officer” in subclause (7). It states — In any application, whether formal or urgent, the applicant must — (a) provide sufficient information to enable the chief officer to decide … That will now be changed to “authorising officer”. Again, I just point to the context. I am only talking with respect to the Department of Fisheries because that is where the changes occur. There has been no change for police. It makes no material difference for police in police operations whether it is “chief officer” or “authorising officer”. The material difference comes into being because of these amendments in fisheries, because the “chief officer” and the “authorising officer” have now become two different things. We therefore have a situation in which the applicant has to provide sufficient information to the authorising officer rather than to the chief officer. I do think that something is now lacking, because we are just to assume that protocols or the like within the agency of fisheries will be provided by way of memorandums of understanding between police and fisheries. The processes will no longer be defined in the act, as defined in law, and will not necessarily be publicly disclosed. One would assume that before the enforcement officer makes the application to the authorising officer, the enforcement officer will have to first make the case to their own CEO—the person formerly referred
8842 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] to as the “chief officer”—prior to these amendments. There is therefore no longer anything by way of legislation for that process; there is only the reference to the case that is required to be put before the “authorising officer”. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Leave denied for amendments 9 to 13 to be considered together. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 9 made by the Council be agreed to. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Leave denied for amendments 10 to 13 to be considered together. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 10 made by the Council be agreed to. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Leave denied for amendments 11 to 13 to be considered together. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 11 made by the Council be agreed to. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Can the minister explain to the house why amendment 11 should be agreed to? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: It is a consequential amendment. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I am just making sure I have the right line. Mrs L.M. Harvey: It is the last line on the page, member. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I already have that, helpful as the minister may be attempting to be. Clause 10(9) states — As soon as practicable after making an urgent application, the applicant must make a record in writing of the application and give a copy of it to the chief officer. Why is it necessary for that to occur? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: In certain circumstances in urgent applications, authorisation may be given over the phone. The applicant must make a record in writing and give a copy to the authorising officer. This basically formalises that should an urgent application or authority be made over the phone, it in no way mitigates the requirement to make a record in writing to the accepted level to the authorising officer at the first available opportunity. Ms M.M. QUIRK: In that context, the provision provides that the applicant must give a copy to the authorising officer. What happens to the original? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: The copies are required to be kept by the chief officer of the agency, as in the CEO of fisheries, in keeping with other amendments that we have already discussed. Ms M.M. Quirk: I asked about the original, not the copies. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: The original authorisation in the circumstance of an urgent application is verbal, which then needs to be followed up with a record in writing. Ms M.M. Quirk: Yes; you said that a copy of that goes to the authorising officer. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I understand what the member is asking now. If an urgent application is made over the phone and an authorisation is given by phone, the authorising officer makes a notation of that and then keeps the original record for themselves as the authorising officer and sends a copy of that authorisation to the chief officer. Ms M.M. Quirk: Where does it say that? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: It states it under clause 10(9). Ms M.M. Quirk: Clause 10(9) amended would provide that he sends a copy to the authorising officer. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: As I said, these need to be taken in context. Clause 15(8) provides — The chief officer must ensure that written notes are kept of the particulars referred to in subsection (6) for each urgent authority. Mrs M.H. Roberts: Is this clause 15(8)?
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8843
Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Yes. There is a cross-reference to urgent applications and the chief officer has to ensure that written notes are kept of the particulars referred to in this proposed section. Mrs M.H. Roberts: But you’re deleting that in a future amendment at amendment 23, aren’t you? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: No, it is not a deletion; it is the changing of the name from “chief officer” to “authorising officer”, as I understand it. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move that clause, no, amendment 12 on the notice paper be agreed to. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Excuse me, did the minister just say that clause 12 on the notice paper be agreed to? Mrs L.M. Harvey: Amendment 12. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: That is not what the minister said. Several members interjected. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Madam Acting Speaker, if I may correct the record—do excuse my error—I move — That amendment 12 made by the Council be agreed to. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Amendment 12 amends line 4 at the top of page 10. It deals with clause 11, “Determination of applications”, which states — After considering an application for authority to conduct a controlled operation, and any additional information furnished under section 10(8), the chief officer — This amendment will change “chief” to “authorising” — (a) may authorise the operation by granting the authority, either unconditionally or subject to conditions; or (b) may refuse the application. In the case of police, in this instance, the authorising officer will be the Commissioner of Police. The clause states he “may authorise the operation by granting the authority, either unconditionally or subject to conditions; or may refuse the application”. In the case of fisheries, the application, I note, can be made by a law enforcement officer. If we go back to clause 10 in division 2, we see that it states that it is just “a law enforcement officer”. Under this legislation, it will not be required to be the CEO of fisheries. Mrs L.M. Harvey: Member, if I can you help you out with this one, it is actually saying that the authorising officer is the person who considers an application for an authority, which is put to the authorising officer who can authorise the operation by granting an authority or who may refuse the application. The authorising officer is indeed the Commissioner of Police. The application for that authority may be made by the chief officer of the Department of Fisheries. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: It also makes reference to clause 10(8) in which the Commissioner of Police can require the applicant to furnish additional information as is necessary to determine that application. Mrs L.M. Harvey: Indeed, the commissioner needs to satisfy himself that the authority has been put together in an appropriate fashion, taking into consideration aspects of the bill and requirements under this act, should it pass. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: In what circumstances would an application be likely to be refused? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: If the commissioner is not satisfied that the application fits the criteria outlined in this legislation. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 13 made by the Council be agreed to. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Minister, I seek an explanation as to why that amendment should be agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Once again, member, it is a consequential amendment regarding changing the words “chief officer” to “authorising officer” in the context of the definitions previously discussed. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 14 made by the Council be agreed to. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
8844 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012]
Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I seek leave to move en masse amendments 15 to 21, which are consequential amendments deleting the word “chief” and inserting the word “authorising”. Mrs M.H. Roberts: It would be more productive if the minister sought to know what amendments she could move together, rather than guessing. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I seek by interjection an indication from those opposite as to which amendments they may give permission to move en bloc. I move — That amendment 15 made by the Council be agreed to. Ms M.M. QUIRK: Clause 12(2) will now read — A person must not be authorised to participate in a controlled operation unless the authorising officer is satisfied that the person has the appropriate skills or training to participate in the operation. This goes back to the old chestnut of having the police commissioner consent to an application by a fisheries officer. On what basis or criteria will the Commissioner of Police be able to make such a decision? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: We previously discussed that the Commissioner of Police, as the authorising authority, would have to satisfy himself or herself that the person has the appropriate skills or training to participate; and we did indeed discuss appropriate training previously. Ms M.M. QUIRK: That was not the question, minister. I know it has been a long day for the minister, but I asked “On what basis”, not “What was the training?” The question I asked was: on what basis could the police commissioner satisfy himself? In the case of police officers, the commissioner knows that a person holds the rank of inspector or senior sergeant, and he would expect that person to have had this and that training and have this and that expertise and, therefore, he would be confident that it is appropriate to issue an authority to that person. In the case of an officer who works in another department, where he may have a rank of level 4, 6 or 7, which does not necessarily mean anything to the police commissioner, nor does the level of seniority, unless the commissioner can fit that individual training of that officer to the skills and the criteria that have to be satisfied. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I believe that the answer is in the wording of that line, in which the authorising officer, being the commissioner, would ensure that he or she is satisfied that the person has the appropriate skills or training to participate, which would depend on the nature of the controlled operation in any given circumstance. Ms M.M. Quirk: I am asking how he does that. How does he determine what is appropriate when this person is not even an employee of his? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I put to the member that the application being put to the commissioner would have to clearly outline the type of activities that are involved. Ms M.M. QUIRK: It is not in the legislation that that has to be included. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: It is obvious. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I make the point that this legislation was drafted when the CEO of fisheries would be the authorising officer, so I do not think it is adequate just to say that we can change one word for another. The whole drafting was done under the proviso that the authorising officer for fisheries would be the CEO of fisheries. If it is read in that context it makes sense. There are elements here that do not make the sense that they did when the CEO of fisheries was to do that. Of course, the CEO of fisheries would know a lot more about the operations of the Department of Fisheries than the Commissioner of Police would. Therefore, I can well understand why the member for Girrawheen asked the minister the question that she did. Ms M.M. QUIRK: I have just looked back at clause 10, which sets out the things that need to be included in an application. Nowhere does it say that the applicant has to, for example, provide particular information about training. It does say “provide sufficient information to enable the authorising officer to decide” and there is the capacity for the authorising officer to require additional information to be furnished. But, as I said, the problem is that the application in these cases will not be streamlined and it might comprise more than one document if additional information has to be furnished and so on. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I seek interjection from the opposition members about whether there are other amendments that they would specifically like to speak to or whether I may have the opportunity to move amendments en bloc. Mrs M.H. Roberts: Amendment 17. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Amendment 17, excellent. Therefore, I move —
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8845
That amendment 16 made by the Council be agreed to. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 17 made by the Council be agreed to. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: This amendment to change “chief officer” to “authorising officer” is the clause that deals with civilian participants. This, of course, is the matter that the member for Collie–Preston asked about earlier. Clause 12 in the bill states — (3) A civilian participant — (a) must not be authorised to participate in any aspect of a controlled operation unless the chief — Is that still “chief” or has that changed to “authorising” at line 15? That changed, did it not? Mrs L.M. Harvey: Yes. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: So that is now — … the authorising officer is satisfied that it is wholly impracticable for a law enforcement participant to participate in that aspect of the operation; and (b) must not be authorised to engage in controlled conduct unless the authorising officer — As it is proposed to be amended — is satisfied that it is wholly impracticable for the civilian participant to participate in the aspect of the controlled operation referred to in paragraph (a) without engaging in that conduct. It does not appear to make much sense to me why those clauses are there with respect to the civilian participants and why they should not be authorised to engage in conduct by the authorising officer as described there. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: There are two aspects to this. The first thing is that the participation of a civilian in the controlled operation can occur only if the authorising officer is satisfied that that aspect of the operation is impractical for a law enforcement officer to participate in. The second aspect is: should the civilian need to engage in controlled conduct as part of the operation, the authorising officer needs to be satisfied that there is no other way for the controlled operation to continue without the civilian participant being authorised to engage in that controlled conduct. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: This is not about whether it should be a civilian participant or an officer of an agency, but more to do with what the civilian participant can engage in; is that a correct assessment? Mrs L.M. Harvey: That is correct. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I understand that effectively the controlled operation would, in the case of fisheries, be run by the Department of Fisheries rather than the police department, so it is still its controlled operation. Mrs L.M. Harvey: Yes. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: When the CEO of the Department of Fisheries was the chief officer prior to this being potentially amended, it seems to me to make perfect sense. Where “authorising officer” is changed to “Commissioner of Police” there could be a significant degree of difficulty in the Commissioner of Police being able to be wholly satisfied and wholly informed on these matters. I note that in another clause of the bill it does not in practice have to be the Commissioner of Police; it can be any officer at commander level or above. I am not sure what expertise they would have, compared with the CEO of the Department of Fisheries, to make those kinds of determinations. I question whether it should be the “authorising officer” there or whether should have been some other words to do with “in consultation” or “on the advice of” the chief officer of the Department of Fisheries. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: The authorising officer is the officer who has the responsibility to ensure that the controlled conduct is required. That is a requirement of the legislation. If the member thinks this should be worded a different way, I suggest she propose an amendment. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I know the minister is of the view that just changing “chief” to “authorising” should be done and we should just move on — Mrs L.M. Harvey: That is not my view at all. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The minister is saying that the authorising officer has the responsibility. I agree with her on that—the authorising officer does have the responsibility. I am questioning whether he has the knowledge and
8846 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] whether there should be a requirement with respect to the CEO of the Department of Fisheries. It seems that with this changeover the CEO of the Department of Fisheries is largely left out of the legislation. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 18 made by the Council be agreed to. Ms M.M. QUIRK: I would be grateful if the minister could explain why this amendment is necessary. Mr C.J. Barnett: Ask your colleagues in the upper house. Ms M.M. QUIRK: Sorry; what was that, Premier? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: This is a consequential amendment changing the definition of “chief officer” to “authorising officer”. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 19 made by the Council be agreed to. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 20 made by the Council be agreed to. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 21 made by the Council be agreed to. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 22 made by the Council be agreed to. Ms M.M. QUIRK: I ask the minister to explain why this amendment is necessary. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: This amendment requires the authorising officer to think through where the operations are going to be geographically located prior to authorising the controlled operations to go ahead. Legislators in South Australia and the Northern Territory have indicated that a tightening in this area is required. The Northern Territory’s legislation is currently before Parliament. The view is that the South Australian legislation is weak and might not be recognised, so we have determined that deleting the word “be” and inserting “be, or is likely to be” strengthens the requirements under this part of the bill. Ms M.M. QUIRK: I know it is late, minister, but I am completely puzzled. This does not seem to me to have the effect of strengthening it; in fact, it broadens it in my humble opinion, because the authorising person no longer has to be satisfied that the cross-border operation will be conducted in this jurisdiction or in one or more participating jurisdictions or in one or more participating jurisdictions specified in the authority. In other words, there need only be the prospect, not the strong likelihood. It seems to me that it has the opposite effect to what the minister has just told us—that it is tightening it up. I do not think it is; I think it is doing the opposite. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 23 made by the Council be agreed to. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Can the minister explain why it is proposed to delete the lines in clause 15(8) and replace them with new clause 15(8)? What is the impact of the amendment? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Amendment 23 is in response to recommendation 10 of the report of the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review in the other place. It is semantics, some would say. It just changes the words “written notes” to “a record in writing”, which was deemed by the uniform legislation committee to be a stronger requirement with regard to record keeping. Ms M.M. QUIRK: The amendment states — (8) The authorising officer must, as soon as practicable after granting an urgent authority, make a record in writing of the particulars referred to in subsection (6) relating to the authority. In whose mind does “as soon as practicable” have to be judged? In other words, is that an objective thing or is it the authorising officer’s view? Is it subjective as in “I have to do this as soon as I can” or is it an objective standard based on the circumstances and judged by someone else?
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8847
Mrs L.M. HARVEY: It would very much be determined by the nature of the operation. In certain circumstances, the oversight body would look at these matters and determine whether it was practicable to make a record in writing within 24 hours. In other circumstances, it might be a longer period of time. Ms M.M. Quirk: In other words, it is an objective standard, not a subjective standard. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Yes, subjective. Ms M.M. Quirk: No, objective. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: It would depend on the operation. It would be an objective assessment. Ms M.M. QUIRK: I am now confused. The minister is saying that an outside body would look at the circumstances. From my interpretation, that is an objective assessment. A subjective assessment would be the authorising officer addressing himself to what is reasonable or practicable for him. It seems to me that the minister is talking about an oversight body, so she must be saying that it is an objective standard. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I will clarify what I meant by that. I meant that the words in this legislation are “as soon as practicable”. In the context of recordkeeping in this very prescriptive bill, in that instance the authorising officer would be making an assessment based on what was practicable in those circumstances. They will report to an oversight body every six months, making an assessment of whether they were accurate in determining what was practicable in the circumstances of that particular operation. I put to the member that the tests within this bill are sufficient that as soon as practicable while perhaps being viewed as a subjective test could also be assessed and monitored as the covert investigations occur under this legislation. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 24 made by the Council be agreed to. Ms M.M. QUIRK: This amendment deals with the variations of authority. Could the minister give me a list of circumstances in which the authorising officer may want to vary an authority? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I refer the member to clause 18, “Variations on chief officer’s own initiative”. The circumstances are covered in that clause. Ms M.M. QUIRK: Sorry, minister; I did not make myself clear. Can the minister outline the circumstances in which that power might need to be exercised? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: To quote from the bill, that power might need to be authorised to extend the period of validity of the authority; to authorise additional or alternative persons to engage in controlled conduct et cetera, as outlined in clause 18(a) to (e) on page 15 of the bill. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 25 made by the Council be agreed to. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 26 made by the Council be agreed to. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Amendment 26 seeks to amend clause 18(3) at line 11, page 15 of the bill, which states — The chief officer must, as soon as practicable after varying an authority, prepare and give to the principal law enforcement officer for the authorised operation a written document that complies with section 21. The chief officer, now the authorising officer, to the Commissioner of Police must, as soon as practicable, prepare and give a document to the principal law enforcement officer. In the case of fisheries, who would that principal law enforcement officer be? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: It would be whoever was managing the operation. I think it is important to put this amendment in context. It is substituting “chief officer” for “authorising officer” in the context of the definitions that were changed earlier. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I make it clear that the minister reversed that. The amendment seeks to substitute “authorising officer” in place of “chief officer”. The clause further states — … for the authorised operation a written document that complies with section 21. Is section 21 this whole section of the bill or is it clause 21?
8848 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012]
Mrs L.M. Harvey: It’s clause 21 at present; it’s only a bill. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Clause 21 deals with a form of variation of the authority. Again we have this use of words: the Commissioner of Police, effectively, “must, as soon as practicable after varying an authority”. What is the meaning of “as soon as practicable” in that circumstance? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: It is subjective to the authorising officer, dependent on the particular operation. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I am sorry; I could not understand the minister. I could not hear her properly. Did the minister say that it is subjective to the authorising officer? Mrs L.M. Harvey: Indeed. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: It surprises me that it is just a subjective decision of the Commissioner of Police as to what is practicable. I would have thought there should be some objective measure of that. I wonder whether the minister might like to clarify her answer. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Member, the actual content of this clause has not changed, with the exception of changing the definition by substituting the word “authorising” for “chief” in the context of the definition that was changed earlier. This clause is the same, with the exception of the substitution of those words to make it consistent with the definition that we agreed to previously. It has not changed from when this bill left this house after it was voted on previously. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I am well aware of what the minister just said, so I have learnt nothing new there. What puzzled me, though, is that in the minister’s answer to my earlier question, she said that the definition of “as soon as practicable” is a subjective decision by the Commissioner of Police. I would have thought that those words have meaning under the law and that there could be some objective assessment of what was practicable in certain circumstances. If the minister does not clarify it, it is crazy. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: It is the commonsense definition that we would look up in a dictionary for “as soon as practicable”. It is not rocket science. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I point out to the minister that the definition of “subjective” is not rocket science either; “subjective” just means whatever the commissioner interprets it to mean at any given moment in time. I would have thought there should be some objective assessment of what is practicable in certain circumstances. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Once again, I seek to ascertain whether there are other amendments that members wish to specifically interrogate or whether there may be some flexibility to move these amendments en bloc. Leave granted for amendments 27 to 35 to be considered together. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendments 27 to 35 made by the Council be agreed to. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendments agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 36 made by the Council be agreed to. Ms M.M. QUIRK: As the minister said, this is a standard substitution of “chief officer” for “authorising officer”. It deals with the form of variation of authority. It says, however, that, in that case, the authorising officer must ensure that written notes are kept of particulars referred to in subsection (5) for each urgent application of authority. In some circumstances involving Department of Fisheries officers, if you like, the original documents will go back to the director general, but it is mandatory that the authorising officer, the police commissioner, keep written notes of the particulars for the urgent variation of authority. Is there any responsibility on anyone else such as the director general of the Department of Fisheries to have copies? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: This amendment has been put forward by WA Police to ensure consistency in the terminology between clause 19 and this clause regarding the types of records to be kept of an urgent variation application or approval process. The previous amendment I referred to comes out of recommendation 10 of the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I think the member for Girrawheen has made a good point here. It is brought about because of the change effectively from “chief executive officer” to “authorising officer”. When the bill was before this house a lot of obligations were placed on the chief executive officer of the Department of Fisheries. Now all those obligations appear to fall on the Commissioner of Police as the authorising officer. Under the legislation, not much at all is prescribed in terms of record keeping or other requirements. It appears there is not so much required of the CEO of the Department of Fisheries and a greater onus will fall on the Commissioner of Police as the authorising officer. Does the minister agree that is the case? Will the increased, more onerous role
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8849 on the police commissioner, or his acceptable delegated person, as the authorising officer for the Department of Fisheries, when it was originally proposed that the authorising officer would be the CEO of the Department of Fisheries—I acknowledge that the commissioner can delegate to commander or above—place a greater burden on the police department and, if so, will it have any financial or FEA implications? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: This amendment relates to the authorising officer, being the Commissioner of Police, making written notes of any controlled operations that have been received and approved and an urgent variation of authority having been received. I do not envisage there will be an exorbitant number of these urgent variations of authority for controlled operations for fisheries. I do not believe they will have a resourcing impact on police. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 37 made by the Council be agreed to. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 38 made by the Council be agreed to. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 39 made by the Council be agreed to. Ms M.M. QUIRK: Clause 23(3)(a) reads — in this jurisdiction and in one or more participating jurisdictions specified in the authority; or The effect of this amendment is to delete the words “jurisdictions specified in the authority; or”, and replace that with the words “jurisdictions; or”. I ask the obvious question: why is that the case? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: This amendment and amendment 40 will allow covert operations to go into all recognised jurisdictions. Should there be a recognised jurisdiction in a cross-border controlled operation, for example, this would authorise those controlled operations to go into other jurisdictions that have similar legislative protections and requirements. Ms M.M. QUIRK: Was this a government amendment or did this come out of the committee report? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Government amendment. Ms M.M. QUIRK: Why was this not contemplated when the legislation was first introduced? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I was not the author of the original legislation, member. I put to the member that this will make the legislation more effective. Ms M.M. QUIRK: Why? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Because it will allow cross-border jurisdictions—cross-border investigations. Ms M.M. QUIRK: But it does that in any event, minister. The legislation already contemplates mutual recognition of other jurisdictions. It is contemplated in all covert operations and controlled operations that they may potentially move from one state to another. I know there are circumstances in which criminals go on the Indian Pacific from Western Australia to South Australia, and the information might be that they are getting off in Port Augusta, and they in fact go through to Sydney or Melbourne, and I can contemplate that there might be the necessity for authorisation to be obtained in relation to that jurisdiction as intelligence and more information comes forward. I do regard it as dangerous that these authorities will now not specify that—that is, it will not be apparent from the face of these authorities in which jurisdiction these powers are permitted to operate. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: The effect of amendments 39 and 40 is that the authority should specify all the jurisdictions that the operation needs to go into. This is put in here to allow, in certain circumstances, if other jurisdictions have not been specified as part of the authority, that the controlled operation is allowed to go into jurisdictions that were not initially listed in the original authority, provided they are participating jurisdictions. Ms M.M. QUIRK: What we are doing by this amendment, and amendment 40, as I understand it, is getting rid of the words “jurisdictions specified in the authority” and replacing that with the word “jurisdictions”. So is it not the case that jurisdictions will no longer be required to be listed in the authority? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: They still need to be listed under clause 15(6)(d)(i). Ms M.M. QUIRK: How was this not picked up initially, and why is it that the police now say it is required? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: The reality is that this was probably overlooked in the original drafting. The joint working group certainly made a recommendation that this ability should be there. It is a safeguard.
8850 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012]
Ms M.M. QUIRK: The minister referred me to clause 15(6) in respect of the content of “an authority”. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: It was clause 15(6)(d)(i) and (ii). Ms M.M. QUIRK: That states — (d) for a cross-border controlled operation, state whether it is to be conducted — (i) in this jurisdiction and in one or more participating jurisdictions specified in the authority; or (ii) in one or more participating jurisdictions specified in the authority; That is the basis on which the minister says that the application has to specify the jurisdictions. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: To give the member an example, in setting up one of these covert operations it could be put that it is expected to go from Western Australia to South Australia and across into Victoria, and it may in fact inadvertently progress into New South Wales. For the purposes of this legislation, if the jurisdiction is a participating jurisdiction, the controlled operation does not need to cease at the borders of Victoria and New South Wales; it can go into those jurisdictions even if they have not been listed, provided they are participating jurisdictions. It is just a safeguard to ensure that the operation does not need to be called off because the other participating jurisdiction is not listed on the original authority. Ms M.M. QUIRK: I am a little confused because the fundamental authority has to list one or more jurisdictions that it contemplates the controlled operation will go into — Mrs L.M. Harvey: Where they’re likely to be. Ms M.M. QUIRK: Did the Whip say you could go, member for Bassendean? Is that why the words “likely to be” are included—to broaden it out? The minister said that it was actually restricting it, but she is now saying that “likely to be” is, in fact, needed in the context of the participating jurisdiction. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: The intention of this legislation is to make the original authority as distinct as possible. Sometimes these controlled operations do not go according to plan. One option would be to have every possible participating jurisdiction listed on every single covert operation application, which would include every jurisdiction in Australia—potentially every participating jurisdiction would be listed. This just means that the controlled operation does not need to be called off, should it go into another jurisdiction, provided it is a participating jurisdiction. Ms M.M. QUIRK: On that last point, where does it say “provided it is a participating jurisdiction”? Is that subject to any corresponding law of that participating jurisdiction in clause 23? Is that what the minister says the proviso is? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: A participating jurisdiction is a jurisdiction that is in the definitions. Ms M.M. Quirk: I understand what the word means, but I am asking, by way of interjection, about what the minister has just said that it does not have to be listed provided it is a participating jurisdiction. I am asking: is the last sentence of clause 23(3), which reads “subject to any corresponding law of that participating jurisdiction”, where the minister derives her assertion? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: No, it is paragraphs (a) and (b). What this legislation intends is that the controlled operations are put together in a prudent fashion and that they take into consideration all possible jurisdictions that the operation may need to go into. A participating jurisdiction needs to be a jurisdiction that is subject to the model legislation being enacted under the model law. Ms M.M. Quirk: I understand what a participating jurisdiction is, minister. That wasn’t the question. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: The member had better get up and explain herself. I do not understand what she is asking me. Ms M.M. QUIRK: The minister said a few minutes ago that a jurisdiction does not need to be listed on the authority if it is a participating jurisdiction. I ask: where does the minister get that proposition from? Mrs L.M. Harvey: No, no, no. Ms M.M. QUIRK: Is it from the last sentence of clause 23(3), because she referred me to clause 23(1), which refers to “participant”, which I would have thought was actually the person—the operative—engaged in the controlled operation and not a participating jurisdiction. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: No. What I said was that the authority should authorise the jurisdictions they expect the controlled operation to go into. Ms M.M. Quirk: Yes.
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8851
Mrs L.M. HARVEY: But that the controlled operation does not need to be called off if it goes into another jurisdiction. Ms M.M. Quirk: Yes. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Provided that jurisdiction is a participating jurisdiction. Ms M.M. Quirk: Yes, and I am asking you about that last bit you said about providing it is a participating jurisdiction. Where in the legislation does it say that? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: It says it in (3)(a). Ms M.M. Quirk: In 3(a) of what clause? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Clause 23(3)(a). Ms M.M. QUIRK: In this jurisdiction and in one or more participating jurisdictions. Mrs M.H. Roberts: Then it’s changed, though, so that’s the amendment. Ms M.M. QUIRK: No, that is the issue. The issue is that the minister no longer has to list all the jurisdictions she may want to run a controlled operation in because of the contingencies that she outlined. What I am saying is: where does it actually say that the minister does not have to list them if they are a participating jurisdiction? In other words, it is about the form of the authorisation, which is early in the legislation. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Subclause (3) reads — In the case of a cross-border controlled operation, the authority authorises each participant to engage in the conduct referred to in subsection (1) — (a) in this jurisdiction and in one or more participating jurisdictions specified in the authority; … Ms M.M. Quirk: Yes. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: We have deleted “specified in the authority”. Ms M.M. Quirk: Yes. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: We are saying that it is in this jurisdiction or in one or more participating jurisdictions. The officer needs to indicate in the original authority where they will be operating. Ms M.M. Quirk: Yes, I understand that. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: However, should the controlled operation take them to a jurisdiction that was not specified in the original authority, they can still continue with the controlled operation but they need to seek authority, as long as it is a participating authority. Ms M.M. Quirk: Yes, that is the last bit. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Then we have subsequent amendments coming up that will refer to the retrospective authority in certain circumstances. Ms M.M. Quirk: By way of interjection, minister, it is the last bit I have an issue with. I am asking where in the legislation it states—because it does not state it in the section that deals with the form of the authorisation—it is okay to leave a jurisdiction off the authorisation if it is a participating jurisdiction? It is that last bit I have not gleaned an answer to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Indeed, the reason these amendments are put together in a block is that each of those amendments and each of these clauses need to be taken in the context of the bill. Specified jurisdictions are defined. The way an authority is put together is defined. Ms M.M. Quirk: It is not the definition. It is the “so long as”. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: You stand up. Ms M.M. QUIRK: Minister, there is no reason to lose your bottle with me. I am trying to assist you. Mrs L.M. Harvey: I am not; I am trying to understand where you are coming from and I think you might need five minutes to explain it to me. Please explain it. Ms M.M. QUIRK: I will take the five minutes since the minister has asked me to. The minister has told Parliament and this chamber that this amendment is about not making a controlled operation have to stop at a border. For example, if a controlled operation goes somewhere it was not contemplated it would go when the authorisation was sought, that necessarily will not mean that the controlled operation has to stop. I am right so far? Mrs L.M. Harvey: Yes.
8852 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012]
Ms M.M. QUIRK: The reason the minister says it does not have to stop is that this amendment will permit the controlled operation to continue. Does the minister accept that? Mrs L.M. Harvey: Yes. Ms M.M. QUIRK: The minister then went on to say that the controlled operation can continue so long as where it goes is a participating jurisdiction. I am asking the minister where the bill refers to “so long as it is in the participating jurisdiction”. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: It refers to these in clause 6, “Cross-border controlled operations”. It refers to this in clause — Ms M.M. Quirk: Just hold on, minister, so I can look at that. No, but that states “in one or more participating jurisdictions”. It does not state “so long as it is a participating jurisdiction”. That is the issue. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Yes. Ms M.M. QUIRK: What amendment are we up to? Amendment 39. We will just go to — Mrs L.M. Harvey: Clause 13 as well determines a participating controlled—there are a number of clauses where the participating jurisdictions are referred to. Taking one line out of one clause does not necessarily make sense. Ms M.M. QUIRK: This is what I am trying to clarify: the minister has said on three or four occasions that this will allow—obviously I am paraphrasing—a controlled operation to continue even though that particular jurisdiction is not listed on the authorisation. Then the fatal words start—“so long as it is a participating jurisdiction”. I want to know where that proviso is in the bill, because otherwise I am having trouble with amendment 39. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Clause 23, “Effect of authorities” states — (1) While it has effect, an authority for a controlled operation — Ms M.M. Quirk: Sorry, clause 23(1)(a) and (b) refers to participants in the controlled operation, not participating jurisdictions; they are different concepts. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Yes, and then further down it states that the effect of the authority — In the case of a cross-border controlled operation, the authority authorises — Ms M.M. Quirk: Where are you reading from? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I am reading the clause we are debating. Ms M.M. Quirk: You said clause 23(1)(a), and then where is the next clause you talked about? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I am talking about clause 23 and subclauses (1), (2) and (3). This is the effect of the authorities. Ms M.M. QUIRK: Clause 23(2) states — In the case of a local controlled operation, the authority authorises each participant to engage in the conduct referred to in subsection (1) in this jurisdiction but not in any other jurisdiction. That does not help me. What is the next subclause that the minister says explains it? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Clause 23(3) states — In the case of a cross-border controlled operation, the authority authorises each participant to engage in the conduct referred to in subsection (1) … That means in the cross-border controlled operation, the authority authorises the participants to authorise each law enforcement participant to engage in the controlled conduct specified in the authority in respect of the law enforcement participants; and authorises each civilian participant, if any, to engage in the particular controlled conduct, if any, specified in the authority in respect of that participant in this jurisdiction or one or more participating jurisdictions. Ms M.M. Quirk: Okay, that’s the answer. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Right, so the member just needed to read it all together. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 40 made by the Council be agreed to. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8853
Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 41 made by the Council be agreed to. Ms M.M. QUIRK: Amendment 41 inserts after “hours” — (or any longer period that the authorising officer may, in exceptional circumstances, allow) Clause 25(2) deals with the situation that if a participant in an authorised operation engages in unlawful conduct in the course of the operation, the principal law enforcement officer for the operation may, within 24 hours— although that will be extended further—apply for retrospective authority. Was this amendment part of the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review’s amendments or is it a government amendment? Can the minister explain the circumstances in which this provision might apply? What is meant by “exceptional”? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Amendment 41 implements recommendation 11 of the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review’s report. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have a few questions. The first one is about the words “or any longer period that the authorising officer may, in exceptional circumstances, allow” that are to be inserted. This amends a clause that deals with retrospective authority. We will insert those words after “24 hours” so that the whole sentence, to get it in context, will read — If a participant in an authorised operation engages in unlawful conduct (other than controlled conduct) in the course of the operation, the principal law enforcement officer for the operation may, within 24 hours (or any longer period that the authorising officer may, in exceptional circumstances, allow) after the participant engages in that conduct, apply to the chief officer — “Chief officer” will be amended, too, to read “authorising officer” — for retrospective authority for the conduct. When it was a defined number of hours—that is, 24 hours—that to me was clear. The amendment would appear to make things quite unclear. How do we determine what these exceptional circumstances are? How can the authorising officer determine that before they receive the retrospective request? What form would the allowance or commission take? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: This came out of the committee’s deliberations, in which it was determined that there may be certain circumstances in which a person who is operating as a covert officer in a controlled operation may need to engage in unlawful actions that are outside the scope of the controlled operations that they had been authorised to act in. It was deemed, generally speaking, that an application to that officer’s superior to authorise that particular action could be made within a 24-hour time period, but in certain circumstances these controlled operatives may not be able to get in contact with their supervising officer within a 24-hour time frame, depending on the type of controlled operation they are engaged in. Therefore, “exceptional circumstances” would be an assessment made of those circumstances at the time — Mrs M.H. Roberts: But this is retrospective. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: — that retrospective approval is given. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Is “principal law enforcement officer” defined in the bill? I did not see it in the definitions clause, although it may be there and I missed it; or is there a definition elsewhere? Mrs L.M. Harvey: If the member could ask a further question — Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Amendment 41 is the first of seven amendments to clause 25 of the bill. I will raise a couple of questions on clause 25 generally and perhaps we may not need to speak to each of the seven separate amendments. This whole area of retrospectivity is not in the model bill, so why has this been inserted in the Western Australian bill? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: It was not part of the model laws. The model laws were first proposed in 2003. My understanding is that it was originally contemplated by this state government around 2007. During the time that the laws came into effect in other jurisdictions, it was determined that there were rare but exceptional circumstances in which retrospective approval was required for covert operatives, so to ensure that those operatives were protected it was deemed that this retrospective authority should be brought into the legislation in Western Australia. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Can I inquire of the minister which states have retrospective authority, given that it is not in the model bill? Mrs L.M. Harvey: New South Wales is the only one at this point in time. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: So, retrospective authority is not in the model bill and is not in any other jurisdiction but New South Wales. I put it to the minister that she misled us in her earlier answer, because she said that some of
8854 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] the other states found there were circumstances in which retrospectivity would be appropriate so they put it into their legislation. The minister used the plural form, and gave us the impression that more than one state had this in place. I take it the minister has now corrected that statement by saying it is only New South Wales that has the retrospectivity. Mrs L.M. Harvey: My apologies to the chamber for an inadvertent stutter earlier on. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: While I am still on my feet, I say that I think retrospectivity should be taken very seriously. The general philosophy is that permissions for this activity should be sought in advance and the minister herself has said that this should only be in rare and exceptional circumstances. I wonder whether she can enlighten the house as to what those rare and exceptional circumstances might be. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I am advised that there is an ombudsman’s report in New South Wales outlining a circumstance of a controlled operation in which the operative was allowed to undertake certain activities. In the course of that operation the operative was offered a firearm by the people he was undercover with. The operative would have blown his cover if had refused a firearm, because obviously that would not have been in keeping with the role he was undertaking as part of the operation. He accepted the firearm. It was deemed that they were exceptional circumstances and that operative then needed to apply for retrospective approval to breach the Firearms Act. That is why this retrospective authority is in this legislation. We want to be certain that operatives covered under our Western Australian legislation are covered for unforeseen circumstances and exceptional circumstances like those I have just described. However, it is envisaged that all due care and prudence will be undertaken when these operations are put together and circumstances like that would indeed be prescribed as part of the authority. Ms M.M. QUIRK: I have to say from my experience that sort of occurrence is actually not exceptional; it happens all the time with undercover officers. So, I am a bit confused about why the minister says it is exceptional. I would have thought that is something that would happen frequently in these sorts of operations. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: The member might have that opinion, but I am guided by — Ms M.M. Quirk: I’ve got that experience, minister. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I am guided by what actually occurred in those circumstances, and, indeed, it was not envisaged that the operative would be using a firearm. That was what happened and that is why this retrospective authority clause has been put into this legislation to ensure that should our operatives be put in those circumstances, they would be exempted from criminal charges being brought against them if they were engaged under the criminal investigations bill. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I asked a question earlier about the words to be inserted here, “in exceptional circumstances, allow”. That seems to be a strange turn of phrase there. Something is being allowed retrospectively and I do not know how that conclusion is able to be reached. I know the minister has advised that these words were inserted after some discussion and recommendation from the committee in the upper house, but I imagine that when the bill was drafted, the police thought it was reasonable to seek that retrospectivity to within 24 hours. Do the police still consider what they originally proposed—a 24-hour time limit—reasonable? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I draw the member’s attention to the remainder of clause 25, which details the conditions under which a retrospective authority may or may not be granted. The time frame for the granting of the retrospective authority needs to be viewed with respect to the remainder of the clauses that refer to the conditions of the retrospective approval being given. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I repeat my question: is it the view of the police department still, as it was in 2011, that 24 hours does enable ample opportunity to seek the retrospective authority? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I will quote from the committee report. The evidence WA Police gave to the committee was — It is acknowledged that the 24 hour time limit for making the application to the chief officer could be problematic, as there may be occasions where a participant, because of their proximity to a target, may not be able to notify their principal law enforcement officer (PLEO) in a timely enough manner, to then enable their PLEO (if he/she so chooses) to make application to their Chief Officer within 24 hours. It may be that the Bill could be framed to allow for an application to be made outside of the 24 hour time period, but only in exceptional circumstances. Consideration will be given to drafting an appropriate amendment in committee to resolve this concern. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Leave granted for amendments 42 and 43 to be considered together. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendments 42 and 43 made by the Council be agreed to. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendments agreed to.
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8855
Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 44 made by the Council be agreed to. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: This amendment relates to clause 25, which states — (4) The chief officer — Which is the Commissioner of Police — may require the principal law enforcement officer to furnish such additional information concerning relevant conduct as is necessary for the chief officer’s proper consideration of the application. I note here that this is again retrospective. Every other jurisdiction bar New South Wales does not have the retrospective clause. Yes, there are considerable conditions placed here. In the case of the fisheries department, that principal law enforcement officer presumably is a senior officer of the Department of Fisheries, or is it the person running the operation for the fisheries department? Mrs L.M. Harvey: Yes; however, this amendment is a consequential amendment referring to the authorising officer in respect of retrospective authority being approved rather than the chief officer, which would be the Department of Fisheries for a fisheries operation. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: But the principal law enforcement officer for the fisheries department who is being referred to here is not the CEO of the fisheries department but the officer running the operation, is it? Mrs L.M. Harvey: Yes, that is correct—the officer running the operation. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Because when I look back to page 6, it says something like that. The bill states — … for an authorised operation, means the law enforcement officer who is responsible for the conduct of the operation; That may not be the CEO of the fisheries department. It might be somebody in the serious offences unit within the Department of Fisheries, which was referred to previously. Mrs L.M. Harvey: Yes. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I want to link two things together. Firstly, the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review’s report recommended that the Department of Fisheries not be included in this legislation. Not only has the minister included the Department of Fisheries in this legislation, but also retrospective authority can be applied to Department of Fisheries’ operations, not just police operations, as I understand it. Can the minister refresh my memory about an answer to an earlier question: does New South Wales include Department of Fisheries officers in its legislation? Mrs L.M. Harvey: No, they do not. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: This retrospective authority is not in the model legislation and we will be the only state in Australia in which Department of Fisheries officers can undertake these activities and then seek retrospective authority; is that correct? Mrs L.M. Harvey: That is correct. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: It has already been said that some extraordinary powers are being given to Department of Fisheries officers. One of the checks and balances here is that the authorising officer for these operations will be the Commissioner of Police. Now we will be the only jurisdiction in Australia where the principal law enforcement officer of the Department of Fisheries can utilise some of these extraordinary powers and then seek retrospective authority from the Commissioner of Police. Minister, what happens if the Commissioner of Police does not see fit to grant retrospective authority? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: It allows, in exceptional circumstances, the Commissioner of Police to authorise a Department of Fisheries officer, as part of this authority, retrospectivity with respect to their actions. The Commissioner of Police, as the authorising officer, does not have to grant that retrospective authority unless he or she is satisfied that the retrospective authority is warranted in the context of that operation. If the officer is not granted retrospective authority, they are not covered or protected by this legislation for any criminality that might ensue as a result of their actions. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Leave granted for amendments 45 to 48 to be considered together. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendments 45 to 48 made by the Council be agreed to Questions put and passed; the Council’s amendments agreed to.
8856 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012]
Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I seek, by way of interjection from members opposite, whether there are other amendments they would like to speak to. Mrs M.H. Roberts: Are we on amendment 49 at the moment? The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. Mrs M.H. Roberts: Yes, I would like to speak to 49. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 49 made by the Council be agreed to. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Amendment 49 deals with page 23, line 3 under the heading “Parliamentary Commissioner to be notified of retrospective authorities”. Can I clarify whether that heading is still accurate? Mrs L.M. Harvey: No. The heading will be changed by the Clerks after the bill has passed, should it be passed. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: What will it be changed to, minister? Mrs L.M. Harvey: It will be “Corruption and Crime Commission to be notified of retrospective authorities”. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The impact of this amendment is to delete “a chief” and insert “an authorising”. Why is it “an” authorising officer rather than “the” authorising officer? Other clauses in the bill, such as clause 25, to which there were about seven amendments, originally referred to “the chief” officer and those references have all been amended to read “the authorising” officer. We have now gone for “an” authorising officer as though there could be more than one. Mrs L.M. Harvey: It is grammatically correct, I am advised. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: It is a choice. Subclause (1) will now state — An authorising officer who grants a retrospective authority under section 25 must provide to the — And the next part of that subclause is the subject of a further amendment. Mrs L.M. Harvey: That is right, yes. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: That is amendment 50, which inserts the term “Corruption and Crime Commission”. I note that we have asked the minister questions about the choice there, and I note that some of the states use the ombudsman. I do not intend to reengage in that debate. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 50 made by the Council be agreed to. Ms M.M. QUIRK: This amendment will insert the words “Corruption and Crime Commission” in lieu of “Parliamentary Commissioner”. We have already canvassed in some detail the rationale for that. Now that the Corruption and Crime Commission will be doing these things in relation to controlled operations and the conduct of them, will it be subject to the oversight of the parliamentary commissioner, who oversights the CCC? Will actions under this legislation also be subject to the oversight of the parliamentary inspector? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: To the extent that it carries out an inspection function as part of its functions under this act, yes. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Leave granted for amendments 51 to 53 to be considered together. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendments 51 to 53 made by the Council be agreed to. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendments agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 54 made by the Council be agreed to. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 55 made by the Council be agreed to. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: This amendment is to line 8 and it will delete the word “chief” and insert “authorising”. This is an amendment to clause 30 of the bill. I am advised that it does not contain a corresponding provision to
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8857 the one in the model law. Is that correct? I will clarify that a bit more for the minister. Some notes that I have state — Clause 30 of the Bill does not contain a corresponding provision to clause 17(2)(b) and (3) of the Model Law which provides for a participant in a controlled operation continuing to have the protection of the immunity if they are unaware the authority for the controlled operation has been cancelled, unless the participant is not reckless about the existence of the cancellation. So, it could be argued the Bill gives greater protection to participants in these circumstances than the Model Law. Those notes were appended to the upper house committee’s report. If it is the case that the bill gives greater protection than the model law, what are those greater protections and why has it been provided? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: The two amendments to clause 30, “Effect of being unaware of variation or cancellation of authority”, are consequential amendments on the Commissioner of Police being the legislatively appointed approving entity of controlled operations conducted by the fisheries department. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 56 made by the Council be agreed to. Ms M.M. QUIRK: I would be grateful if the minister could explain the reason for this amendment. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: This amendment extends the coverage of confidentiality of information for operations that have been ceased as well as for current operations. Ms M.M. QUIRK: I am not clear what that means. I ask the minister to expand on that. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: This amendment is to the definition of “operational amendment”. The indictable offence provision in this clause is intended to protect operational information from unlawful disclosure. This protection was intended to apply to operational information gathered while an authorised controlled operation was in force and also after it had been completed. However, the previous definition of “operational information” contained the words “authorised operation”. This is defined in clause 5 of the bill to mean a controlled operation for which an authority is in force. This means the protection of this indictable offence provision previously only had application to controlled operations conducted wholly within WA while the authorised operation is in force. It did not protect the highly sensitive information once the operation was completed. This amendment remedies that problem. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 57 made by the Council be agreed to. Ms M.M. QUIRK: This amendment seeks to insert on page 29, line 11 a couple of paragraphs in subclause 2(c). If amended, subclause (2) will read — A person who has access, or has had access, to operational information must not disclose the information except — … (ca) for the purpose of seeking legal advice; or (cb) to a government agency for the purposes of a law enforcement operation conducted by that agency or for intelligence-gathering purposes; I am concerned about the words “or for intelligence-gathering purposes”. That implies that they are for intelligence-gathering purposes other than a law enforcement operation, and that concerns me. Can the minister explain the rationale for this amendment and what is meant by “intelligence-gathering purposes” if it is not included within the definitions for the purposes of law enforcement operation? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Effectively, the insertion of these paragraphs facilitates information sharing. WA Police was of the view that some operational information would be extremely beneficial to share with other law enforcement agencies, either to assist them with current investigations they are undertaking or even to alert them to potential future activity they may need to know about. In certain circumstances it was deemed that there needed to be a provision included here to allow that to occur. Ms M.M. QUIRK: I absolutely have no problem if it is for the purposes of a law enforcement operation conducted by that agency; what I have a problem with is that because there is a disjunctive, or an “or”—“or for intelligence-gathering purposes”—the implication is that in some way it might be broader than law enforcement. I am particularly concerned about what is contemplated by “intelligence-gathering purposes”. If that is within law enforcement purposes, could it not be covered by the first section of that provision?
8858 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012]
Mrs L.M. HARVEY: It may be that it is deemed appropriate in certain circumstances to pass on information to another government agency about unlawful activity that is occurring for which there may not be an investigation taking place within that other organisation. For example, there may be a controlled operation of the Department of Fisheries that may in fact uncover some other organised crime activity, such as drug couriers and organised crime to do with drug importations or exportations—items of that type. The purpose of this is to enable officers engaged in the covert operation to pass on that information to other agencies or law enforcement agencies that may have an interest in perhaps initiating an investigation as a result of that information sharing. Ms M.M. QUIRK: My problem is that it is not limited to law enforcement agencies. That is why I have a real issue. Can the minister explain whether this is a government amendment or whether it was something suggested by the committee, and is she able to explain why it was phrased in that way? Is there a particular reason for that? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I am advised that the first part was an amendment resulting from the deliberations of the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review. The second part of the amendment was a government amendment that was deemed appropriate in respect to the consultation with WA Police. Ms M.M. Quirk: When you say the second part, do you mean paragraph (cb)? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Paragraph (cb) is a government-initiated amendment; paragraph (ca) is a government- initiated amendment resulting from the committee deliberations. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: This amendment is to clause 35(2). Is it correct that this is less prescriptive than clause 22 of the model law, which specifies different elements to be satisfied for the different penalties? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Would the member be so kind as to clarify what she means by “less prescriptive” and which area of the model law she is referring to? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I am advised that clause 22 of the model law specifies different elements to be satisfied for the various penalties. I also add that the model law does not provide for a fine, whereas this provides for a summary conviction penalty of $24 000 or imprisonment of two years. Why are those variations from the model law? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: The threshold for our law is lower. Under the model law the person would need to establish an intent of knowing or reckless disclosure of information. This requires the person to not disclose information, except in those circumstances outlined in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 58 moved by the Council be agreed to. Ms M.M. QUIRK: This is a fairly lengthy amendment and I would like an indication of its purpose. Is it a government amendment? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: This comes out of recommendation 16 of the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review’s report, which proposed a new clause with a list of nine further prescribed matters that should be included in the principal law enforcement officer’s report. There is no objection to these additional areas being listed. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Can I clarify that these provisions are not in the model law and whether the minister is aware of any similar provisions being put in place in any of the other jurisdictions? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Aspects of this legislation are specific to Western Australia and some aspects fall out of the model law. This amendment responds to that recommendation of the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review’s report. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 59 made by the Council be agreed to. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Leave granted for amendments 60 to 67 be considered together. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendments 60 to 67 made by the Council be agreed to. These are consequential amendments redefining once again “chief officer” and “authorising officer”. They are all similar in nature. Amendments 66 and 67 are similar to previous amendments that change references to “Parliamentary Commissioner” to “Corruption and Crime Commission”.
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8859
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendments agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 68 made by the Council be agreed to. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I seek an explanation from the minister for why this amendment is required. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: This amendment responds to recommendation 17 in the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review’s report. This will ensure there is notification that information has been excluded from a report. It is incumbent upon the minister to ensure that, should specific information that might endanger a person or contain sensitive information about a covert operation be excluded from a report, the report specifically contain notification that the information has been excluded for this purpose. Ms M.M. QUIRK: The existing provision states — (3) The Minister must exclude information from the report if satisfied on the advice of the chief officer of any of the grounds set out in subsection (2). What is the difference between existing subclause (3) and new subclause (3) as proposed in this amendment? Is it solely the addition of a statement that information has been excluded? Mrs L.M. Harvey: Yes. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Leave granted for amendments 69 to 71 to be considered together. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendments 69 to 71 made by the Council be agreed to. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendments agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 72 made by the Council be agreed to. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: This is seemingly a much more substantial amendment, so I seek an explanation as to why the minister has moved this amendment. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: The joint working group suggested that the powers listed here should be the powers given to the inspector of this legislation. The Corruption and Crime Commission did not have these powers. This amendment will enable the CCC to perform these investigations for this purpose. Mrs M.H. Roberts: Who comprises the joint working group? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: The joint working group is the group that worked on the “Cross border investigative powers for law enforcement” report of 2003, out of which this model law legislation has fallen. So it was deemed that the inspector of these operations should have these powers. The Office of the Parliamentary Inspector was enabled under its legislation to have the ability to inspect as described. The Corruption and Crime Commission did not have those powers, so it has been included here. This also will enable the Corruption and Crime Commission to delegate to an officer of the commission these powers of inspection. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: If I heard the minister correctly, she said that the joint working group recommended this amendment. When did it recommend this amendment, and why was it not included in the bill when it was before this house earlier? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: In 2003, when the joint working group put its report together, the recommendation for these powers was part of that report. In the original legislation as it was drafted, we had the Ombudsman and the Office of the Parliamentary Inspector listed as those agencies that would perform this inspection function. That has since been changed to the Corruption and Crime Commission. Therefore, this clause is required to enable the Corruption and Crime Commission to perform these inspection functions under this legislation. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: We are dealing with amendment 72, which deletes lines 25 to 28 on page 35 of the bill. Mrs L.M. Harvey: Removing the parliamentary commissioner. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Yes. It replaces the very brief clause 41(2) which reads — The Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1971 section 11 and Part III apply, with any necessary changes, to an inspection under this section as if the inspection were an investigation under that Act. That is being replaced with a substantially longer amendment—(2)(a), (b) and (c), and (2A). There is a lot more prescription in the amendment than there is in the original bill; it is not just a matter of a name change, as I read it, from parliamentary commissioner to the Corruption and Crime Commission. Where has this amendment come from? I cannot see how these are the words that were recommended in 2003 if they were not in the original bill.
8860 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012]
Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Clause 41(2) states — The Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1971 section 11 and Part III apply, with any necessary changes, to an inspection under this section as if the inspection were an investigation under that Act. These inspection functions are not prescribed in the original bill because there is a reference to them under section 11 and part III of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1971. The CCC does not have that inspection function prescribed under its legislation, so it needs to be prescribed in this legislation to allow it to perform this function. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The amendment also includes new subclause (2A), which reads — The Corruption and Crime Commission may delegate to an officer of the Commission (as defined in the Corruption and Crime Commission Act 2003 section 3(1)) a power or duty of the Corruption and Crime Commission under this section and, for that purpose, the Corruption and Crime Commission Act 2003 section 185(3) to (6) apply as if the delegation were a delegation under section 185. There does not appear to be a similar provision in the bill as it was first presented to this house, so why is it necessary for that delegation power to be inserted there? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Indeed, member, the Corruption and Crime Commission is a body, and (2A) enables that body to delegate to a person, being an officer of the commission, to perform these inspection roles. Section 11 of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1971 provides the power of delegation from that authority to a person. We needed to prescribe it in our legislation because the Corruption and Crime Commission does not presently have that delegation or these inspection functions as part of its legislative framework. Ms M.M. QUIRK: Can the minister confirm that the exercise of these particular powers by the CCC will be subject to oversight by the parliamentary inspector? Mrs L.M. Harvey: Yes. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Leave granted for amendments 73 to 75 to be considered together. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendments 73 to 75 made by the Council be agreed to. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendments agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 76 made by the Council be agreed to. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Amendment 76 is to delete lines 3 to 12 on page 37 of the bill and insert the lines as listed on our notice paper here today. I note that clause 43 defines a “senior officer”, with respect to the Australian Crime Commission, as the director of national operations as well as a person holding a prescribed office in the Australian Crime Commission. The amendment contains those, as well as director, and defines “senior officer” to mean, in relation to the police force, an officer of or above the rank of commander, whereas the model law states a rank above assistant commissioner. Can I ask why the minister has chosen to have someone at or above the rank of commander? Perhaps at the same time the minister can advise me how many assistant commissioners and how many commanders there are currently in the Western Australia Police service. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: The reason we have delegated to the rank of commander is that the state intelligence division of the WA Police force does not have an assistant commissioner sitting above it; it is run by a commander. There are currently eight assistant commissioners, six commanders and two deputy commissioners, to which this senior officer role could in fact be delegated. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I am sorry; I missed what the minister said then. Did the minister say that the state intelligence service does not have a commander? Was that the unit she was referring to? Mrs L.M. Harvey: The state intelligence service is run by a commander, and that is why — Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: It is run by a commander, so it does not have an assistant commissioner; is that what the minister said? Mrs L.M. Harvey: Yes. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: So, I put it to the minister that the only commander who would be relevant here would be the one in charge of the state intelligence service, if the minister wants to go down to that rank. While I have the call, I also ask at the same time whether, given that in the model legislation it was envisaged that someone would be at least of the rank of assistant commissioner, any of the other jurisdictions have chosen to include officers of a rank below assistant commissioner.
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8861
Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I am advised that New South Wales has delegated this function to the rank of superintendent. We have delegated ours to someone above the rank of commander, so that anybody above the rank of commander can be delegated as this authorising officer. Ms M.M. QUIRK: In relation to the amendment in paragraph (c), which relates to the delegation by the chief executive officer of the fisheries department, it says that it can be delegated to a fisheries officer holding a prescribed office in the department. I ask the minister: what is such a prescribed office; and, can the minister also advise me what is the range of decisions that the CEO of the fisheries department can take? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: The fisheries officer’s rank will be prescribed by regulation. It would be an executive director. Ms M.M. QUIRK: The other part of my question is: can the minister explain to me in relation to the CEO of the fisheries department what the decision-making powers are that can be delegated? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: This is a delegation to a fisheries officer prescribed by regulation for the purposes of administration, record keeping and, basically, the reporting function requirement and administrative function requirement within fisheries. Ms M.M. QUIRK: Is that the only power that can be delegated under this legislation by the Department of Fisheries? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: That is the only function that the chief officer of fisheries has, so that is the only function the officer can delegate. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Is the minister able to advise how many people in fisheries hold the rank of executive director or above; and will the regulations prescribe who can be a prescribed officer? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: At this moment in time there is one executive director in fisheries and indeed that function needs to be prescribed by regulation. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 77 made by the Council be agreed to. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Leave granted for amendments 78 and 79 to be considered together. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendments 78 and 79 made by the Council be agreed to. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendments agreed to. Leave granted for amendments 80 to 88 to be considered together. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendments 80 to 88 made by the Council be agreed to. These are consequential amendments changing “chief officer” to “authorising officer” or “chief” to “authorising” in sections of the bill. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I know that the minister wants to pick up speed here and we are quite happy to help her in this, but can I clarify what has been moved so I know that I am not missing what I want to speak to? The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Amendments 80 to 88. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: This group of amendments, 80 through to 88, amends clauses 47, 48 and 49, which deal with the formal application and approval procedure for the acquisition and use of an assumed identity. The amendments replace references to “chief officer of” and “chief” with “authorising officer for” and “authorising” respectively. The amendments are a consequence of the decision to make the Commissioner of Police the approved entity for the acquisition and use of assumed identities by the fisheries department. In this regard the Commissioner of Police will also be the designated office holder to approve variations or cancellations of such authorities, as in the controlled operations part of the bill. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendments agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 89 made by the Council be agreed to. Ms M.M. QUIRK: I would like to know the purpose of this amendment. I can understand that the existing bill refers to “chief officer” and the amendment refers to “authorising officer”, but there are quite distinct changes
8862 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] other than that. The bill seeks to ensure that person has written notes of the particulars of granting the authority for someone to assume an identity, but the amendments refer to what needs to be done with an urgent authority and there is no reference to notes. Is this a government amendment or a committee amendment? Can the minister explain the context? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Member, earlier we discussed changing the words “written notes” to “a record in writing”; therefore, “record in writing” replaced the phrase “written notes” in the bill prior to this amendment. The committee, in making that recommendation, referred only to controlled operations. This is a government amendment for the sake of consistency. We have included it in the assumed identities part of the bill to ensure that there is consistency throughout the legislation. Ms M.M. QUIRK: The other change that seems to occur is that in the existing bill it appears that those notes need to be taken contemporaneously, but with this amendment they will need to be made only as soon as practicable. I can see that it is in the committee report, is that why that change has been made? Mrs L.M. Harvey: That’s right. Ms M.M. QUIRK: Was that change made on the basis of any submissions that police gave the committee? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: No. My understanding is that WA Police, although acknowledging that distinction, did not request the terminology in the drafting. That distinction was contained in the model law and there was a need for consistency with that terminology. Therefore, WA Police did not request it, but — Ms M.M. Quirk: No; I am not talking about the “written notes” and “a record in writing” terms; I am talking about the term “as soon as practicable”, which was not in the original bill. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: This amendment is also the committee insisting on consistency throughout the bill. The words “as soon as practicable” have been mentioned previously, in clause 10, and in the committee’s opinion there should be a consistent reference to that phrasing further in the bill. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I seek leave to move amendments 90 to 93 en bloc. These are consequential amendments, once again, deleting the word “chief” and substituting the word “authorising”, consistent with previous amendments. Leave granted for amendments 90 to 93 to be considered together. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendments 90 to 93 made by the Council be agreed to. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendments agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 94 made by the Council be agreed to. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Can I just clarify whether this amendment has been moved for consistency and whether it is a government amendment? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: This is a government amendment and, yes, I can confirm that once again, for the sake of consistency we have “record in writing” replacing “written notes”. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I seek leave to move amendments 95 to 99 en bloc. Once again, these are consequential amendments deleting “chief” and replacing it with “authorising”, as previously agreed to. Leave granted for amendments 95 to 99 to be considered together. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendments 95 to 99 made by the Council be agreed to. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendments agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 100 made by the Council be agreed to. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I seek information from the minister as to the necessity of this amendment. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Once again, this is one of those amendments for consistency, replacing “written notes” with “record in writing”. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8863
Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I seek leave to move amendments 101 to 107 en bloc. Once again, these are consequential amendments deleting “chief” and replacing it with “authorising”, consistent with the changes previously discussed for “authorising officer”. Leave granted for amendments 101 to 107 to be considered together. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendments 101 to 107 made by the Council be agreed to. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Looking at these amendments, I understand what the minister has said. With respect to amendment 102: at page 48, line 30, under the heading “Yearly review of formal authority”, “chief officer” is changed to “authorising officer or a delegate of the authorising”. In that circumstance, who would be the delegate? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: This is in fact a consequential amendment changing the words in line 30 from “chief” to “authorising” in two places, so it is granted by the authorising officer or a delegate of the authorising officer rather than granted by the chief officer or a delegate of the chief officer. It is a consequential amendment to ensure that we refer to the authorising officer in this circumstance. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendments agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 108 made by the Council be agreed to. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Why is this amendment required? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Once again, this is a consequential amendment deleting “an authority granted under section 48 authorises” and inserting “the authorising officer for a law enforcement agency grants an authority under section 48 authorising”. It is, once again, a consequential amendment to make sense of previous amendments. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I seek, by way of interjection from those opposite, amendments that they wish to single out for debate. Ms M.M. Quirk: Amendment 114. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I seek leave to move amendments 109 to 113 en bloc. Leave granted for amendments 109 to 113 to be considered together. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendments 109 to 113 made by the Council be agreed to. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendments agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 114 made by the Council be agreed to. Ms M.M. QUIRK: I would like an explanation from the minister as to who suggested this amendment and what is its purpose. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: This amendment corrects a grammatical error and also ensures consistency in terminology between this clause, being clause 76, and clause 38 of the bill. The amendment also implements recommendation 24 of the Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review Committee’s report. Ms M.M. QUIRK: I take it the grammatical error is the words “both Houses” and that has been changed to “each House”; is that correct? Mrs L.M. Harvey: That is correct. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 115 made by the Council be agreed to. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: There is a change of wording here, which I understand has probably come out of the Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review Committee’s report. The wording that was in the bill that we passed here states — (3) The Minister must exclude information from the report if satisfied on the advice of the chief officer of any of the grounds set out in subsection (2).
8864 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012]
Obviously the reference here is to “chief officer”. In the amendment that has replaced it, it is more detailed. It deletes those lines that I just read out and inserts — (3) The Minister must — (a) exclude information from the report if satisfied on the advice of the chief officer of any of the grounds set out in subsection (2); and (b) insert a statement to the effect that information has been excluded from the report under paragraph (a). I can quite understand why the upper house committee has put paragraph (b) there. It would seem to me to aid the purposes of transparency. In the original wording, there was a reference to, “The Minister must exclude information from the report if satisfied on the advice of the chief officer”. It is now reworded, “of any of the grounds set out in subsection (2)”, which is virtually the same there. Can the minister clarify whether this has come at the recommendation of the committee and whether this will increase transparency? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: This does implement recommendation 23 of the committee’s report. Indeed, it does compel the minister to take notice of the advice of the chief officer with respect to information that needs to be excluded from a report, should that information endanger personal safety et cetera, as outlined in subclause (2)(a), (b) and (c). It also insists that the minister must insert a statement to the effect that this information has been excluded from the report. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 116 made by the Council be agreed to. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: There are some changes that the minister is proposing in this amendment. I wonder if she would outline what those changes are and the purpose of them. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: These changes replace the definition of “senior officer” and also the title of director national operations of the Australian Crime Commission. That position has been renamed, so it is now defined as “an SES employee as defined in the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002”. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Leave granted for clauses 117 to 119 to be considered together. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendments 117 to 119 made by the Council be agreed to. These are consequential amendments substituting “chief” with “authorising”. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendments agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 120 made by the Council be agreed to. Ms M.M. QUIRK: I ask the minister to explain the purpose of this amendment and whether it was a government amendment or one that was suggested by the uniform legislation committee. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: This amendment implements committee recommendation 25 in respect to witness identity protection. Much consideration was given to this amendment by not only the committee but also members in the other place to the balancing act between the protection of witnesses and the preservation of parliamentary privilege. This amendment relates to recommendation 25 in the committee’s report. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Can the minister explain to us what difference this amendment makes in terms of the wording at lines 22 and 23? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: For the purposes of the act, it removes “Houses of Parliament” from the definition of “court”. Ms M.M. QUIRK: What is the upshot of that in terms of this bill? What are the consequences of the removal of the reference to “Houses of Parliament”? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: This amendment foreshadows amendments to insert new definitions that differentiate between court and parliamentary proceedings. It institutes two separate regimes that are reflective of the processes that would be followed in a court and also a process fashioned towards Parliament that preserves Parliament’s entitlement to control its own processes and procedures when taking evidence from protected witnesses.
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8865
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Clause 80(c) of the bill, in relation to the definition of “court”, is not actually in the model law. Why is it not included in the model law? Have other states taken the same initiative as is being taken here with this amendment? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: We have adopted a different definition of “court” from the model law. We have included “Parliament” for the purposes of having some consistency between the certificates that would be issued to operatives under this legislation and operatives who would have similar protections under the Witness Protection (Western Australia) Act. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Once again I seek an indication from members opposite as to clauses they wish to interrogate? Mrs M.H. Roberts: 121. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 121 made by the Council be agreed to. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Can the minister explain the necessity of this amendment? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: This amendment needs to be considered with amendment 122, which defines a court proceeding as distinct from parliamentary proceedings and parliamentary committee proceedings. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The minister has explained what the amendment does. Can I have some reason the government wants to do that? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: As I have said, this amendment falls out of recommendation 25 of the committee. For the protection of a covert operative’s identity, there needed to be different defining provisions for court proceedings as opposed to parliamentary committee and parliamentary proceedings given the importance placed on the integrity of the privileges of Parliament. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 122 made by the Council be agreed to. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 123 made by the Council be agreed to. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 124 made by the Council be agreed to. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 125 made by the Council be agreed to. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Amendment 125 inserts new clause 84A. Why does the minister wish to insert that new clause? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Divisions 2A and 2B need to be taken in context. We have separated the provisions applicable to court proceedings from the provisions applicable to parliamentary proceedings to be consistent with previous amendments that redefine the court processes separately from parliamentary processes. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Why were these provisions not in the original bill? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: As mentioned previously, these provisions have arisen out of recommendation 25 of the committee of the other place, and, indeed, debate in the other place determined that these were better separated for the purposes of this bill. Ms M.M. QUIRK: How does the new clause augment the common law position in relation to the protection of the identity of a person who is not an operative or who gives or intends to give evidence in a court proceeding? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: It does not affect it. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Leave granted for amendments 126 and 127 to be considered together.
8866 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012]
Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendments 126 and 127 made by the Council be agreed to. These amendments tidy up language as per earlier clauses. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendments agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 128 made by the Council be agreed to. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Amendment 128 inserts a new division 2B. Why does the minister want to amend the bill to insert new division 2B? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: These provisions are applicable to parliamentary proceedings. As foreshadowed, this separate division is a result of concerns raised during committee stage debate on the formerly extended definition of “court” in clause 80 and its effect on parliamentary privilege. The amendment is fashioned towards Parliament and preserves Parliament’s entitlement to control its own processes and procedures when taking evidence from protected witnesses. Ms M.M. QUIRK: This was inserted by the committee, but is this something that police are concerned about? Is this something that the government opposed in the upper house or what is the position? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: This is indeed probably one of the most important provisions of this bill with respect to Western Australian police officers. This allows for a witness identity protection certificate to be given to Parliament to protect the true identity of a covert operative should they be required to give evidence before a parliamentary committee. It protects their true identity from being exposed through any of our parliamentary records or internet access or whatever. It is deemed to be crucial to ensure the safety of those operatives after they have been engaged in one of these covert operations. Ms M.M. QUIRK: Something has just occurred to me in this context: if a member of that committee were to come into this chamber and name that operative or describe the physical attributes of that witness so that they could be recognised, are there any sanctions against that or how will that be handled? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: There are no sanctions at present for members of Parliament who choose to reveal the true identity of any officer who gives evidence to a parliamentary committee. Indeed, it may be something that both houses of Parliament might look at in the future as an amendment to their standing orders to introduce sanctions for persons who may endanger the life of a covert operative or somebody in the witness identity protection program by exposing their true identity and thereby putting them and their family at risk. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Why do their true identities need to be given to parliamentary committees in the first place, minister? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: This provides an opportunity for a witness or a covert operative to give their evidence to a parliamentary committee under their assumed identity as opposed to their true identity. That obviously is important to those operatives to ensure that their true identity is not revealed and that they are not put at risk. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: If somebody only has an assumed identity, how will they reveal the true identity of someone in this house? The member said perhaps the house should look at penalties. I am not quite sure of the scenario. Ms M.M. Quirk: They could physically describe them. Mrs L.M. Harvey: They could reveal information about the witness or about the operative which could, in effect, disclose the operative’s identity, where they live or where they work. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Did the minister contemplate putting penalties for that behaviour into this legislation; and, if not, why not? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Under the Parliamentary Privileges Act, members of Parliament are immune from prosecution and, indeed, that act protects us from prosecution should members of Parliament reveal the identity of a witness or a covert operative. A considerable amount of work and effort has been put into this amendment to ensure a process is in place to protect the true identity of any witnesses giving evidence to a parliamentary committee. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 129 made by the Council be agreed to. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Minister, what is the purpose of amendment 129?
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8867
Mrs L.M. HARVEY: It is to ensure that any operative who is giving evidence to a parliamentary committee under cover of a witness protection certificate notify either the court or the Clerk of the House of Parliament should that certificate be cancelled. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Is it a choice to notify the court or the Clerk of the house of Parliament, or is there a circumstance surrounding one or the other? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: It is defined by subclause (3)(a), which refers to a court; and (3)(b) refers to the Clerk of a house of Parliament. It would depend on whether the proceedings were before a court or before one of the Houses of Parliament or their committees. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Leave granted for amendments 130 and 131 to be considered together. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendments 130 and 131 moved by the Council be agreed to. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendments agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 132 moved by the Council be agreed to. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: This provides for review of the act. Why has the government agreed to include a review of the act and why has the particular time frame been chosen? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: This comes in response to recommendation 27 of the uniform legislation committee. Indeed, it indicates that at the end of five years the act should be reviewed. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendment 133 moved by the Council be agreed to. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: These amendments affect the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003. Why does this now need to be inserted by way of amendment rather than being included in the original bill? Mrs L.M. HARVEY: This proposed part will be inserted because of a committee recommendation. This legislation, in effect, will exempt covert operatives from being charged with certain criminal offences. However, it may well be that there are people who would ordinarily be eligible for compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act. However, if it is subject to a covert operation, there may be no criminal charges laid. This amendment will allow people who might otherwise have been eligible for criminal injuries compensation to receive that compensation in the absence of charges being laid, as a result of the provisions of this bill affording an exemption to a potential offender. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to. Leave granted for amendments 134 to 143 to be considered together. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I move — That amendments 134 to 143 made by the Council be agreed to. These amendments amend part 10 of the bill, which amends the Witness Protection (Western Australia) Act with regard to non-disclosure certificates, consistent with this legislation. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendments agreed to. The Council acquainted accordingly. ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE Special MR C.J. BARNETT (Cottesloe — Premier) [11.40 pm]: Mr Speaker, the government was considering the merits of bringing on the Dog Amendment Bill 2012 for debate; however, the pragmatists on this side think we should quit while we are ahead! I therefore move, without notice — Point of Order Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Speaker, I do not believe the advisers have left the chamber yet. The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Thank you, members!
8868 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012]
Debate Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT — without notice: I move — That the house at its rising adjourn until a date and time to be fixed by the Speaker. Mr Speaker, in view of the hour, and I know that you would obviously wish to make some comments, I will just make some brief comments by way of conclusion for what is the 2012 parliamentary year and of course the conclusion of this term of government. This has been an unusually long term of government, covering four and a half years. During this year, the Assembly has sat for 57 days, including three days of estimates. Around 60 bills have passed through this Assembly, ranging from Sunday trading hours to creating Western Australia Day out of Foundation Day; and—this is a bit of trivia, perhaps—we have answered 2 096 questions on notice and over 720 questions without notice. So, a fair range has been covered. I wish to thank you, Mr Speaker, for not only this year, but obviously the four and a half years in which you have held that position. I also thank the Deputy Speaker, the member for Mount Lawley, and the Acting Speakers, the members for Albany, Maylands, Kingsley, Joondalup and Morley. I thank the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the manager of government business, the Deputy Premier, and the manager of opposition business, the member for Midland, who have pretty well worked together, I think, in a reasonable way. Mr R.H. Cook: Much better than the last mob! Mr C.J. BARNETT: Yes—far more accommodating than I ever was in the 1990s, as the Minister for Health continually reminds me! I thank all members of Parliament and the representatives of all parties; obviously my own Liberal Party members as well as National Party members, Labor members and Independent members. Indeed, this has been quite a diverse Parliament in terms of its composition compared to what usually is the case. I also acknowledge the work of the Whips. In particular I would like to acknowledge those members who are departing at the end of this parliamentary term. We are never quite sure who is departing and who is not, but we can be sure of the members for Churchlands, Belmont, Pilbara, Balcatta, Kalgoorlie, Bassendean, Kimberley and Bateman, and of course yourself, Mr Speaker, as the member for Moore. I thank all those members—I think all members thank you—for your contribution to this Parliament. This is by nature an adversarial chamber. We do not agree on all things; in fact, there are many things we do not agree on. But I think there is usually a mutual respect across the chamber, and people who are members of Parliament understand the lifestyle that Parliament carries with it. When we are elected we immediately become public figures, and that changes our lives and the lives of members of our families in all sorts of ways. To the Assembly staff, particularly the Clerk, Peter McHugh, and Deputy Clerk, Kirsten Robinson; to Liz Kerr and Scott Nalder; to the Sergeant-at-Arms, Isla Macphail; to the various chamber staff—John, Vanessa, Alice, Dennis, Daniel, Lachlan, Grace and Rob; to the administrative support staff, Anne Day and Louise Kierath; and to Vince, who looks after everyone in this place, I thank you all and I am sure all members will join me. This has been a pretty busy parliamentary year and, indeed, a busy term of government. I would also like to thank the various parliamentary services staff. I thank Russell Bremner and his staff and the Hansard reporters, who record in what they do the history of Western Australia. When we sit here on a daily basis, we hear a lot of trivia; we all contribute to that in volume, but I doubt there is any better chronicle of the actual history, the views and attitudes and even the prejudices and moments of pride than the Hansard record. It not only reflects what people say in Parliament but it also picks up the tone of parliamentary debate and the sentiment of the community on a range of issues at any one time. I also acknowledge the media. Whenever we make a good speech, we always glance up to see if anyone is up there and hope like hell they are listening! Mr R.H. Cook: How diligent they are! Mr C.J. BARNETT: I know. It is nice to see the media here tonight. In days gone by, back in the dark ages when I first came here, the media would be there till the bitter end at night. It is nice to see you have been able to tear yourselves away from your reporting desks and come in to record the dying moments of this chamber! Here we go; we are heading into an election period. For members of Parliament and candidates, I guess that is the exciting time of parliamentary life. It is a contest; it is a contest to win seats and a contest to win government and, when we get in here, whichever side we are on, it is a contest again. That is the nature of politics; I think it has its highs and lows on an almost daily or weekly basis. It has its addictive, adrenaline aspect to it, and people often tend to stay on in this place simply because it gets in their blood and they love it.
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8869
Mr Speaker, I will simply conclude by again thanking you and thanking all the retiring members and wishing them well. To all members of Parliament and all parliamentary staff, I simply wish to you, those you love and those who love you, a very happy Christmas and a very safe holiday period. Whatever the composition of this house some time around May next year, we will be back here—or at least, hopefully, most of us will be back here. I am sure that everyone in the chamber right now would like to be back here! I wish everyone well, and bring on the election! MRS M.H. ROBERTS (Midland) [11.48 pm]: I thank the Premier for his kind words. On behalf of the opposition, I, too, would like to thank a range of people. I would like to thank the staff of Parliament House in their various capacities, particularly the staff here in the Assembly chamber, including Mr Peter McHugh, the Clerk of the Assembly; Kirsten Robinson, Liz Kerr, Isla Macphail, Louise Kierath and Anne Day; and staff of the Assembly office, John Seal-Pollard, Vanessa Beckingham, Alice Jones, Denis Hippolyte, Daniel Govus, Lachlan Gregory and Grace Maynard. We all work with those people very closely, and with the possible exception of the Clerk, they are the most obliging of people—maybe even including the Clerk! They operate in a very competent way. Nothing is too much trouble and they are of huge assistance to all the members of this house; as are, I might note, the Hansard reporters, who turn some of the more ordinary speeches into much better speeches once they have reached the printed form. I also want to thank the various agencies within Parliament—Hansard, quite obviously—but also there is a range of other people who work on committees and in other roles in Parliament, including those who work in the catering division in a range of ways. Whilst I am mentioning those people who are involved in catering, there are two people that I especially want to note, one being Vince La-Galia, who has worked here at Parliament House for a very long time. I think he is well known to people both inside and outside of this place. I would like to take the opportunity to wish him well in retirement. I want to thank Cathy Harrison who has been here for some 30 years. She has the most amazing patience and has dealt with everyone in the most absolutely friendly and competent way, so I do want to make special mention of her. Mr Speaker, of course, I want to wish those people who are retiring, including your good self, all the best not just for Christmas and the New Year but also for your future outside this place. I also wish the Premier well. Whilst I do not wish his team success, I do wish them well. I also thank those people on this side of the house who have worked in a sterling way as a great team. I thank those people opposite and hope that we can enjoy some camaraderie soon, and I wish all the best to you and to those who know they are retiring and those who may be retiring from this place but are unaware of it yet! Valedictory Remarks THE SPEAKER (Mr G.A. Woodhams): It is great to have a good crowd in! I would sincerely like to thank some people because, having been here for eight years, it has been an immense privilege to be in this place; I think we all know that as members of Parliament. There are some people I would like to thank, and if members will indulge me, I would just like to go through a list before we get to the poetry. I would like to thank Hon Max Trenorden and Hon Murray Criddle for talking me into getting involved with politics. It probably was not an easy task for them, but I succumbed to their vigorous approaches and ended up being here. So, thank you, Max; thank you, Murray. I would like to thank my parliamentary colleagues Brendon Grylls, Terry Redman and “Tuck” Waldron, who I sat with in my first term of Parliament on the other side of the house and whose amazing friendship has been wonderful sustenance in this place. Thank you very much. To all of my parliamentary colleagues—and that is every one of you—I thank you, particularly in these last four years, for your indulgence of me as your Speaker. I have tried absolutely to do my best on every day. Some days are remarkably different from the day before and some days are just like Groundhog Day! It is an interesting role; it is a fascinating role; it is absolutely one of the best roles a person could have. So I thank everybody who gave me the opportunity to be the Speaker in this place and I hope I have been able to do justice to the role. I would also like to acknowledge in this place someone in the other place, and that is Hon Barry House. Hon Barry House and I served on several committees in this place together; we worked very well as a team, and I wish him all the best in his future. To the electors of Moore who believed in me enough in 2008 to send me to this place, I thank you very sincerely. I was previously the member for Greenough. With the changes to the boundaries, caused by the Electoral Amendment Act—what is colloquially known as one vote, one value—two electorates amalgamated. My true regret about that—apart from a seat being lost in regional Western Australia; and that is a great regret— is that the name Greenough has disappeared from this Parliament, I hope only temporarily. The seat of Greenough was established in 1870 as part of the Legislative Council and in 1890 became a Legislative Assembly seat. It was won initially in this place by William Traylen. He won it unopposed and then in the following election he won it by one vote. The electorate of Greenough has some phenomenal history, which is
8870 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] temporarily on hold. I suggest to the Electoral Commission, should it get a chance to create another seat of Greenough, it would be a marvellous thing. The other regret that I have, and it is a genuine regret, is that I have not been able to represent the electors of Moore more effectively on the floor of this place. I could not do that as the Speaker. There are many ways in which I think I have been a marvellous representative for the electorate of Moore, but in this place it is a challenge when I am the Speaker. There are many issues that I simply cannot get up and respond to. For those of you who I have spoken to occasionally about different issues in the electorate of Moore that I might need a bit of assistance with, I thank you for that assistance. I also thank my team that has worked with me, including Deputy Speaker Michael Sutherland, who I sometimes facetiously refer to as the member for Johannesburg! Michael and I have a very strong relationship. Michael has been a wonderful backstop and has always been there to support me in this role. I also acknowledge the member for Scarborough and the member for Jandakot, who were previously on the Acting Speakers’ roster and who fulfilled this role very suitably; they did a great job. Thank you both and I wish you well in your future in this place. The member for Albany, who cannot be here now, came and saw me earlier today before he left. To the member for Albany, I wish you all the best. To the member for Joondalup, who I worked with in the previous Parliament as an Acting Speaker, likewise the member for Albany, I wish you all the best. The member for Morley, the piano-playing man himself, thank you very much. You came very recently to this team, but filled the role superbly. The member for Kingsley, thank you as well. Your work here has been above and beyond. I wish to go through some names that members will have heard mentioned by other people in this place in thankyous this evening. I acknowledge the work of the Parliamentary Services Department and Russell Bremner. Russell continually keeps me updated on activities. To you, Russell, thank you very much. Mr Graham McDonald from Building Services has been very helpful with one of the newer facilities in this place, called the Swan Mace Room. Graham’s work there has been exceptional. I have a friend in this place with whom I first started going to Claremont speedway back in the 1970s, and that is Peter Pascoe. Many of you would know Peter. He has been in this place for about 30 years. Peter has not always enjoyed the best of health in recent years, but I acknowledge Peter and his support of me around this place. He probably knew me as Woodie before anyone in this place knew me as Woodie. Thanks, Peter. To Catering Services and Enno Schijf, they do marvellous work here. I acknowledge the fantastic catering and the meals we enjoy in this place, sometimes in circumstances that can be very trying. I also acknowledge Mark Gabrielli from Catering Services. Mark recently took on the role of developing Reception Services and Mark’s work there also needs to be acknowledged. Thank you, Mark. The finance manager in this place is Dawn Timmerman. Dawn Timmerman has resigned. She is moving to another position outside Parliament. Dawn’s work is impeccable. She is always ready to help with any financial work that I need help with, and I do need help. I last did mathematics in 1967 at Albany Senior High School when I received 53 out of 100 in elementary maths! Thank you, Dawn. Human Resources and Rob Hunter: in an organisation like this, there are always many challenges, not necessarily around parliamentarians; they can be around staff and other issues. Rob Hunter’s steady hand and consistent provision of information to me about difficulties that various people may be having or situations that are vacant et cetera has also helped. Thank you, Rob. Information technology continues to be a source of bemusement to some in this place. There are various opinions about where technology should be run from, who should be responsible, who should pay for it et cetera. All I simply want to do is acknowledge the work of John Buchanan and his team at the IT desk here at Parliament House. We have an excellent library—a tremendous library. It sometimes disappoints me that more people do not use it. I borrow books from the library; I get other people to return them! We are in a changing society and I listen to debates in this place on how people use information. One of the great privileges we have in this place is having a first-class library. I only hope that future Parliaments continue to provide support to Library and Information Services and use those facilities, because they are facilities that very few other people in wider society have access to. I would like to acknowledge Judy Ballantyne and her people in the Parliamentary Library. I mentioned Reception Services and Mark Gabrielli’s recent work there. I also want to acknowledge the work of Cathy Harrison who has been here for 30 years. Cathy retires in January and her cheerful voice will no longer be heard on the phone or over the loudspeaker. I certainly wish you all the best, Cathy. Reporting Services: is Caroline our Hansard reporter at the moment? It is Heather—I cannot remember them all! But to everybody in Hansard headed up by Belinda Corey, thank you very much. I turn to Security and Tony Paterson. We have done a lot of work in this place in recent times just trying to upgrade security services for not only ourselves, but also members of the general public. I think an exceptional
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8871 job has been done and there is more work to do. Hopefully, members and also the general public will forbear some of the changes that have to occur to improve our circumstances as far as security is concerned. I move to the Legislative Assembly and acknowledge the work of quite a few people here. Firstly, I start with the gentleman slightly down and to my right, Mr Peter McHugh. Peter, your friendship is exceptional, as your advice to me in a range of circumstances has been. I do not know what I expected; I did not know, quite honestly, what the Clerk could provide, and I do not say that lightly. I quite often think in this place that many of us come and go without truly appreciating the roles of the staff in this place. Peter, I thank you again. You know that, but I want to thank you publicly, as I say, for your friendship and for your advice, and sometimes for your sense of humour—there are other times, members. It stays on tour, it stays on tour! I thank Kirsten Robinson, who is the Deputy Clerk. Kirsten, similar to Peter, your friendship has been tremendous and very helpful and supportive of me. Thank God, you have a decent sense of humour, at least, to balance out the Clerk! To Liz Kerr—Liz is a Collingwood supporter; I will say no more. Thank you. No need to say anything once you have said that! To Isla Macphail—thank you Isla. If I could give the speech in French, I would have endeavoured to do so. I sometimes say something to Isla just as we are about to walk in to start the session that causes her some difficulties! I often say many things to many people, but with Isla as a Sergeant-at-Arms, I could not have hoped for someone better, and whoever inherits you, make sure you swing the mace at them! Thank you, Isla. There are two people who are not here but who provide assistance to me on a daily basis. One is Anne Day. We kicked Anne out of her office and turned it into the Swan Mace Room, and I do not know whether she has improved since she has been moved down the corridor. Anne does a lot of work in the Legislative Assembly and she has done a lot of work for me that I certainly have appreciated. I thank Louise Kierath, who has been my executive assistant since the early part of 2009. Louise is an exceptional lady. The only other person who is as exceptional is my wife, Gabrielle, who puts up with my strange behaviour. Half the time I am sure Louise does not know whether I am being serious, whether I am just absolutely peculiar or whatever it is. Louise Kierath will also leave here at the end of January. She has an appointment for the term of Speaker and Louise has decided to move on. I will see Louise; I wish her all the best. Members, I just want you to know that I could not have worked with a better person in terms of an executive assistant. To the Legislative Assembly staff, I do not know where to begin or end with this. I have talked to some of you about the moustaches—mainly the men! Some of them look like they are auditioning for a television show. I do not know what the show is: it could be X-rated or R-rated and I think we discussed that earlier today in the house. I wish you well, men, with the growing of the moustaches—John and Daniel. Where is George? He has gone home. Lachlan is not here either. Are there any other men? I have got Daniel—he plays for Chelsea, right? I have got John. Denis—where is Mr Hippolyte? I reckon Denis could grow a moustache in about half a day! He has gone home. All right; I wish you well, men. To the women—I once got chided for calling somebody a lady, so I will just call you women. Vanessa, thanks for your work on the Prezi; it was exceptional work. When I say the Prezi, it was an app that Vanessa helped develop for Peter and I to show some Canadians, and it was absolutely brilliant. We could not have done it without you; thank you for that, Vanessa. Alice—sitting down for such a long time—thank you very much for your assistance. Who else is on the floor? Are there any other ladies we need to mention? What about women? No? All right; I will keep going then. I have got you all hopefully. To those in the Legislative Assembly offices over the road and who help on committees: Scott Nalder—another carton of coffee milk, perhaps, to help you through the night. To Brian Gordon: Brian, I do not think you are here; you are probably tucked up in bed. Renee Gould, John King and Mathew Bates, likewise. I think I have covered the committees. There are people who help them out, such as Lucy Roberts, Loraine Abernethie and Michael Burton; thank you. I did want to mention, and I mentioned it the other night, the sensational work of David Black and Harry Phillips in putting documents like the parliamentary handbooks together. Sadly, they are both Eagles supporters; you cannot have everything in life! As I mentioned previously in this place and outside this place, we have the two best parliamentary historians in Australia. We should celebrate that. I am getting a bit closer to the end. I would like to acknowledge the Premier for his support of me as Speaker. I sometimes wondered about being the Speaker and how impartial I could be. I wondered when it might be that the Premier might come knocking on my door. The Premier has never come to knock on my door and asked me anything about being the Speaker. I do not know what the history of this place is in terms of Premiers and Speakers. I say this quite honestly to you, Premier: I have appreciated your support; absolutely. I thank you for that. I will say the same about the Leader of the Opposition, Hon Mark McGowan. I think I have been blessed in having a Premier and Leader of the Opposition, and prior to Hon Mark McGowan, Hon Eric Ripper, who were obviously secure in the belief that I was able to do what I could do for them in an impartial way. I thank them for that.
8872 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012]
The Speaker’s role is one of great honour and great privilege. When I was elected to the role, the first thing I had to do in this place was use my casting vote. I thought: this will be an interesting four years—if we go that far—if every vote I have to use the casting vote. Fortunately that has not been the case. Otherwise, I do not know that my thin frame would have lasted this long. Possibly the person who is the next Speaker in this place is not in this room at the moment. To whoever that individual might be, can I wish them all the best in taking on what I think is the best role in the Parliament of Western Australia. As the Speaker I have taken delegations to China, India, Japan, Indonesia and the Cook Islands. I have been blessed to travel. Some people think that perhaps that is what the Speaker does all the time. My ambition in travelling has been very singular. It has been to support the relationships that we have developed with the countries that I have mentioned—the sister state relationships. I say to the next Speaker and to anybody who gets to travel in a delegation with the Speaker, that the sole purpose should be to enhance the relationship that this state has with the country that you are visiting. I think I have done that to the best of my ability and I would urge everybody to do it to the best of their ability. I know there are a couple of internet addicts. One of them is Craig Peacock, who is our trade commissioner in Tokyo—so I say good evening to you, Craig. To other commissioners and other representatives that we have in other countries; we had B.J. Zhuang, who many of you would know, who worked out of our Shanghai office for a long time, and now Nathan Backhouse is there. When I first went to India, Paresh Shah was running our office and now it is Peter Forby. In Tokyo, as I have mentioned, Craig Peacock; and in Hyogo, Noriko Hirata; and in Surabaya in Indonesia, in East Java, Martin Newberry. Members may not know those names or those people, but can I assure them that their work for Western Australia is incredible. I would just like to put that on record and thank them personally for their assistance with me in delegations that have travelled with me. Recently, I have spent some time in Canada. We are trying to create, and I believe we are very close to developing, an exchange program between this Parliament and some of the western Canadian provinces. I come from Geraldton. I still live in Geraldton. I commute down here; I commute back. I drive down; I drive back. Sometimes I fly. I spend most of my time down here on my own, but I have some great friends in Perth. I would like to acknowledge two of them—one of whom came in to see me today, Dominique van Gent. Dominique is a lifelong friend. The other is Les Bonser. For Hansard’s benefit, it is B-O-N-S-E-R. Les is very particular about the spelling of his last name! I have been a member of Parliament for eight years. I have had three electoral staff—Emma Budd, Gaylene Newton and Natasha Colliver. Those three have been exceptional people. My approach to electoral work has been to stay away from the office, to never go into it and to not give any direction, but to make sure, though, that those three people tell me what I need to do. They have done that, and they have done it in spades. I thank them. I really believe that my capacity to be successful in the electorate as a representative has been because of their support. Thank you, Emma; thank you, Gaylene; and thank you, Natasha. I am very fortunate, members, to have a mother and father who are still alive, who live in Albany and whom I try to see on a regular basis. To my dad, Richard, and my mother, Patricia, thank you very much. I have an exceptional wife and daughter—Gabrielle, my wife, and Phoebe, my daughter. I thank them. As Brendon and “Tuck” would know—and Vince—I found it hard saying goodbye; and I do again. I am lucky to have been in this place. I am lucky because this is a great place to work. I had a real struggle deciding to leave. I can understand, Premier, why you say that many people get addicted and it becomes part of you. I know it will always be a part of me. It has been the best eight years of my working life. I have created the best friendships and have been able to do the most meaningful of things. I thank everybody for that opportunity. There remains one thing, members. I am still on my feet—I could sit down and let some of you go but I know you are only here for one reason. With apologies to A.B. Paterson — Woodie, the Speaker of the Overflow I had written him a letter which I had, for want of better knowledge Sent to where I had met him, down at Parliament years ago He was speaking when I knew him, so I sent the letter to him Just ‘on spec’, addressed as follows: Woodie, the Speaker of the Overflow! And an answer came directed in a writing unexpected (And I think the same was written on an iPad in a car) ‘Twas his tweeting mate who wrote it, and verbatim I will quote it “Woodie’s gone to coach footy and we don’t know where he are” In my wild erratic fancy visions come to me of Woodie Coaching out at Nabawa, where the worst of the pollies go Where the players need some urging Woodie running behind them quoting words from Haydn Bunton Yes, the bush coach’s life has pleasures that Woosha will never know
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8873
And the bush hath friends to meet him and the Chapman voices greet him In the murmur of the prospect of another premiership for the boys And he sees the vision splendid of the Moresby Ranges extended And at night the wond’rous glory of the surf in Champion Bay! I am sitting on the back benches facing war in the trenches Where a stingy ray of sunlight struggles feebly down between the houses tall And the foetid air and gritty of the dusty, dirty city Through the open air conditioner floating, spreads its foulness over all And in place of bleating sheep and cattle, I can hear the fiendish rattle Of the Mace and Black Rod making hurry down the aisle And the language uninviting of Liberal and Labor fighting Comes fitfully and faintly through the ceaseless voices of all And the arguing politicians daunt me, and their pallid faces haunt me As they shoulder one another in their rush and nervous haste With their eager eyes and greedy, and their stunted forms and weedy For most have no time to grow, they have no time to waste And sometimes I think it would be good eh that I could change with Woodie Like to take a turn at playing footy with his first eighteen again While he faced Barnett and McGowan But there’s no way he’ll come back to this office, Woodie, the Speaker of the Overflow! [Applause.] Question put and passed. House adjourned at 12.19 am (Friday) ______
8874 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012]
QUESTIONS ON NOTICE
Questions and answers are as supplied to Hansard.
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — FLEET VEHICLES 8700. Mr B.S. Wyatt to the Treasurer; Minister for Transport; Emergency Services (1) As at 1 September 2012: (a) how many fleet vehicles are provided to each agency or department; and (b) how many non-fleet vehicles are provided to each agency or department? (2) Since 1 January 2012: what was the cost to the agency or department of commercially cleaning fleet vehicles; (a) what was the cost to the agency or department of commercially cleaning non-fleet vehicles; (b) what is the company name and address of where vehicles have been commercially cleaned; (c) what was the cost to the agency or department for detailing fleet vehicles; (d) what was the cost to the agency or department for detailing non-fleet vehicles; and (e) what is the company name and address of where vehicles have been detailed? Mr T.R. BUSWELL replied: In answering this question, only motor vehicles used for transferring passengers, not buses, trucks or tractors, were identified and included in the information provided. Information provided for “commercial cleaning” and “detailing” vehicles does not include costs associated with using a fuel card at a service station. The Department of Treasury advises: (1) (a) 27 (b) Nil (2) (a) Nil (b)–(c) Not applicable (d) Nil (e)–(f) Not applicable Note: The definition used when answering this question was that ‘fleet vehicles’ mean ‘leased vehicles’ through State Fleet and ‘non fleet vehicles’ mean agency owned vehicles. The Department of Transport advises: (1) (a) 148 vehicles plus 1 electric trial vehicle hired through State Fleet. (b) Two. (2) (a)–(c) Nil (d) $275 (e) Nil (f) Geraldton Car Wash at 229 Lester Avenue, Geraldton. Car Care Malaga at 140 William Street, Perth. Note: The definition used when answering this question was that ‘fleet vehicles’ mean ‘leased vehicles’ through State Fleet and ‘non fleet vehicles’ mean agency owned vehicles. Main Roads WA (including the Office of Road Safety) advises: (1) (a) 368 (b) One. (2) (a) $5 493.50 (b) $36 (c) Intework at Waterloo Crescent, East Perth. Dekays Detailing at Mokine Road, Narrogin. Fat Cats Car Wash and Detailing at 2–6 Kelly Street, Albany. Geraldton Car Wash at Eastward Road, Geraldton.
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8875
Intework at 70 Pilbara Street, Welshpool. (d) $2 718.84 (e) Nil (f) Car Care East Perth at Waterloo Crescent, East Perth. Kim’s Detailing at Robertson Drive, Bunbury. Chappy and Karen’s Diesel Detailing at 470 Robinson Street, Carnarvon. Kalgoorlie Car Detailing at 83 Piesse Street, Boulder. S&S Mobile Car Detailing at Peel Terrace, Northam. Note: The definition used when answering this question was that ‘fleet vehicles’ mean ‘leased vehicles’ through State Fleet and ‘non fleet vehicles’ mean agency owned vehicles. The Public Transport Authority advises: (1) (a) 162 (b) 19 (2) (a) $110 (b) Nil (c) Car Wash at 24/1, 3 The Gateway, Edgewater. R & B Ricciardello at 480 William Street, Perth. (d) $487.27 (e) Nil (f) Car Care Mobile Services at West Parade, Perth. Note: The definition used when answering this question was that ‘fleet vehicles’ mean ‘leased vehicles’ through State Fleet and ‘non fleet vehicles’ mean agency owned vehicles. The Economic Regulation Authority advises: (1) (a) 11 (b) 2 (2) (a)–(f) There was no cost for cleaning or detailing any of the vehicles. Note: The definition used when answering this question was that ‘fleet vehicles’ mean ‘leased vehicles’ through State Fleet and ‘non fleet vehicles’ mean agency owned vehicles. The Fire and Emergency Services Authority advises: (1) (a) 193 (b) 6 (2) (a) $116 (GST Inc) (b) Nil (c) BP Connect — Cnr East Parade and Brown Street, East Perth. BP Connect — Cnr Walter Road and Wellington Street, Morley. BP Connect — 246 Leach Highway, Myaree. BP Dog Swamp — Lot 12 Wanneroo Road, Yokine. Gull — 81 Guildford Road, Mt Lawley. BP Connect — Cnr East Parade and Brown Street, East Perth. BP Connect — Cnr East Parade and Brown Street, East Perth. (d) $625 (GST Inc) (e) Nil (f) Car Care Kewdale — 133 Kewdale Road, Kewdale. Stagg’s Mechanical — 1 Rogers Street, Esperance. Note: The definition used when answering this question was that ‘fleet vehicles’ mean ‘leased vehicles’ through State Fleet and ‘non fleet vehicles’ mean agency owned vehicles. Fire and Emergency Services Superannuation Fund (1) (a) One. (b) Not applicable.
8876 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012]
(2) (a)–(f) The company vehicle does not get commercially cleaned or detailed. Note: The definition used when answering this question was that ‘fleet vehicles’ mean ‘leased vehicles’ through State Fleet and ‘non fleet vehicles’ mean agency owned vehicles. The Government Employee Superannuation Board advises: (1) (a) GESB has four (4) fleet vehicles. (b) No non-fleet vehicles are provided to GESB. (2) (a)–(f) Not applicable as there has been no commercial cleaning or detailing of GESB’s vehicles since 1 January 2012. Note: The definition used when answering this question was that ‘fleet vehicles’ mean ‘leased vehicles’ through State Fleet and ‘non fleet vehicles’ mean agency owned vehicles. The Insurance Commission of Western Australia advises: (1) (a) One. (b) Thirty seven. (2) (a)–(b) Nil (c) Not applicable (d)–(e) Nil (f) Not applicable Note: The definition used when answering this question was that ‘fleet vehicles’ mean ‘leased vehicles’ through State Fleet and ‘non fleet vehicles’ mean agency owned vehicles. The Office of the Auditor General advises: (1) (a) 11 (b) None. (2) (a) $263.61 (ex GST) (b) Nil (c) Ultratune Subiaco, 123 Thomas St, Subiaco. (d)–(f) Not applicable Note: The definition used when answering this question was that ‘fleet vehicles’ mean ‘leased vehicles’ through State Fleet and ‘non fleet vehicles’ mean agency owned vehicles. The Albany Port Authority advises: (1) (a) The Albany Port Authority does not use the government fleet leasing service. (b) The Albany Port has 10 non-fleet vehicles (excluding trucks, forklifts etc). (2) (a)–(f) Port staff clean their own vehicles. Note: The definition used when answering this question was that ‘fleet vehicles’ mean ‘leased vehicles’ through State Fleet and ‘non fleet vehicles’ mean agency owned vehicles. The Broome Port Authority advises: (1) (a) Eight vehicles. (b) One vehicle. (2) (a)–(b) Nil (c) Not applicable (d)–(e) Nil (f) Not applicable. Note: The definition used when answering this question was that ‘fleet vehicles’ mean ‘leased vehicles’ through State Fleet and ‘non fleet vehicles’ mean agency owned vehicles. The Bunbury Port Authority advises: (1) (a) 0 (b) 17
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8877
(2) (a)–(b) Nil (c) Not applicable (d)–(e) Nil (f) Not applicable. Note: The definition used when answering this question was that ‘fleet vehicles’ mean ‘leased vehicles’ through State Fleet and ‘non fleet vehicles’ mean agency owned vehicles. The Dampier Port Authority (DPA) advises: (1) (a) Nil (b) 33 vehicles. (2) (a) Not applicable (b) Nil (c)–(d) Not applicable (e) Nil (f) Not applicable Note: The definition used when answering this question was that ‘fleet vehicles’ mean ‘leased vehicles’ through State Fleet and ‘non fleet vehicles’ mean agency owned vehicles. The Esperance Port Authority (EPSL) advises: (1) (a)–(b) Nil (2) (a)–(f) Not applicable Note: The definition used when answering this question was that ‘fleet vehicles’ mean ‘leased vehicles’ through State Fleet and ‘non fleet vehicles’ mean agency owned vehicles. The Fremantle Port Authority advises: (1) (a) 62 (b) Nil (2) (a) Nil (b)–(c) Not applicable (d) $1 290 (e) Not applicable (f) Car Care — at Fremantle Ports, 1 Cliff Street, Fremantle. Note: The definition used when answering this question was that ‘fleet vehicles’ mean ‘leased vehicles’ through State Fleet and ‘non fleet vehicles’ mean agency owned vehicles. The Geraldton Port Authority advises: (1) (a) 19 (b) 2 (2) (a)–(b) Nil Cost. (c) Not applicable (d)–(e) Nil Cost. (f) Not applicable. Note: The definition used when answering this question was that ‘fleet vehicles’ mean ‘leased vehicles’ through a leasing company and ‘non fleet vehicles’ mean agency owned vehicles. The Port Hedland Port Authority (PHPA) advises: (1) (a) As at 1 September 2012, the Port Hedland Port Authority was leasing 37 passenger vehicles. (b) As at 1 September 2012, the Port Hedland Port Authority owned 10 passenger vehicles. (2) (a)–(b) Nil. Staff are responsible for cleaning PHPA vehicles in their control. (c) Not applicable.
8878 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012]
(d) Since 1 January 2012, the Port Hedland Port Authority has expended $3 036.64 on detailing its fleet vehicles. (e) Nil (f) Hedland Quality Car & Boat Detailing — 14 Chucking Crescent, South Hedland. Paul Ozuatic — PO Box 463, Port Hedland. Note: The definition used when answering this question was that ‘fleet vehicles’ mean ‘leased vehicles’ through State Fleet and ‘non fleet vehicles’ mean agency owned vehicles. The Western Australian Treasury Corporation advises: (1) (a) One. (b) Nil (2) (a) Nil (b)–(c) Not applicable (d) Nil (e)–(f) Not applicable. Note: The definition used when answering this question was that ‘fleet vehicles’ mean ‘leased vehicles’ through State Fleet and ‘non fleet vehicles’ mean agency owned vehicles.. PALLIATIVE CARE 8730. Mr R.H. Cook to the Minister for Health I refer to services for palliative care in Western Australia and ask: (a) why was the 3 year contract with the non-government organisation Palliative Care WA, which enabled them to employ a full time staff member and provide information to the public, media and health service organisations around end of life decisions and palliative care services, not renewed in February 2011; (b) what is total amount of operational funding the State Government spent on palliative care services in the last financial year; (c) what is the total amount of operational funding allocated in forward estimates for State Government spending on palliative care services for the financial years 2012–2013, 2013–2014, 2014–2015 and 2015–2016; and (d) as part of a 2008 election commitment, $14 million has been spent over the past four years on improving palliative care services in Western Australia, including the Liverpool Care Pathway, new regional palliative care services and new ambulatory care consultation services, and I ask, what is the future of these programs for the next four years; and (i) has money been allocated in forward estimates to ensure their continuation and if so, how much funding has been allocated for this purpose; (ii) has the State Government received a business case for the continuation of these services and if so, what is the estimated cost per annum of their continuation; and (iii) have these services been formally evaluated or reviewed and if so, what was the outcome or recommendation of the review? Dr K.D. HAMES replied: (a) Palliative Care WA is a patient and carer “Peak Body” advisory NGO that has the primary role of advocating for palliative care in Western Australia. It is not a palliative care service provider. In February 2008 the Department of Health, provided a 3 year contract to Palliative Care WA with the intent of the service agreement to be short term ‘seed’ funding to establish sufficient infrastructure and capacity to fulfil the demands of its role in Western Australia. The contractual requirements of this funding were met and reports accepted. The contract was not renewed as the group has now become established, has developed links to the Palliative Care Australia and is represented on WA Health Department, Palliative Care Network Advisory committee along with other groups like Silver Chain, Murdoch Hospice and academic bodies. (b) Estimated operational expenditure in 2011/12 was $28.1 million for existing clinical palliative care services — inclusive of contracted services, for example Silver Chain, St John of God Hospice, Murdoch.
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8879
Additional funding of $3.67m was provided in 2011/12 to the Department of Health Palliative Care Network under the 2008 Liberal State election commitment (which totalled $14m over 4 yrs). This election commitment supports the Palliative Services Project Fund which improved access to palliative care through care coordination, introduction of Liverpool pathways for end of life, implementation of models of care inclusive of paediatric in PMH and rural models of care to provide coordinated palliative care across the seven WACHS regions. (c) Clinical palliative care services (note: excludes election commitment funding): 2012–2013 $28.4 million 2013–2014 $29.8 million 2014–2015 $31.1 million 2015–2016 $32.7 million (d) (i)–(ii) The future of this Palliative Care Network led state wide coordination program is under consideration by Government. (iii) A formal evaluation has been conducted of:
• the implementation of the “Rural Palliative Care Model” which has provided a framework for structured, sustainable, coordinated regional palliative care services with core teams in all seven rural regions. The evaluation found that the Rural Model of Care has improved palliative care in rural WA. The key recommendation is the current rural palliative care model should be maintained, this is currently under consideration by the government.
• the non-cancer Paediatric Palliative Care Service at Princess Margaret Hospital. This review found steady growth of the service and positive feedback from all groups who interact with it (families, health professionals and community providers). The key recommendation was to access ongoing and permanent funding for the future development of the service, this is currently under consideration by the government.
• the implementation of the Liverpool Care Pathway in three rural regions — the Midwest, South West and the Great Southern. The key outcomes demonstrated were improved symptom management, improved communication between care providers, the patient and family and increased caregiver satisfaction for patients who are in the last days of life. This is currently under consideration by the government. FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES AUTHORITY — STAFF ISSUES 8773. Ms M.M. Quirk to the Minister for Emergency Services For the financial years 2008–2009, 2009–2010, 2010–2011 and 2011–2012: (a) how many days were taken by staff for sick leave at the Fire and Emergency Services Authority (FESA); (b) how many staff availed themselves of the employment assistance plan; and (c) how many grievances were lodged by FESA staff? Mr T.R. BUSWELL replied: The Fire and Emergency Services Authority advises: (a) 2008/2009 — 12,511 days 2009/2010 — 15,118 days 2010/2011 — 13,260 days 2011/2012 — 15,092 days (b) 2008/2009 — 131 2009/2010 — 115 2010/2011 — 112 2011/2012 — 142 (c) From October 2008 to 30 June 2009 — 11 2009/2010 — 22 2010/2011 — 33 2011/2012 — 19.
8880 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012]
FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES AUTHORITY — INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 8774. Ms M.M. Quirk to the Minister for Emergency Services (1) Please provide details of major information technology upgrades and changes within the Emergency Services Department over the next 12 months? (2) What is the purpose of each of these changes? (3) What is the approximate cost of each? Mr T.R. BUSWELL replied: The Fire and Emergency Services Authority advises: (1) The Government will announce major IT upgrades and changes within FESA as project timeframes are confirmed. (2) To improve existing major information technology systems. (3) The approximate total cost over the next 4 years $8.5 million. FIREFIGHTERS — FORRESTFIELD TRAINING CENTRE 8779. Ms M.M. Quirk to the Minister for Emergency Services I refer to the recent revelations about firefighter training at Fiskville ,Victoria, concerning the use of chemicals in that training between 1971 and 1999, and I ask: (a) can the Minister advise as to whether similar practices occurred at Forrestfield Training Centre in Western Australia; (b) if so, over what time were these practices engaged in; (c) what measures, if any, are being taken to assess those potentially exposed to toxic and/or carcinogenic substances whilst undergoing training; (d) if none, why not; (e) has the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) consulted with the Fire and Emergency Services Authority at any stage about remediation of whole or part of the Forrestfield site; and (f) if so, what were the EPA findings or recommendations? Mr T.R. BUSWELL replied: The Fire and Emergency Services Authority advises: (a) It is uncertain whether the practices employed at the Forrestfield Training Centre (FTC) are similar to those at Fiskville, however, the WA Fire Brigades Board, prior to the creation of FESA, did use chemicals as part of fire services training. (b) From the early 1980’s until 1993, when the facility was closed for refurbishment. (c) In the past, as is the case today, all personnel undertaking fire training at the FTC were/are required to wear Personal Protective Clothing. FESA is implementing a fire fighter health monitoring program for all fire fighting personnel who may be at risk as a result of chemical exposure at FTC during the period up to 1993. This program will be part of the voluntary fire fighting health monitoring program which includes monitoring past exposures such as the Bellevue fire in 2001. To date approximately 270 fire fighters participate in the program. (d) Not applicable (e) There has been no contact from the Environmental Protection Authority regarding remediation of the site. However, the first environmental assessments on the site were conducted in 2003 and since that time a series of detailed studies, including sampling and monitoring, have taken place. The Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) appointed LandCorp to oversee the project management of the site assessment. A detailed site investigation (DSI) was conducted by environmental consultants, Golder Associates Pty Ltd (Golder) commencing in 2008. Following the completion of the detailed site study in 2012 Golder prepared a Site Management Plan (SMP) which sets out procedures and practices for the site. The SMP does not detail any requirement for remediation of the site. The key outcome of the DSI is that there are no potential health risks to people using the site under current practices. (f) Not applicable.
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 15 November 2012] 8881
DEPARTMENTS OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT — VALUE FOR MONEY REVIEW 8845. Mr P.C. Tinley to the Treasurer I refer to the Minister for Planning’s answer to Question on Notice No. 8508 regarding the Value for Money Review of the Department of Planning and the Department of Transport, and I ask: (a) has this project commenced, and if so, who was the successful tenderer; (b) will the Minister table a copy of the terms of reference, and if not, why not, given the Minister for Planning made this undertaking during Legislative Assembly Estimates; (c) when will the review be completed; (d) when will the review be made public; and (e) what is the estimated cost of this review? Mr T.R. BUSWELL replied: The Department of Treasury advises: (a) Yes — Ernst & Young. (b) No. The terms of reference were available on the Tenders WA website. (c) 11 January 2013. (d) The final report of the review will be submitted to Cabinet at which time its public release will be subject to Cabinet’s consideration. (e) $390,502.
______