Parliamentary Debates (HANSARD)

FORTIETH PARLIAMENT FIRST SESSION 2020

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Thursday, 24 September 2020

Legislative Council

Thursday, 24 September 2020

THE PRESIDENT (Hon Kate Doust) took the chair at 10.00 am, read prayers and acknowledged country. NOISE ABATEMENT WALL — CLAUGHTON RESERVE Petition HON TIM CLIFFORD (East Metropolitan) [10.02 am]: I present a petition containing 25 signatures couched in the following terms — To the Honourable the President and Members of the Legislative Council of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned say a proposed lack of noise abatement wall along the Tonkin Highway adjacent to Claughton Reserve and across the Redcliffe Bridge will see noise levels at the reserve and nearby homes rise to unacceptable levels, which will severely impact the local amenity. We therefore ask the Legislative Council to call on the Minister for Transport and Planning to immediately address our concerns by installing noise abatement walls adjacent to Claughton Reserve and across the Redcliffe Bridge as part of the Tonkin Gap Project. Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. [See paper 4370.] PAPERS TABLED Papers were tabled and ordered to lie upon the table of the house. JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE CORRUPTION AND CRIME COMMISSION Fifteenth Report — “If Not the CCC … Then Where? An Examination of the Corruption and Crime Commission’s Oversight of Excessive Use of Force Allegations against Members of the WA Police Force” — Tabling HON JIM CHOWN (Agricultural) [10.05 am]: I am directed to present the fifteenth report of the Joint Standing Committee on the Corruption and Crime Commission titled “If Not the CCC … Then Where? An Examination of the Corruption and Crime Commission’s Oversight of Excessive Use of Force Allegations against Members of the WA Police Force”. [See paper 4371.] Hon JIM CHOWN: Since its formation at the beginning of the fortieth Parliament, the committee has been concerned about the way incidents involving excessive use of force by police officers in Western Australia are either investigated or oversighted by the Corruption and Crime Commission. A review of historical cases suggested that the approach of the CCC had changed significantly over time. This is particularly so since 2015, when the CCC began a more targeted and strategic approach to carrying out its oversight functions across the public sector, including the Western Australia Police Force. As a result, the committee was interested to see whether the CCC was providing consistent, accountable and effective oversight of the Western Australia Police Force, as envisioned by the Kennedy Royal Commission. Key questions included how many allegations were closely looked at by the CCC, and which allegations were deemed worthy of independent investigation. Most allegations of excessive use of force are investigated internally by WA police. The CCC closely oversights a small number of these investigations, and independently investigates an even smaller percentage of allegations. Overall, fewer than five per cent of allegations were ultimately sustained between 2013 and 2019. Oversight of misconduct and corruption within the Western Australia Police Force is the responsibility of the CCC and should be seen as a core function in line with its genesis in the Kennedy Royal Commission. Significant powers are entrusted to members of the Western Australia Police Force, allowing officers to legitimately use force in order to carry out their duties. The abuse of such powers through the use of excessive force can erode public confidence in the Western Australia Police Force. Robust police oversight by the CCC is needed in order to maintain public confidence. The committee came to the view that police oversight should be prioritised over and above other strategic themes identified by the CCC. In addition, robust oversight of police extends beyond individual cases to systemic problems. The CCC is uniquely vested with the capabilities to exercise oversight of the Western Australia Police Force by interrogating and auditing police data for trends and actions taken by individual officers. The committee heard from complainants about their experiences in making a complaint about police excessive use of force to the CCC. In some circumstances, complainants hesitated to make a complaint because of a lack of confidence in the complaint process. Some complainants found the process circular, confusing, costly and time

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 24 September 2020] 6413 consuming. Equally concerning to the committee are those instances in which people who may have been subject to excessive use of force do not make a complaint at all. The committee was troubled to hear that over the past two years, the Aboriginal Legal Service of Western Australia has referred only a handful of matters to the CCC because the ALS perceives that it very rarely conducts its own investigations into complaints about police. The ALSWA raised a number of concerns about the CCC’s lack of responsiveness to the needs of Aboriginal people, including the identification of ongoing systemic issues. As the title of this report indicates, if the CCC does not fully embrace its role as the only independent oversight body, where are complainants to go? How can the public be confident that police powers are subject to adequate scrutiny? I commend the report to the house. STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS Fifty-fifth Report — “Overview of Petitions 1 January 2019 to 30 June 2019” — Tabling HON MATTHEW SWINBOURN (East Metropolitan) [10.10 am]: I am directed to present the fifty-fifth report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs, titled “Overview of Petitions 1 January 2019 to 3 June 2019”. [See paper 4372.] Hon MATTHEW SWINBOURN: The report that I have just tabled advises the house of the petitions that were finalised by the committee during the six-month period between January and June 2019. During this period, 21 new petitions were tabled in the Legislative Council and the committee concluded its inquiries into 31 petitions. Petitions finalised during the reporting period related to a range of issues and community concerns. Planning and transport matters always constitute a significant proportion of petitions, with petitioners expressing concern about the environmental and social impact of particular development proposals or planning decisions. Interestingly, during the reporting period, the committee considered two opposing petitions regarding the southern section of the Bunbury Outer Ring Road—one calling for an alternative route and the other supporting the original alignment. Also of note, a petition opposing the way in which police officers are medically retired saw the Commissioner of Police suspend the exercise of the disputed process until new medical retirement provisions are in force. During the reporting period, the committee also initiated its inquiry into children and young people on the sex offenders register, which stemmed from the petition number 70. Copies of public evidence relating to petitions, including submissions and government responses, are also available on the committee’s webpage. I commend the report to the house. Fifty-sixth Report — “Overview of Petitions 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020” — Tabling HON MATTHEW SWINBOURN (East Metropolitan) [10.12 am]: I am also directed to present the fifty-sixth report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs, titled “Overview of Petitions 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020”. [See paper 4373.] Hon MATTHEW SWINBOURN: The report that I have just tabled advises the house of the petitions that were finalised by the committee during the 12-month period between July 2019 and June 2020. During this period, 31 new petitions were tabled in the Legislative Council and the committee concluded its inquiries into 35 petitions. Petitions finalised during the reporting period related to a broad range of social, health, environmental and planning issues; for example, petitioners expressed concern about rural crime, youth violence in Cockburn, labour-hire practices, parking congestion at schools, the muzzling of greyhounds, the closure of the Quadriplegic Centre, palliative care in regional areas and water rights in north Wanneroo. The committee held a public hearing with the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation in relation to a petition that opposed the southern forests irrigation scheme on economic, equity and environmental grounds. Concern about the environment was the focus of a number of petitions, including those relating to the Walpole Wilderness and Marine Park, a ban on helium balloons, environmental project allocations under the royalties for regions scheme, the North West Shelf extension and motorbike racing at Lake Leschenaultia. Copies of public evidence relating to petitions, including submissions and government responses, are also available on the committee’s webpage. I commend this report to the house. DISALLOWANCE MOTIONS Notice of Motion 1. Curtin University Statute No. 12—Admission and Enrolment. 2. Curtin University Statute No. 5—Election of Council Members. 3. Vocational Education and Training (Colleges) Amendment Regulations (No. 2) 2020. 4. Mines and Petroleum Regulations Amendment (Fees and Charges) Regulations 2020. Notices of motion given by Hon Robin Chapple.

6414 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 24 September 2020]

McGOWAN GOVERNMENT — PUBLIC SECTOR MANAGEMENT Notice of Motion Hon Tjorn Sibma gave notice that at the next sitting of the house he would move — That this house — (a) expresses its concern about the Premier’s comprehensive mismanagement of the Western Australian public sector; (b) notes the failure of the McGowan government to deliver on its promise to improve the accountability and performance of senior executive service level officers; (c) notes the failed voluntary targeted separation scheme; (d) acknowledges the failure of the McGowan government’s rushed machinery-of-government— MOG—changes and the consequential negative impact that these MOG changes have had on service delivery in Western Australia; and (e) acquaints the Legislative Assembly accordingly. CORONAVIRUS — GOVERNMENT RESPONSE Motion HON TJORN SIBMA (North Metropolitan) [10.18 am] — without notice: I move — That this house urges the McGowan government to — (a) justify why and on what grounds it has abandoned a COVID-19 suppression strategy in favour of an elimination strategy; (b) regularly publish official information, including public health information, underpinning all of its major COVID-19 decisions; (c) permit key officials, including the Chief Health Officer and the Commissioner of Police, to regularly brief the public on COVID-19 matters; (d) explain apparent inconsistencies with quarantine exemptions granted over the course of the pandemic; (e) table its plan for, and advise its preparedness to manage, a potential second wave outbreak; and (f) respect Western Australians suffering isolation from their loved ones located throughout Australia and overseas. The PRESIDENT: Hon Tjorn Sibma has moved the motion standing in his name. I am just waiting for the members in the back to finish their conversation before we move on. Hon TJORN SIBMA: At the outset, I confess to having made an error in paragraph (a) of this motion. The terms I have expressed refer to strategies pursued in the management of COVID-19. We might all recall that, initially, the strategy was quite explicit. The strategy was about suppression to flatten or crush the curve to establish capacity in the health system to accommodate what was then anticipated to be a significant wave of patients suffering from COVID-19. That was done so that the health system could cope with that onslaught. That strategy was explicit, clear and drove a set of actions that everyone could comprehend. It was successful in eliciting the level of community support, participation and cooperation that was necessary to make it effective because everyone understood the strategy and knew the consequential range of actions that came out of that strategy. Sometime over the course of the pandemic, the strategy seems to have changed—never explicitly, but in tone and scope—and we got insights into the potential change in strategy whenever the next national cabinet meeting was on the horizon. An interesting disclosure was made by the police commissioner in a radio interview, I think last week, on 6PR. Effectively, in the exchange between the host of the program, Gareth Parker, and the police commissioner, the police commissioner was asked to explain the rationale underpinning the hard border policy. The police commissioner intimated that, effectively, Western Australia was pursuing an elimination strategy. He said, basically, that all signs were pointing to that, so people could, effectively, draw their own conclusions. Many observers had drawn that conclusion themselves, but it had never been disclosed to that degree. One might reflect on whether it is appropriate for the police commissioner to set those kinds of policies and to advise the public of that strategy in such a comfortable—I will not say cavalier—and almost informal manner, because it has never been officially declared that we are pursuing an elimination strategy. I thought that was what the government was doing until I read the paper this morning. There now seems to be another strategy—one which is intimating that we might be in a position to establish travel bubbles. That came from evidence provided by the Chief Health Officer, Dr Robertson. I find this concept interesting, because it not only obviously diverges from the advice that the police commissioner has given and the public utterances of the Premier around the time of the last national cabinet meeting, but also suggests an action plan

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 24 September 2020] 6415 that we were previously advised was unconstitutional. When the Leader of the Opposition, Hon Liza Harvey, had the temerity to suggest that perhaps the government could consider the establishment of a travel bubble between COVID-safe jurisdictions in Australia, she was howled down for all kinds of reasons, but one of the justifications that the Premier used was that such a concept was unconstitutional. In passing, I make the observation that I have never been particularly astounded by the Premier’s consistency on constitutional matters. That has not been a feature of his premiership. Nevertheless, an explanation is owed to not only us in this chamber, but also the public at large about what has changed. I can tell members that the Constitution has not changed in the course of this crisis or over the course of the last week. What now justifies this change in strategy? I confess to having made an error at the beginning of this address. My error was to state that there is an elimination strategy in Western Australia at the moment. I think it is fair to say that there is no clear strategy, save, potentially, a political strategy that seeks to harness COVID-19 for all it is worth in electoral terms. I think the Premier has established a pattern of behaviour that substantiates that accusation—put, as it is, in moderated terms. That is why I have sought in paragraphs (b) and (c) of the motion before the house for the government to provide the information. In recent days, in response to questions from Hon Peter Collier concerning the disclosure of health advice, the Leader of the House reflected that, I think, on two solitary occasions in the course of the past six months, the government has felt obligated to provide this chamber with the health advice it claims to have relied upon in the establishment of its strategy—that is, the health advice that underpins the so-called hard border. I will speak to the myth of the hard border when I get the opportunity. On two solitary occasions, wads of material have been tabled in Parliament and we are apparently supposed to feel satisfied with that contribution. The environment, the response, to COVID-19 and the import of government decisions—as they relate to the restrictions of liberty, the cancellation of events, the upheaval in personal life and the dislocation and isolation of Western Australian families—demand, insofar as practicable, real-time disclosure of unadulterated, uncensored, non–politically filtered public health information. The best way to do that is to let loose the Chief Health Officer, Dr Robertson. I make the observation that the practice in other Australian jurisdictions, whether it be in Queensland, Victoria, New South Wales or even at the commonwealth level, has been for Chief Health Officers to regularly be made available to the media and the public. They are public figures and part of the public discourse. People look up to them because they realise that the information is being provided through a clinically precise and professional lens. There is no political filter or minister up front providing caveats and, potentially, cherrypicking information. They are up-front and can answer questions from the media. That has not been the practice in Western Australia over the past six months. Dr Robertson is a man who is difficult to pin down and find, unless he is presenting evidence to a parliamentary committee. I cannot recall the last time that gentleman was made available to the public in a way that facilitated questions and answers in an extensive fashion. I think that has been to the detriment of Western Australia because it has allowed myths to circulate. The myth I want to refer to is the myth of the hard border. There is no hard border but there are hard border controls. I think there is a distinction. May I say that I first cut my teeth in political terms as a border security adviser to the Howard government. Without providing myself with any acclaim, I doubt there is a person who was harder on borders in this chamber than me. There is not. I speak here of unauthorised boat arrivals—a real hard national border. I know that does not make me some friends in this chamber but I at least speak on the concept of borders with some measure of authority. When I look at movements in and out of Western Australia over the past six months, through the border, one could not say that it is impenetrable. There have been at least 40 000 movements through the border during that time. It is difficult to ascertain precise numbers but it is around that figure. It has never been disputed by the government, and the government is actually reluctant to provide information. By way of comparison, around 40 000 people have moved through the Western Australian border over the last six months—around 450 to 500 people a day. They are FIFO workers, truck drivers, essential workers and others that I might get to, particularly notable individuals who are probably more special than other members of this community. During this crisis, 40 000 people have moved through the border. I do not think that is comprehended by most Western Australians. Most Western Australians do not think anybody is getting in. That is not true. That is patently false. By way of historical example, during the 28 years of the Berlin Wall, only 5 000 people escaped. There were 5 000 escapes during 30 years of the Berlin Wall— a real hard border—compared with 40 000 movements in and out of Western Australia during the last six months. Let us be accurate. Let us use this as an opportunity to bust some myths. The more we do that, the more we might be able to shine some light on the seriousness and the facts of this situation and start to give Western Australian individuals, families and businesses a sense of what might be coming next and how we might manage our way back to some level of normalcy. That leads me to paragraph (d) of this motion. I will not dwell on this and abuse the privileges of speaking in this chamber. But I might just make the observation that it does not appear in the state of Western Australia that all men, women and children are created equal when it comes to their capacity to move back into Western Australia or to absolve themselves from quarantine. This is a question that has been posed not only by the opposition, but also by other parties in this chamber and in the other one. We have heard pleas to the Minister for Police and the Premier for the police department to provide the datasets. The last opportunity we did so in this chamber, we were

6416 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 24 September 2020] told that the government’s measurement matrix or its program to calculate this information had changed and it would be a gross inconvenience on the people compiling that to provide this chamber with the information. The Commissioner of Police appeared before a committee of the other place yesterday. He was asked to provide the data and did not bring it. I find it very difficult to believe that a police commissioner of his competence and professionalism does not have that data available to him. I wonder whether he is operating on instructions not to provide that information. This is my thesis: in the absence of clear, unambiguous official information from the government, I believe that he has been told not to provide it. If he did, the inconsistencies would be laid bare—the kind of inconsistencies that do not even treat all billionaires as being equal. In Western Australia and Australia, some billionaires are more equal than others. Far be it for me to make the observation that the person who seems to have freedom of movement in this state is the same gentleman who runs the biggest media organisation in this state and can provide the Premier with unfettered adulation and seven-page spreads at leadership breakfasts. Objectively, we may say that here is a gentleman who is probably very healthy; nevertheless, he came here from destinations that have COVID outbreaks. Here he was chumming up to the Premier at a breakfast. The Premier is a public figure. He speaks to his cabinet colleagues and his caucus colleagues. He comes to this place and he meets with members of the community. That does not seem to me to be the most risk-averse management approach to treating claims or requests for exemption. It is clear, and everybody in Western Australia knows it. Why do we have a special forces operator who served this country in Afghanistan, East Timor and other destinations stranded with his family in the United Arab Emirates with absolutely no prospect of returning to Western Australia? There does not seem to be a consistent answer. I think we demand a consistent answer. If we are to be all in this together, as we have been told and as we have been mollified, well, then prove that we are all in this together, because I do not think we are. No-one believes it. No-one with any critical faculties believes that there is one universal rule for all. There is not. May I jump over a paragraph. I will get to paragraph (e) but I want to address paragraph (f). If this motion is about anything, it is about respect—respect for people’s intelligence, respect for the principles of equality, respect for people’s lives, respect in behaviour and respect in language. In recent days, there have been a lot of hurt feelings. There seems to be an outbreak of emotional damage. Very, very senior people in this country are upset about mean words said to one another. I will make no comment on that, suffice to say that strong leadership has not been set from the top. When the Premier of this state can attempt to wriggle off the hook and say, “We don’t want to take more Western Australians into hotel quarantine, Western Australia does not want to be a dumping ground for Western Australians attempting to come back to Australia”, he is calling every stranded Western Australian a piece of rubbish because that is what you dump. He did that deliberately. If there is one truth about this Premier, it is that he is a politically clever operator. There is no looseness in his language. We can take objection to it but he is a controlled political beast. He knows what he is doing. I have seen this kind of language before. I think the Premier needs to be very careful about defamation actions because if he establishes a precedent, I might take objection to being called a terrorist in another matter. Language is important. The treatment of people is important. I might make a personal disclosure. My cousin is a worker in the National Health Service in the United Kingdom. She had COVID-19. Her colleagues died from COVID. Is my cousin, who is pregnant and who might want to come back with her partner to Western Australia, a piece of rubbish? According to the Premier, she is. This is shameful. I say to government members that they should grow a spine and confront their leader because he is doing the wrong thing. He is politicising this crisis for all it is worth—a crisis that is now largely confected. HON PETER COLLIER (North Metropolitan — Leader of the Opposition) [10.40 am]: I stand to comment on the motion of Hon Tjorn Sibma. It is a very good and pertinent motion. COVID-19 is, of course, a global pandemic that has had massive detrimental impacts internationally, physically and economically. It is how we deal with it that is absolutely imperative. Yes, accolades have been bestowed on the Premier and the government for dealing with it in an effective manner in Western Australia, and, to a large degree, they are relevant and pertinent. Having said that, things are starting to shift and change because questions are being asked. This is a global pandemic, so globally we look at ways in which we can deal with the pandemic. The unanimous consensus was that we had to deal with it in a pragmatic fashion. We were told about flattening the curve so that we could reduce community outbreaks and having sophisticated tracing techniques so that we could deal with it in a pragmatic fashion. Until there is a vaccine, that virus will be with us. We will live with it. Do we live with the virus or do we become cocooned and isolate ourselves for one, two or five years—however long it takes? Is that what it is going to take? It will be a vaccine that ultimately gets rid of the thing, but in the interim we must learn to live with it. It appears that the notion of flattening the curve and dealing with it has gone out the window for the government. That is concerning for the medium to long-term future for literally hundreds of thousands of Western Australians who are suffering at the moment. Of course, it is all based on the premise that we have adequate health facilities, particularly for the elderly, that can deal with this virus. That is what we have to look at. The federal government is pouring over $9 billion into JobKeeper and JobSeeker to assist people whose employment has been affected by the pandemic. In addition, a number of grants have been provided to residents, businesses et cetera. However, the impact on the tourism and hospitality sectors has been extraordinarily detrimental. Ultimately, JobKeeper and

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 24 September 2020] 6417

JobSeeker will be removed, as will the grants and subsidies. In a way, it is a bit like putting a bandaid on a broken arm: it solves the problem in the short term and the optics are good, but ultimately we have to deal with it in a much more long-term fashion. That is what we must do. At the moment, we are not doing that. When Chris Dawson, the Commissioner of Police, was asked on the Gareth Parker program last week what the solution was, he said that the way he would respond to that was by saying that all of us—everyone—want to see a vaccine. That is true— we do. We desperately want a vaccine, but on the very real prospect that we do not have a vaccine for months and months, or years, we must think about where we are going. At the moment, we have fortress Western Australia. That is what the government wanted and that is what the government said. As an opposition, we have done what Her Majesty’s loyal opposition should do—that is, scrutinise the government legitimately to try to find out what is happening with the people who are entering Western Australia from other states and jurisdictions, and nationally. That is our right. Quite frankly—this is when I endorse the comments of Hon Tjorn Sibma—the Premier has gone back to the default position over the past couple of months since the winter break. I challenge members in this chamber to look at Hansard. Every single legitimate question that we ask about the process or plan of the government is met with disdain and contempt. I assure members opposite that this is not a dictatorship. We are still a bicameral democratic system of government. It is our legitimate right to ask questions on this pandemic, because every day our offices are filled with thousands and thousands of people who are affected. People in the tourism and hospitality industries and in small business want to know where we are going. Knowledge is power. People feel secure and comfortable when they know what is going on. That is why the Premier is so popular at the moment. He is making decisions and he thinks he is on a winner with this. He knows he is on a winner with this. When he is sitting on a 90 per cent approval rate, he knows he is on a winner. However, that does not give him the right to treat this place with contempt and also to carry on with the nonsense he carries on with on a day-to-day basis with other states. He knows that he can chest beat all he likes. He knows that it will be popular out there, but, really, is that a plan? I will give some examples of just some of his comments in the media when talking about the borders. I quote — “I know the New South Wales Premier is unhappy, I know Mr Birmingham is unhappy. But frankly, bad luck,” he said. “It might inconvenience the New South Wales Premier and some people from the eastern states, but frankly, I don’t give a damn.” That is the Premier of Western Australia. In another media comment, he says — “I don’t care if you don’t like the food, I don’t care if you don’t like what’s on TV. “You’re going to the hotel, you’re staying there for two weeks, you’re going to be in your room and you’re not bringing the virus home.” It is going to be popular out there, but are these really the words of a statesman, a Premier, who is doing what is right in the medium to long term for Western Australians? Not on your life. He made a contemptible comment about the national Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Paul Kelly. ABC news online states — Deputy Chief Medical Officer Paul Kelly says he is ready to meet the WA Premier “any time”, after Mark McGowan said he did not know who he was amid an ongoing feud between state premiers over border closures. Mr McGowan hit back at calls from the New South Wales and federal governments for interstate borders to be reopened, saying he would not be “bullied” by a state that allowed the Ruby Princess disaster to unfold. “I don’t know who Paul Kelly is, clearly not the singer,” he said. I mean, really? Grow up—give me a break! In particular, an article titled “Double trouble?” states — Mark McGowan says the number of Australians returning from overseas amounts to a Federal Government threat to fly people from COVID-19-riddled countries into Perth and “dump” them at the airport. Dump them at the airport? Dump them at the airport? Then he wanted to put them on Christmas Island. I thought the left hated Christmas Island and detention centres. It is no good for asylum seekers but it is okay to dump returning Australians at the airport and then put them on Christmas Island. The Premier is better than this. We have been cooperative with the government on this matter, yet when we hear this sort of stuff, it is difficult. Lately, I have been trying to get answers from the government’s offices. It was great for the first month, but in this past month I have got the hand again. With any comments I make or any questions I ask, I am getting the hand, particularly from the Premier. There is stuff about him not talking about the 28 days. That is nonsense. He said that he would not open the borders until there was no COVID transmission in the east for 28 days. On the 7.30 report on Wednesday, 16 September, he said — What we’ve said, and this is the national approach, that if they get to no community spread in the east for twenty eight days well then obviously we can look towards the border being removed but until that point in time, the health advice that we currently have is that the border can’t come down.

6418 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 24 September 2020]

I asked him where that health advice was and he could not provide it. As I said, the opposition is asking legitimate questions. We are assisting the government in trying to keep the community calm. However, at the moment I do not see a plan. There is simply no plan for where we are going, other than to keep the borders shut. The government had better hope that our health system is in a good position to deal with it because sooner or later there will be another outbreak. Are we in a good position to deal with it? Let us consider this statement from a former shadow health minister — “This is the first government in WA that has thrown up a white flag to the public to say our hospitals aren’t coping,” … “What we have seen under the … Government is an unprecedented spike in the number of ambulance ramping. “Just on Thursday, there was 80 hours of ambulance ramping across Western Australia, over 40 hours at FSH alone. “That’s a sign of how our hospitals aren’t coping. They are not coping. The then shadow health minister, not me, made that statement. Let me tell members that it was not Zak Kirkup, but Hon Roger Cook, who said that. On 19 June 2016, the then shadow minister said that ambulance ramping was terrible and our health system was not coping. Members, let us have a little reality check. When the shadow minister made those comments in June 2016, there were 909 instances of ambulance ramping. Do members know how many there were in June 2020? There were 1 455. There was a sign that our hospitals were not coping in 2016, and there has been a 60 per cent increase in ambulance ramping since then, so you guys better hope there is not an outbreak because our hospitals are not ready to cope, according to the health minister. The Minister for Health has set that standard. Yes, I acknowledge the work that the government has done. “Fortress Western Australia” has worked, but the government has to think about where we are going with the plan to provide opportunities for small businesses, the tourism and hospitality sectors and, quite frankly, the goodwill of all Western Australians. HON AARON STONEHOUSE (South Metropolitan) [10.50 am]: I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to this motion. I am particularly interested in paragraph (f), which says that this house urges the McGowan government to — respect Western Australians suffering isolation from their loved ones located throughout Australia and overseas. That is probably the most important part of this motion today. What I have observed over the last seven months that we have been in this weird state of lockdown is the rise of two disturbing trends. One is idolatry; the second is a loss of our humanity. I will get the idolatry one out of the way first because that is the more serious one. I think we can all recognise what has been happening. There have been front-page articles praising the Premier, treating him as though he is a rock star or a celebrity; there have been pop songs; and there have been fawning Facebook pages—free media coverage as far as the eye can see. It should be disturbing because in a parliamentary democracy like ours, we do not want to elevate politicians. The Premier has a very serious constitutional role to fulfil. We do not want that role elevated to a religious icon status. It is not healthy for democracy; it is not healthy for Parliament. It is disappointing. It is disappointing as well to see it engaged in by people who are supposed republicans who find the idea of a monarchy repugnant, yet are willing to elevate the Premier, Mark McGowan, to that role. A more concerning trend I have seen is this loss of humanity. I find it funny because those who advocate strict, harsh lockdowns, a hard border and a no-nonsense, no-compromise approach to our COVID response say they are doing this because they care about people—because they want to save lives. At the same time, they are treating their fellow humans like pawns—like pieces of garbage. They have no respect for their humanity, no respect for their agency and their autonomy, and no respect for their wants and desires; they merely treat them like pieces on a chessboard that can be moved around. If they are outside Western Australia, they are treated like aliens. They are treated like foreign citizens who have no rights. I find it rather remarkable. We have heard a few examples from previous speakers, but I would like to remind members of a few things that stood out to me as being rather concerning. Earlier in September, an article appeared in The Australian and on ABC news and other media outlets, in which the Premier said, in response to the federal government wanting to increase the cap on the number of Australians returning to our shores, that he did not want the commonwealth “bossing people around”. He was talking about state and territory leaders. He basically said that the commonwealth was just trying to fly people in and dump them on our doorstep. He was referring to Western Australians and other Australian citizens—they are our fellow man; they are our neighbours; they are our family members; they are our brothers and sisters. They are the people who we should be looking out for, who we should be trying to protect. These are the people who we should be moving heaven and earth to bring back to Australia. It is rather interesting, in fact, because the federal government has revealed that there are 26 000 Australians stranded overseas who want to return home. Of those, 3 500 are extremely vulnerable and need to return immediately. They

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 24 September 2020] 6419 include people who are in need of medical care—for example, pregnant women and cancer patients—and those returning for compassionate reasons. But the Premier does not want them “dumped” on our doorstep, including people who need immediate medical care. The Premier is more concerned about them being dumped here, rather than ensuring that they get the care that they need. So callous has the Premier’s response been, members will be aware that around the same time he made comments about wanting to send returning Australians to Christmas Island and to Australian Defence Force bases. That was pointed out by some journalists fairly quickly, including Lanai Scarr from The West Australian, with her headline “Predators currently detained on Christmas Island as Mark McGowan floats plan for returning Australians”. She pointed out that the detention centre on Christmas Island is used to house people who have broken the law and committed serious crimes, in most cases, and are being deported. It sometimes takes a long time for these people to be deported to their home countries. It includes people who have committed child sex offences and it includes rapists, violent offenders and violent gang members. Those people are housed on Christmas Island. When I heard this announcement, I did some research into Christmas Island. I spoke to somebody who worked at the detention centre in a security role. This person told me about the kinds of characters who are housed in the detention centre on Christmas Island and the kind of violence that happens and cases in which security guards have lost control of the compound during riots when detainees armed themselves with various makeshift weapons. Is this really the kind of place we want vulnerable people housed? I am sure they would be in separate compounds; I believe there is an annexe that is a little further away from the main compound, but still, is this an ideal place for those who are vulnerable trying to return home to their families? This person who worked on Christmas Island told me about the lack of medical care available on Christmas Island. If anybody had a serious medical condition, they would need to be flown off of Christmas Island and either back to Western Australia or, if it was really severe, to Indonesia. In fact, it is sometimes hard to get shipments into the island, if there is bad or rough weather, due to the rough seas out there. How is this a suitable place to be sending vulnerable Western Australians who are doing nothing more than trying to return home to their families? Quite often, Australians have been working overseas—as we heard was the case with Mr Stephen Spencer, the Western Australian war veteran who is stranded in the United Arab Emirates—but their work has fallen through due to the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Now they are trying to return home to their families, sometimes with small children in tow. The Premier seems not to care about that. He would rather play tough. He does not want these people dumped on our doorstep. I think that is incredibly sad; it is a loss of our humanity. We have seen it as well in the way that people in hotel quarantine have been treated. I have some serious objections to the idea of subjecting people to electronic monitoring. If it is done in a very targeted way, there may be a case for it, but when done broadly, it is dehumanising and humiliating. People who are doing nothing more than trying to reunite with their families are subjected to the same electronic monitoring that we subject high-risk sex offenders to. These people are not rapists or paedophiles; they are people who are trying to return home. We are subjecting them to this kind of humiliation. The Premier does not care too much about these people either. When folks are locked in hotel rooms for two weeks, with no windows, no fresh air, no opportunity for exercise and no human contact, can members imagine what that does to them psychologically? Solitary confinement is used as a form of punishment in prisons and here we are subjecting people to it in hotel quarantine. I understand the conditions have improved since then, but back in April when the conditions were still quite bad and some of these concerns were raised with the Premier, he said — “I don’t care if you don’t like the food, I don’t care if you don’t like what’s on TV.” … “We’re all having to make sacrifices in these tough times, staying in a hotel for a couple of weeks is a small price to pay.” The Premier compared it with having an extended holiday. Again, no concern was given to the real needs of the people who are caught up in this process. I think the idolatry has gone to the Premier’s head. It has caused him to become callous and uncaring. Then we have, as I said, that loss of humanity—chasing an arbitrary public health goal without any regard to all the other things that go into what makes up our society, such as equality under the law and respect for our rights and liberties. Of course we need to have some restrictions during this time, but we should not do that at the expense of our humanity. We should treat people like decent human beings, with respect and dignity. I absolutely support the motion, in particular paragraph (f), which urges the McGowan government to respect Western Australians suffering isolation from their loved ones located throughout Australia and overseas. I say to the Premier that it is time to tear down this wall; it really is. I will not channel Reagan too much! Honestly, I understand the need for quarantine and to isolate people who arrive, but we need to put in place a plan to bring these people home. They are Western Australians, and Australian citizens, and we owe a duty to look after them and provide them with help. We should be doing everything we can to bring them home and make sure they are safe, rather than putting up a barrier to keep ourselves safe at the expense of vulnerable people who are overseas.

6420 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 24 September 2020]

HON ALISON XAMON (North Metropolitan) [11.01 am]: I rise because I am keen to speak to this motion on behalf of the Greens. Since the beginning of this pandemic, the Greens have been very clear that we support the public health advice, and we have been clear that we are particularly concerned to make sure that vulnerable Australians, and vulnerable Western Australians in particular, are able to be best protected from this virus. We know, of course, that that is people with disability as well as older people and people with a range of underlying health issues. That has been the starting point that the Greens have brought to how we believe we should best respond to this pandemic. I note that we have been dealing with this for six months now and that things are shifting. One of the things that has shifted is that we seem to have gone from having a lot of transparency about what was happening and being regularly informed, to what we are dealing with now, which is that it is very unclear what exactly is motivating a lot of the government’s decisions. We do not have the same level of bipartisan transparency that I believe we started off with early in the pandemic. That is what I want to focus on. Looking at the wording of this particularly measured motion, it is hard to see how anyone could realistically be opposed to it unless they are opposed to making sure that everybody gets exactly the same information so that we are all on the same page and we all understand what needs to get done in order to best respond to this pandemic. Looking at the wording that is in front of us, it would seem that the only reason the government would object to this is if it feels that it does not want to be fully publicly accountable for its decisions. I think the community is at the point at which people are demanding answers. We are demanding answers because we still have far too many people trying to get back into Western Australia who are facing unfathomable hardship and trauma, and because even when they arrive here, their treatment is inconsistent. I have stood in this place three times already over the course of the last sitting and spoken about the experiences of my best friend and of other people whom I am aware of, as well as people who have contacted my office. I have spoken at length on my concerns about the cap and the way that the quarantine arrangement is being managed. There is no question at all that it could be done better. It is interesting that since there has been some quite adverse media publicity about this, the feedback I am getting is that the situation is marginally improving. But of course it is marginally improving, because there was always heaps of scope for it to improve; it never needed to be as harsh as it was in the first place. Getting back to the motion in front of us now, it urges the McGowan government to justify why, and on what grounds, it has abandoned a COVID-19 suppression strategy in favour of an elimination strategy. That is a reasonable request. As has already been articulated, it is quite clear that an elimination strategy has been pursued. Along with Hon Martin Aldridge and Zak Kirkup, the member for Dawesville, I have had semi-regular phone meetings with the Chief Health Officer. One of the questions I asked early in the piece was whether the state had decided to pursue an elimination strategy rather than a suppression strategy, and even then I was unable to get a clear answer. This is important information for people to have. If that is the public health advice that is coming out, it needs to be shared widely and unequivocally. We all need to know whether that is the advice that is being pursued and what the rationale is for withholding that advice if that is what is happening. The motion urges the government to regularly publish official information, including the public health information underpinning all of the government’s major COVID-19 decisions. Why on earth would anyone be opposed to that? If the government is absolutely convinced that it is doing the right thing, it should put the rationale for that out there so that everyone can be on the same page as the government. The only reason that the government would not want to do that is if it is not following the public health advice. I want to hear what the government’s rationale is for not being transparent about these decisions by not ensuring that the entire community understands what is going on and is on the same page. Paragraph (c) urges the McGowan government to permit key officials, including the Chief Health Officer and the police commissioner, to regularly brief the public on COVID-19 matters. I note the difference between what is happening here and what is happening in the other states. The media in the other states are able to ask questions directly of those people in a way that is not happening here. I would appreciate the opportunity to meet with the Chief Health Officer. Firstly, face to face would be good—apparently, we do not have any COVID in this state, so we can do that now; we are face to face here in this chamber—and without a whole range of minders, because I feel as though we are not able to have a full and frank discussion. The problem also is that the discussions are truncated. During the last one we had, I had many questions but was cut short. I was not even able to put the questions that I had, so I was unable to get the full range of answers. I would appreciate that level of transparency. I want to know about the inconsistencies with quarantine exemptions that have been granted over the course of the pandemic. There is no clear rationale for why some people who come into the state have to go through the hotel quarantining arrangements while others are able to quarantine at home. There is much more that I could say about that and about what has been brought to my attention. I know of people who, even in the last week, have arrived from other states and have been granted permission to quarantine at home, which is great, but there has been no further follow-up at all. Police have not gone to their homes. Those people have had ample opportunity to breach the arrangements if they wanted to. I happen to know they have not, because they are my friends and they are committed to this, but they are telling me about their experience. It is completely inconsistent because other families who have come from places in which there have not been COVID outbreaks have been put into tiny rooms without any windows for 14 days and are expected to pay for the privilege. The quarantining arrangements that are being applied are completely inconsistent.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 24 September 2020] 6421

The motion urges the McGowan government to table its plan for, and advise its preparedness to manage, a potential second-wave outbreak. Why on earth would the government not want to do that? Surely, if the work has been done, the government would want to make sure that everyone can be confident that the work has been done. If there are gaps in those plans, we need to address them and ensure that we are prepared for what everyone seems to deem is an inevitable second wave. The only reason the government would oppose that part of the motion is if the work has not been done or something else is going on. Just table it. I have been led to believe that a range of plans have been developed for a range of circumstances, and I am pleased to hear that, so table them and make them publicly available. Let other people assess them. I want our public health professionals to examine the plans and I want to hear their advice on whether they feel the plans are sufficient. If they are sufficient, well done—we will know that we are ready—but make it transparent and let everyone have that information. Paragraph (f) of the motion urges the government to respect Western Australians suffering isolation from their loved ones located throughout Australia and overseas. Why would the government not support that? Is it because it ultimately thinks that our fellow citizens who are trapped and who cannot get back should not be respected? Is that why the government would oppose this provision? I, too, was disgusted by the language such as “dumping ground” being used to describe our fellow citizens trying to get back home. These people are not rubbish. These families are not rubbish. They are our citizens. They are our constituents, and they want to get home. We need to ensure that people can come back home in a way that is both compassionate and expedited. I believe we can do that in a way that is respectful of the public health advice, but that can be done only if the government has the political will to make sure that that occurs. I have not been convinced to date that that is really the case. The Greens will support this motion because I cannot see the argument for why we would not. If the government is saying that fellow Western Australians are rubbish, it does not want to be transparent, it is not actually prepared, and it is making decisions contrary to the public health advice, I could see why the government will oppose this motion. I could understand that; it would make perfect sense to me. Otherwise, we have all been in this together. This chamber has bent over backwards to assist with legislation. We have been trying to make sure we are keeping together as a community. But transparency is an absolute key part of that and that is what this motion is calling for. HON ALANNA CLOHESY (East Metropolitan — Parliamentary Secretary) [11.10 am]: I rise to provide a response on behalf of the government. “A crisis now largely confected” were the words of the honourable member, the mover of the motion. I have to say that I was quite surprised by those words. Let me provide the chamber with a bit of context and the honourable member with some background that might assist him to understand that this crisis is nowhere near confected. However, I understand his words in a way because in WA, it is quite easy to lose sight of the fact that there is a COVID-19 outbreak around the world—because our borders have made us safe and because our systems are working. I therefore understand that it is pretty simple for the honourable member to think that the crisis might be largely confected. However, of course it is not. The reality is that there is still a global COVID-19 pandemic. It has not slowed down, not for a second, not for one single person. In fact, this week a new, sad, record has been set for the number of cases around the world of people with COVID-19—a new record. Members might have heard that countries like the United Kingdom, and, indeed, a lot of Europe, are in the midst of a second wave of outbreaks. In fact, the UK, where many of our friends and relatives live, has had to re-impose significant restrictions and it looks as though they will last around six months. To me, that is not a crisis that is largely confected. That is a real and present crisis. In the USA, there have been more than 200 000 deaths from COVID-19. Around the world, almost a million people have died. That is a crisis. The number of cases diagnosed daily around the world is around 300 000, and that is only the number of people who can access testing. That is a crisis. It is alarming but it is what happens when restrictions are lifted before the virus is under control. Here in WA, the number of recorded cases is very low and limited to returned travellers. We are seeing a steady stream of positive tests returned, but, as I said, thankfully our hotel quarantine is effective, which is another reason we have to keep it running well. Last week, through the Premier, the state government reached an agreement with the federal government to increase the cap on the number of international arrivals into Western Australia. From the statistics we are seeing on people overseas, it is very important that we bring fellow Western Australians home in a sensible and safe manner and that we do not stretch our system to create problems for us in the future. It is not that the government is without compassion. Members of this chamber do not have a monopoly on compassion. This government has great insight into the difficulties that people are experiencing in trying to return to Western Australia. I have two brothers and a niece currently living overseas, so I understand the difficulties, the problems and the worries people have—flights cancelled and access to quarantine. This government understands the situation and is doing everything it possibly can to actively support Western Australians trying to return home. The motion refers to the supposed abandonment of a suppression strategy. Again, let me give members some context about the strategy. The government has not abandoned that strategy; it is a nationally agreed strategy. It was first agreed by the commonwealth and all the states way back on 16 March. That strategy is still in place and, in fact, all the states and the commonwealth recommitted to the suppression strategy on 24 July and added an additional goal—this is the important bit and maybe where honourable members are getting confused—of no local community transmission. The government has not abandoned the suppression strategy; it has recommitted to the suppression strategy.

6422 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 24 September 2020]

The honourable member talked also at length about publishing official information, and about access to the Chief Health Officer. This government has provided unprecedented access to information and to the Chief Health Officer. The Premier, the Minister for Health, the Commissioner of Police and the Chief Health Officer have all provided information through the media and through other mediums. There are two public access websites in fact— healthywa.wa.gov.au/coronavirus, and the health department’s website—and most people have access to those sites. The government has provided a coronavirus information line and a further website around public health directions. All the information on the decisions that the government has had to make in this crisis are available on the government website. That is unprecedented access to information. The Chief Health Officer himself regularly responds to requests for comments from journalists for print, radio and TV in a way that reaches the WA community. In addition, the Chief Health Officer has his own Twitter page on which he regularly publishes public health information. I agree that that is unusual, but it is a public medium that the community uses. He is a trusted public health official. He has also made several videos that have been published and are available and he is willing to conduct additional interviews and, in fact, to brief the public directly on public health advice. He has also offered to provide—that offer is still open—several briefings to members of Parliament and to health spokespeople in Parliament. Some members of Parliament have also had access to and regular contact with the Minister for Health’s office. They pick up the phone and talk to the minister’s office and know they are getting the information they want. It may not be the information they like but it is the information they want. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! Every other person who had a chance to speak was heard pretty much in silence. Please apply the same level of courtesy to the parliamentary secretary. Also, I remind you that Hansard are not on the floor; they are above us and they are sometimes finding it very difficult to hear speakers, so, by being quiet, it assists them to do their job. Thank you. Hon ALANNA CLOHESY: Thank you, Madam President. Let me talk about the approvals process, because there has been some criticism of it. I remind members that the approvals process is there to ensure that there is no community spread of COVID-19 and WA stays safe. The approvals process has, of course, evolved over time. Back in March there was nothing. There was no approvals process system and no intrastate, interstate or international border controls. Think about how far we have come to ensure that our community remains safe. Remember what it felt like. Think about what our family and friends are going through in Victoria. We have these controls to avoid those situations. The G2G PASS is the process that people use to apply to come into Western Australia. It has evolved over time into a process that is as efficient as it can possibly be. This process restricts entry and directs quarantine as necessary. This approvals process has been heavily supported by industry, the community and unions to keep our critical infrastructure working and our economy moving and growing. Compassionate applications are received by the WA Police Force and are assessed individually on their merits and by looking at the supporting evidence that is provided. The police look at every single application. Sometimes there might be multiple applications by the one person. It is not an easy system to manage, but it is growing and working as efficiently as possible. Thousands of people who want to travel to WA have made applications—literally thousands—and there are a lot of reasons for that travel. Many people have been rejected and feel aggrieved. We understand that. Applications are rejected not because the police are not compassionate and caring, but because of the requirements set out in the directives that have been made, which are available on the government website. I have told the honourable member and this chamber a number of times that the reason for having all the directives in one place is so that people can see them and understand them. As I said, many people have made multiple applications and some of that information conflicts with the original application. Therefore, there is a triage system. The applications come in and are considered by the person making the decision. The police are open to a review of the decision, but the police cannot talk about individual applications because that is a matter between the person making the application and the police. Sometimes statements made to the media by applicants are not always the same as the context provided in the application. It is important that each of those applications is looked at. When an appeal is required or asked for, it is considered by someone further up the chain of command. Members should keep in mind the volume of applications coming through as well. The WA Police Force has updated the G2G PASS system and it is now the envy of the other states, which are looking to implement the application process and system that has been instituted and developed by Western Australia. Western Australians should be proud of that because Western Australia is actually leading the way. I could contribute much more to the debate because some of the information that has been passed off as fact by members opposite in this chamber is not fact. It is conjecture; it is myth. I might even suggest that it is a little bit of a “don’t let the facts or the evidence get in the way of a good conspiracy”. I can tell those members that there is nothing like a good old political stoush in the midst of a crisis, is there? That is a confected approach to trying to deal with this crisis.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 24 September 2020] 6423

This government has reviewed, and is continuing to review, every single system and strategy that is in place. Should there be a COVID-19 outbreak, the plans that are in place have been developed with industry and various sectors to deal with it. I spoke at length even yesterday about the details of those plans, particularly in the aged-care sector. HON COLIN TINCKNELL (South West) [11.25 am]: I will make some comments on this non-government business motion, and I thank Hon Tjorn Sibma for bringing it to the house. The important thing to remember here is that one of the problems we face is the lack of information, clarification, transparency and accountability. This government does not want to work with the rest of Parliament. It does not matter which house; it does not want to work with Parliament to go through all the aspects of a very difficult pandemic. Everyone who has been around for a while understands that when people have all the information and knowledge and are not prepared to share that information and knowledge, it gives them a certain amount of power, and I think this government gets off on that. Unfortunately, a lot of the public does not understand that. It does not sit in one of these two houses. But 60 per cent of the people in Western Australia chose different parties and different people to represent them in this house, and that information is not being shared with those people. Other than the government, there are six different parties. The Leader of the Greens agrees with this motion because transparency and accountability are important to us. I sit on the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations, and I chose to sit on it because those two areas—transparency and accountability—are important to me and my party. We have a job to do, regardless of who is in government. We have to hold government officials, the Premier and everyone else in the government, accountable. However, they believe that they can handle this pandemic on their own and they do not want to discuss the issues or share the information with the rest of Parliament. The lack of respect that the Premier shows towards this house does not surprise me. Members have talked about that, so I will not bring up those issues again. The government has been very clear about the constitutional matters and other areas that have been brought up in this house over the last 18 months. We are looking for justification for the government’s decisions. We want that transparency and accountability. I looked at this motion and I read through the paragraphs. I find it very hard to disagree with any of them. From looking at quarantine exemptions, there seems to be the favoured few. The government cannot deny that. It can cover up all it likes, but it cannot deny that. We are asking for the plans to be tabled. Western Australians want to know and have some idea about what the future holds. Government members are keeping that very close to their chest because, as I said before, information is power and the government wants that power; it wants to wield that power over the people of Western Australia. The motion also refers to respect for Western Australians suffering isolation from loved ones located throughout Australia and overseas. We have seen many reports about that. It does not matter whether people listen to the ABC or read the Murdoch press. We are even now starting to see some more balanced journalism in The West Australian. It is just starting to come out. People are starting to think that maybe there has been some unfair treatment going on when it comes to exemptions. I was not going to speak on this motion, but how can members not support it? How can they not care about the people of Western Australia? They want information and we need information because we represent those people. Sixty per cent of Western Australians send representatives to this house. They want the information and we represent them. This is a good motion and I hope that the whole of this house, other than the government, supports it. Hon Pierre Yang: Mr Acting President! The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon Dr Steve Thomas): Are you asking for a point of order, Hon Pierre Yang? Hon Pierre Yang: I am asking for the call. The ACTING PRESIDENT: I do not have a list of who has spoken to date or how many opposition members have spoken. Hon Pierre Yang: The mover and the Leader of the Opposition spoke. Apart from the parliamentary secretary, no-one from the government has spoken. Hon Alanna Clohesy: And the Leader of the Greens and One Nation. The ACTING PRESIDENT: In the seven minutes remaining, I apologise and ask Hon Pierre Yang whether he does not mind sharing the time with Hon Michael Mischin. I will give Hon Pierre Yang the first go. HON PIERRE YANG (South Metropolitan) [11.31 am]: It would be my pleasure to share the time with Hon Michael Mischin. I have to say that I am thoroughly disappointed by the motion and the attitude the mover of the motion displayed in his remarks. If anyone is politicising this issue, it is the opposition. It is just not on! I will go through some points. Because of the government’s splendid management of this world crisis, WA is the only state that has increased its economic activity. We had 1.1 per cent growth over the 12 months of 2019–20, but the rest of the nation has fallen into economic recession for the first time in 30 years. Let us not forget about that.

6424 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 24 September 2020]

The honourable member who moved the motion also estimated that over the last six months or so, if I am not misquoting him, there have been 40 000 movements of people into the state. That is not to say that the border is shut completely. We need essential services and to let Western Australians come back home. I want to make sure that people are aware of the context of the Premier’s words. I heard accusations that the word “dumping” was used. I will go back to that point. It is said that it somehow showed a lack of compassion. Let me tell members what was specifically said. Hon Mark McGowan was responding to what the commonwealth was trying to do. He said — Bossing people around, basically saying they are just going to fly people in and dump them on our doorstep … The Premier was not showing any disrespect to Western Australians. It was a direct response to the irresponsible and uncooperative approach demonstrated by the commonwealth Liberal government. The Premier had not even been briefed or provided with any forewarning that the plan was to increase arrivals in Western Australia by 500 people before it went public. The commonwealth Liberal government went public first. The Premier only found out from the media. Is that the way the commonwealth government wants to do things in this commonwealth? We have a federal system in which the commonwealth government has certain authorities, including quarantine, and the state government has certain authorities. We are a sovereign state; let us not forget that. It is very important to ask the commonwealth what it will do for Western Australia. Will it pay all these fees? In my remaining 30 seconds, I want to say that Hon Tjorn Sibma may have some authority on border issues because he mentioned that he was an adviser to the Howard government. We certainly would not be taking any advice from the New South Wales Premier, Gladys Berejiklian. HON MICHAEL MISCHIN (North Metropolitan — Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [11.35 am]: I am glad that Hon Pierre Yang and Hon Alanna Clohesy raised those arguments because, in the limited time available to me, I will address the last part of Hon Tjorn Sibma’s motion, although much can be said about the other bits. All this talk about information being available is a nonsense. The situation has been politicised all the way down the line by the government for its own advantage. Last Wednesday, I asked a number of simple questions about borders. I asked whether the Premier considers that he and his government have a responsibility to care for Western Australians; and, if so, why is the government not paying for any hotel isolation required of Western Australians returning to their home state, rather than imposing the financial burden and hardship on them, given the alleged forthcoming budget surplus? Do members know what the answer was? It was — The state government is still waiting on a response from the Prime Minister with respect to mobilising additional Australian Defence Force assets to Western Australia commensurate with what has been provided to other states. What does that have to do with it? Hon Sue Ellery interjected. Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN: I am glad Hon Sue Ellery asked that question; she proffered that nonsense on behalf of her Premier! I tried to get a clarification of that the following day and asked — What does mobilising the Australian Defence Force have to do with my question … about Western Australians paying for hotel isolation? The response was — It is entirely reasonable that people returning to Australia pay their own quarantine expenses. There was no explanation. These are Western Australians, not Australians. These are not the people from New South Wales who the Premier told some time ago, “If you’re thinking of coming to WA, don’t bother. We don’t want you!” These are not the people he thinks are being dumped on us. These are people who are trying to return to their homes. It is an outrage that if someone wants to come home at this time of crisis, the Premier says no. He is happy to take their taxes, but he is going to close the border to them. He says that if they want to come home, they have to pay for it, unless, of course, they are Kerry Stokes, in which case they can do their time at home and not have to worry about it. Anyone else who comes home has to pay for their hotel accommodation and the rubbish meals that they may be served up, and be treated like a prisoner. It is an outrage that that is the attitude of this government, as is its refusal to provide straightforward answers to simple questions rather than handballing the responsibility to the commonwealth and showing no regard for its own citizens. If Western Australians want to come home, they should be looked after by their government, and not have the cost palmed off onto them. If government is meant to do one thing, it is to look after its citizens, whether they are well or ill and under any circumstances. The government must treat people evenly and equitably. That is the problem that another element of Hon Tjorn Sibma’s motion about consistency refers to. The Premier will not talk about individual cases and there is no transparency about how they are dealt with. There is no apparent consistency and there is the risk that people are being dealt with arbitrarily. Motion lapsed, pursuant to standing orders.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 24 September 2020] 6425

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE — ORDER OF BUSINESS Motion The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon Dr Steve Thomas): The time for non-government business has expired. That takes us to orders of the day. The Leader of the House has the call. Hon Simon O’Brien: Is there no private members’ business? HON SUE ELLERY (South Metropolitan — Leader of the House) [11.38 am]: No. The ACTING PRESIDENT: Not according to the agenda. Hon Simon O’Brien: They obviously haven’t got any issues. Hon SUE ELLERY: We have plenty. If the member wants to start that, we have plenty. Several members interjected. The ACTING PRESIDENT: Order! Any member who wants to make a comment in the chamber will seek the call from the Chair and be granted it or not without there being interjections across the floor. At this time, the Leader of the House has the call. Hon SUE ELLERY — without notice: I move — That orders of the day 1 to 3 and 5 to 8 be taken after order of the day 33. By way of assistance to members in the house, I advise that the government has given up private members’ business to allow for the orderly dealing of the legislative agenda that we are trying to progress before the end of the year. Hon Simon O’Brien interjected. The ACTING PRESIDENT: Order! Question put and passed. CITY OF VINCENT PARKING AND PARKING FACILITIES AMENDMENT LOCAL LAW 2020 — DISALLOWANCE Discharge of Order Hon Martin Pritchard reported that the concerns of the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation had been satisfied, and on his motion without notice it was resolved — That order of the day 4, City of Vincent Parking and Parking Facilities Amendment Local Law 2020 — Disallowance, be discharged from the notice paper. WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY BILL 2019 Committee Resumed from 23 September. The Deputy Chair of Committees (Hon Dr Steve Thomas) in the chair; Hon Sue Ellery (Leader of the House) in charge of the bill. Postponed clause 30A: Industrial manslaughter — crime — Progress was reported after the postponed clause had been amended. Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN: I welcome the minister to the committee table. Hopefully, we can make some progress because I expect that her answers will be considerably shorter, but, hopefully, more informative than those of her colleague. On the last occasion, I asked about the relevance of certain cases to the bill. The minister mentioned one further case—the Ballantine case. Perhaps the minister can give us a status report on the prosecutions emerging in that regard, and how this bill will make a difference to that particular tragedy. Hon SUE ELLERY: With respect to Valmont (WA) Pty Ltd, the head contractor pleaded guilty and was fined $38 000. Industrial Construction Services pleaded not guilty, and we are awaiting a trial date. Two other directors of ICS have yet to plead. Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN: What charges have been presented against each of those parties? Hon SUE ELLERY: Charges were laid under section 55 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984. Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN: In the case of Valmont, there is a charge under section 55 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act; is that correct? Hon SUE ELLERY: I make the point that Valmont is a company. Section 55 relates to individuals. We think Valmont was charged under section 19A. I understand the point made by the member. I have been briefed. I listened to the debate yesterday and I re-read the daily Hansard this morning. I understand the point that the honourable member is trying to make about the cases and his view that it is not appropriate to rely on those cases as a justification for the government’s policy on this part of the bill. That is his view.

6426 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 24 September 2020]

The Minister for Agriculture and Food responded to that during the second reading and numerous times during the committee process. Indeed, she acknowledged that few prosecutions may proceed. She also made the point that words matter and that it is just as important to achieve cultural change in how people deal with health and safety in the workplace as it is to rack up, if you like, a number of prosecutions. When the debate was concluding yesterday, Hon Alison Xamon also made the point that it is about driving cultural change. I am not sure that we can take this argument very much further. The honourable member has made his point and it is understood. It is terribly important, particularly for those families who are watching us right now, that we move on and deal with the detail of the clauses before us. I understand the point that the honourable member is making. He does not believe that it is appropriate for the government to rely on those cases as justification for the policy position the government has taken. Nevertheless, that is the policy position the government has taken, and we would like to move on to the detail of the clauses before us. Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN: I would certainly like to move on to the detail of the clauses before us, but it would help if, instead of the monologues, we get accurate answers to the questions. Yes, the minister is half right; it has taken a long time to expose that the cases the government has put up are not—what was the word that the previous minister used with respect to the penalty provisions back in 2017?—“appropriate” in hindsight. I am seeking to ensure that the expectations that have been raised by the government that there has been a significant and major reform are not just words but a positive change—a reform for the better—and that a difference will be made by these provisions. The minister is quite right; people may be listening to these debates, and they may find them uncomfortable. It would be most disgraceful if expectations are created that something different is being done here when that is not the case and there is no major change. The minister said that Valmont has been charged under section 55. Section 55 is not an offence-creating provision. It does not create a breach of duty; it is an extension of responsibility. It refers to extending responsibility to offices, bodies corporate and the like. I want to know what offences have been charged? It is entirely relevant, because if it is no different from what is proposed under the act, people are being led to believe that there is an enormous change, and then it is just words. Let us make it easy: with what offence was Valmont charged? Hon SUE ELLERY: I did clarify this. Valmont is a company and that was not captured under section 55. I refer to section 19 of the act. I have nothing further to add on this point. Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN: According to the WorkSafe website, Valmont was charged under section 22A(3) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. There is another incorrect and inaccurate piece of information from the government about something that the department knows, or at least has told the public because it is on the website. The minister cannot seem to help us out. The company was charged contrary to section 22A(3) for a breach of a duty of a person who has control of a workplace under section 22(1). Okay; we will let that one go through to the keeper. It is just another piece of unreliable information from the government. Let us hope for this one: what were the two directors of Industrial Construction Services charged with? The DEPUTY CHAIR: The minister has nothing further to add. Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN: No, I can imagine not. Either the minister does not know, which is disgraceful in itself, or she just cannot be bothered answering because she knows that if she gives an answer, it is not likely to be correct, or she just does not care. She just cites the cases; never mind about Parliament having to consider the legislation. In a perfect world for the Labor Party, it would be simply a matter of putting the stuff forward, giving a monologue about the importance of it, and presenting inaccurate, incomplete, unreliable information to the Parliament, which has the responsibility for these laws, and then when we examine what the government says and it starts to fall apart at a glance, it would deliver another monologue about how important it is that this legislation is passed because words are important. All we have heard is words—no facts, no substance. Are the directors charged with the equivalent of an offence under section 19A(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act—namely, gross negligence causing the death of a worker? It is just a simple yes or no. Hon SUE ELLERY: I have already indicated that I have nothing further to add on that point. The DEPUTY CHAIR: Hon Michael Mischin, I will give you some leeway here, but this will have to come to an end. Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN: Absolutely. I think I have made the point and exposed the government’s attitude to this. Those listening can understand that their government is prepared to make noises but it either has not the facts at its disposal or refuses to reveal uncomfortable ones. Postponed clause, as amended, put and passed. The DEPUTY CHAIR: Members, that takes us to a potential amendment on supplementary notice paper 155, issue 8, at 59/P2D3H—that is, on page 37, line 11, to delete the line. Does the minister intend to proceed with that amendment? Hon SUE ELLERY: I am not moving it.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 24 September 2020] 6427

The DEPUTY CHAIR: In that case, we will move to clause 35. Clause 35: What is a notifiable incident — Hon NICK GOIRAN: We are now starting part 3 of this 16-part bill. In order to facilitate progress, with the minister’s indulgence, I might ask questions on the first clause of each part, unless there is a clause that needs extra examination or has an amendment on the supplementary notice paper. Part 3 captures clauses 35 to 39. My question pertains to the thirty-first report of the Standing Committee on Public Administration, which was tabled last month. I raised this in my contribution to the second reading debate. This part deals with an incident notification process. The point I raised in the second reading debate is that notifications need to be sent to the regulator. Serious concerns were raised by the Standing Committee on Public Administration about the community’s awareness of the regulator. I asked what the government’s response was to recommendations 6 and 7 in that report. Recommendation 6 states — The Committee recommends that the State Government provides an ongoing and adequate advertising and communications budget for WorkSafe … to enable it to raise public awareness about its existence and functions. What is the government’s response to that recommendation? Hon SUE ELLERY: I am advised that at the time the government announced putting additional inspectors in place, an additional $500 000 was announced. Cabinet has not yet considered the thirty-first report, so I am not able to tell members how the government intends to respond to those particular recommendations. Hon NICK GOIRAN: Is the $500 000 specifically for that advertising and communications budget? Hon SUE ELLERY: I am advised yes. Hon NICK GOIRAN: The minister indicates that she is not in a position to advise—I am paraphrasing—on the government’s formal response to recommendation 6 or perhaps any of the recommendations necessarily in the committee’s report. I note that under standing order 191(1), there is an expectation that the government would do this within two months of the report being tabled. It was tabled in the past month. Hon Sue Ellery: In August. Hon NICK GOIRAN: It was sometime in August; I do not have the date readily to hand. It is difficult for us to examine this matter in the absence of that information. I guess the best question I can simply ask at this point is: does the government contend that it will be able to meet that two-month deadline? Hon SUE ELLERY: Yes, it will. Occasionally, a government response to a report may be a day or two late and the responsible minister will stand and advise the chamber that that is the case. As a member of cabinet, I am not aware of any obstacle that would prevent us from providing a response within the time line. Hon NICK GOIRAN: No doubt, in order to meet that time line, without having the date readily to hand, I imagine that — Hon Sue Ellery interjected. Hon NICK GOIRAN: I know that it was reported in August this year, but the main point here is that we are well into the two-month process. It is good to hear that there are no obvious obstacles. I take it that active consultation is taking place with WorkSafe to verify the quantum of the advertising and communications budget that might be needed—that deals with recommendation 6—but it is also important to look at recommendation 7, which refers to “additional funding for an extensive advertising campaign to raise public awareness”. I take it that active consultation is taking place with WorkSafe in order to develop that. Hon SUE ELLERY: I am in a slightly difficult position because the matter is yet to be considered by cabinet. I am not in a position, and these advisers would not be in a position to tell me, to tell the chamber the work they are doing to prepare that for cabinet. It is a legitimate question to ask, but I am not in a position to provide the member with a detailed answer on that. Hon NICK GOIRAN: One further question on this element is: is it routinely the case that a response to a standing committee’s report would be put before cabinet? Hon SUE ELLERY: Every time. Hon NICK GOIRAN: My last question to the minister about part 3, “Incident notification”, which captures clauses 35 to 39, is: are there any material deviations from the model law in this part; and, if there are, what are those material deviations and why does the government consider them necessary? Hon SUE ELLERY: If we go to the table, which I understand the member has been provided with, we see that clause 36(1)(d) is a recommendation from the ministerial advisory panel. That was particularly to accommodate the possible time that is taken to facilitate an evacuation from a regional or remote site. Paragraph (d) deals with

6428 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 24 September 2020] a serious illness, referred to in paragraph (c), “that requires the person to have treatment”. Paragraph (d) commences “that occurs in a remote location”—it is the time that is counted. It has to be taken into account that it might be different from someone being picked up in an ambulance in metropolitan Perth and out of hospital within 15 minutes, as opposed to somebody in a remote location having to be evacuated and waiting for the Royal Flying Doctor Service et cetera. Clause 36(1)(e) was also a recommendation from the ministerial advisory panel that was inserted into the body of the legislation. It is a continuation of the status quo. Those provisions are set out in the current regulations. In clause 36(2), the definition of “medical practitioner” includes the Western Australian definition of “medical practitioner”, so it is different from the model clause in that sense. The other changes relate to penalties. The penalties have been increased, consistent with the Occupational Safety and Health Amendment Act 2018. That appears at clause 37(1). Although clause 37(2) is the model clause, it has the preferred WA spelling of “acknowledgment”. Hon Nick Goiran: It is truly amazing some of the things that come up. Hon SUE ELLERY: There is that—apparently we spell differently! Otherwise, clause 37(7) is about the increase in penalties in the 2018 OSH penalty amendments. It is the same in clause 39(1)(a); the penalty increase is consistent with the 2018 occupational health and safety penalty amendments. It is the same in clause 41. Hon NICK GOIRAN: Looking at clause 36(1)(e), which was MAP recommendation 10, it states — that, in the opinion of a medical practitioner, is likely to prevent the person from being able to do the person’s normal work for at least 10 days after the day on which the injury or illness occurs, That is part of the definition of “serious injury or illness”. Did I understand the minister correctly to indicate that that is simply consistent with the existing law of Western Australia by way of a regulation? Hon Sue Ellery: It is in the regs now. Hon NICK GOIRAN: Will it now be uplifted into the act? Hon Sue Ellery: Yes. Hon NICK GOIRAN: Thank you. Clause put and passed. Clauses 36 to 39 put and passed. Clause 40: Meaning of authorised — Hon NICK GOIRAN: Part 4, “Authorisations”, captures clauses 40 to 45C. I will ask some questions about clause 44 specifically, but my general question on part 4 is: can the minister again indicate to the chamber whether there have been any material deviations from the model law; and, if so, what are they and what is the justification for them? Hon SUE ELLERY: As I had started to say and got ahead of myself, the penalty at paragraph (b), below “Penalty”, is consistent. The increase is consistent with the 2018 OSH penalty amendments. Clause 42 is a model clause, except the penalties, which, again, are consistent with the 2018 penalty amendments. When compared with the model law, subclause (2) has a minor grammatical amendment to improve clarity. Still on subclause (2), the increase in penalties is consistent with the 2018 OSH penalty amendments. Clause 43 is the same as the model clause, except at subclauses (1)(b) and (2)(a) and (b)—again, there are changes to the penalties consistent with the 2018 OSH penalty amendments. What was the member capturing through to? Hon Nick Goiran: Clause 45C. Hon SUE ELLERY: Clause 44(1) is a model clause, except that the penalties are increased, consistent with the 2018 penalty amendments. Clause 44(2) is also a model clause, except that the penalties are increased, consistent with the 2018 penalty amendments. Does the member want me to talk about clause 45 or stop at clause 44? Hon Nick Goiran: Just around that part. Hon SUE ELLERY: Clause 45 is a model clause, except that the penalties are increased, consistent with the 2018 penalty amendments. Clause 45(a) is different. Clause put and passed. Clauses 41 to 43 put and passed. Clause 44: Requirements for prescribed qualifications or experience — Hon NICK GOIRAN: Clause 44 deals with requirements for prescribed qualifications or experience. I take members to page 47 of the bill. I raised this issue in the second reading debate. In particular, I draw members’ attention to clause 44(2). As I understand it, clause 44(2) provides that a person conducting a business or undertaking

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 24 September 2020] 6429 is not allowed to direct a worker to carry out work at a workplace if the regulations say that that person must have certain prescribed qualifications but the worker does not have them. That, of course, is quite appropriate. Members will see that there are penalties for that. The penalty is a fine of $25 000 for an individual and $115 000 for a body corporate. Clause 44(2) does not contain an element of knowledge on the part of the employer, so there is a certain strictness about 44(2) in that a worker either has the prescribed qualifications or they do not. I think there should be severe penalties for a PCBU who knows the employee does not have the prescribed qualifications but still sends them out to do the job. My concern is when an employer thinks that the employee has the right qualifications but later finds out that they do not have them, not through any fault of the employer. Let us take, for example, a scenario in which the employee—the worker—has fraudulently told the employer that the worker has those qualifications when in actual fact the worker does not. The employer could be subject to a fine of either $25 000 or $115 000. There are two issues here. I said in the second reading debate that either it is fair and reasonable for the government to allow employers to go to an insurance company and say, “If I get pinged for this, I would like my insurer to cover my liability”, or, if the government continues with the policy that there will be no insurance cover for anything, I think it is important to add an element of knowledge here so that the employer must know that the employee did not have the qualifications but still sent out the employee, in which case it is fair enough that they should be pinged and should not be insured for it. I ask the minister to give some consideration to that issue, which, as I said, I raised in the second reading debate. Hon SUE ELLERY: It is a legitimate question. The assumption in clause 44(2) is that there is a positive duty for employers to inform themselves because there is a serious risk if they do not. The serious risk to them is the penalties. All the information they need to satisfy themselves is available for them to get from the website. The onus will be put on the PCBUs to satisfy themselves that the employee has the relevant qualification, certificate, training course, licence, or whatever it is. Hon NICK GOIRAN: I accept that. It does create that positive duty on the part of the employer. I also accept that this is a model clause. Nevertheless, I am concerned about circumstances in which we could reasonably say that the employer has not done anything wrong; the employer exercised their positive duty but they were misled by the worker. What defences would be available to the employer in that situation? Hon SUE ELLERY: I am advised that the defences would be those that are set out in the Criminal Code. I am trying to get information on whether there is a specific section in the code that I can refer the member to. It is under “statement of fact”. We will see whether we can get the member the specific reference in the Criminal Code, but that is what it is. Hon NICK GOIRAN: While that information is being obtained for the benefit of the chamber, can I just ask the minister whether the test of reasonable practicability, which is set out in clause 18, would intersect with this clause? Would an employer be able to say that they did everything reasonably practicable under clause 18, albeit in part 2, and therefore rely on that, or is that test irrelevant to this offence? Hon SUE ELLERY: I am advised that we would rely on the provisions in part 1, chapter V of the Criminal Code. I do not have the actual sections. In answer to the second part of the member’s question and the catch-all that is set out in clause 18, given the application of the Criminal Code, I think that the provisions of the Criminal Code would override the provisions under clause 18 because what is set out in clause 44 is an absolute requirement. If we need further examination of this, I will need to swap out my advisers again. Hon NICK GOIRAN: While that advice is being obtained, could the minister point to a specific provision in the Criminal Code? I accept there is a chapter in the Criminal Code that sets out the defences and excuses. I am not disputing that; I am simply asking what an employer could usefully do under those defences in the circumstance in which a worker produces to the employer a qualification that satisfies the employer and the employer believes they have exercised their positive duty — Hon Sue Ellery: They can take action in the court. Hon NICK GOIRAN: What defence could they rely on if what the worker provided was fraudulent and a fake? That is the concern I have. The minister can well imagine a scenario in which a person might be desperate for work and be prepared to provide whatever said qualifications are needed despite the fact that they do not have them. We are all familiar, for example, with circumstances of résumé or CV fraud. I would like to know whether there is a specific defence or excuse under the Criminal Code that an employer could rely on in circumstances in which they were charged with a clause 44(2) offence. I am concerned about the intersection with clause 18, because if there was a nexus between the two, I think it would provide some comfort to employers because they would then be able to launch a defence that they took all reasonably practicable measures. However, I see that clause 18 refers to a duty to ensure health and safety. It is all under part 2, which sets out the health and safety duties. Under part 4, clause 44 seems to provide a different obligation, or, as the minister says, a positive obligation. I am concerned that the test at clause 18 could not be relied on at clause 44. Therefore, as the minister said, we would need to rely on the Criminal Code, and I would like to be satisfied that something of substance would be there that would protect the employer.

6430 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 24 September 2020]

Hon SUE ELLERY: With regard to the defences that can be relied upon under the Criminal Code, I am not sure I can take that much further, because it will rely entirely on the circumstances and the evidence. I cannot take that much further. With regard to the relationship with clause 18, clause 18 sets out the meaning of the words “reasonably practicable” wherever they appear. Clause 44 provides for an absolute requirement. Hon NICK GOIRAN: Again, that is my concern here, minister. There is an absolute requirement for what I referred to. There is a heavy strictness about this provision. If the person conducting the business or undertaking had actual knowledge that the worker did not have the prescribed qualifications, I would have no problems with the suggested penalty. I also would have no problem with that person not being able to insure against that penalty. It is the mischievous worker I am concerned about, not the slack employer. This provision does not provide balance for that. Even if there were a mischievous worker, the employer would be deemed to be a slack employer, and I think that is unfair. We will need to take up this issue again when we get to the later part dealing with the blanket prohibition against insurance. I know other members have some amendments to it on the supplementary notice paper. I encourage the government, between now and when we get to that clause, to make available some supplementary advice, particularly on whether, as I said in my second reading contribution, the government might be inclined to agree that in those circumstances, someone should be able to insure against this kind of penalty. I have no further questions unless the minister has any supplementary information on specific defences or excuses under the Criminal Code that an employer might be able to use for a concern like this. Hon SUE ELLERY: I made my point before. It will depend entirely on the circumstances. Clause put and passed. Clauses 45 to 45C put and passed. Clause 46: Duty to consult with other duty holders — Hon NICK GOIRAN: We are now moving to part 5 of a 16-part bill. Part 5 captures clauses 46 to 103. The clause in this part that requires some examination is clause 72. The minister will be aware there are amendments on the supplementary notice paper in my name, and we will get to those in a minute. With regard to this part and the general questions that are applicable, this deals with the issue of some comprehensive duties being established to consult on specified work health and safety matters in the Work Health and Safety Bill 2019. In this part, which goes from clause 46 to clause 103, are there any substantial deviations from the model law? If there are, what are they and what is the justification for them? Hon SUE ELLERY: With regard to clause 46—as a 20-year legislator, you can learn something new every day— it is the same as the model clause, but the WA-preferred spelling is “cooperate” and “coordinate” and the penalties are consistent with the 2018 occupational safety and health penalty amendments. Clause 47 is the same as the model clause, except the penalties have been increased consistent with the 2018 OSH penalty amendments. In response to public comment, clause 48(2) refers to “consultation must involve the health and safety representative so far as reasonably practicable”. Model clauses 49, 50, 51 and 52 came from ministerial advisory panel recommendation 11, and I can come back to that if the member needs an explanation. Yes; I do know what this is. This is a change in the language. Instead of the heading of clause 52 reading “Negotiations for agreement for work group”, it was changed to “Negotiations for determination of work group”. It is a change in language, not a change in any substance. There is a minor amendment in subclause (1) of model clause 52 for clarity—who knew that WA had preferred grammar— and the penalties have been increased consistent with the 2018 occupational safety and health penalty amendments. Clause 53 is the same as the model clause except for the penalties. Clause 54 is the same as the model clause but there is a minor amendment in subclause (3)(a) for clarity. Clause 55 uses WA-preferred grammar. Clause 56 is the same as the model clause, except for the penalties, which are consistent with the 2018 OSH penalty amendments. Clause 57 is the same as the model clause, except for the penalties. Clause 58 is the same as the model clause. Clause 60 is the same as the model clause, except for the gender-neutral language and the penalties, which are consistent with the occ safety and health penalty amendments. Clause 64 of the model law also uses gender-neutral language. Clause 65, “Disqualification of health and safety representatives”, applies the ministerial advisory panel’s recommendation 44 and uses gender-neutral language. Clause 66 is the same as the model clause. Clause 67 is the same as the model clause and uses gender-neutral language. Clause 68 is the same as the model clause and uses WA-preferred grammar and spelling. Clause 69 is the ministerial advisory panel’s recommendation 12 and applies minor amendments for clarity and WA-preferred grammar. This was put in place as a result of representation from industry. When it was explained to me, the example I was given was at a worksite such as a children’s hospital there might be a range of different contractors and some of them might be very small contractors. When a workgroup is small and its health and safety rep is not available, it allows that workgroup to invite a health and safety rep from another group to participate in the process. This was at industry’s request to give practical effect when dealing with small companies that might not have a health and safety rep at every single job at the same time. Hon Nick Goiran: Can you take an interjection on that? Hon SUE ELLERY: Sure.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 24 September 2020] 6431

Hon Nick Goiran: Do we know what defines “small”? Hon SUE ELLERY: No. This is an enabling provision to allow them to come to a practical solution. Clause 70 is the model clause with minor amendments for grammar and WA-preferred language—now we have our own language! We have our own language, our own grammar and our own spelling! Hon Nick Goiran: West Australian dialect. Hon SUE ELLERY: Who knew! Clause 71 is the same as the model clause, with WA-preferred grammar. Clause 72(1) is the same as the model clause. Clause 72(1)(a) applies the ministerial advisory panel’s recommendation 13; paragraph (b) applies the ministerial advisory panel’s recommendation 14; and paragraph (c) is the choice of course and was modified in response to public comment. It provides the health and safety rep with the right to choose the training course. The honourable member would be aware that that also applies to clauses 72(5) and (7). Clause 72 also has the increased penalties. Clause 73 is the same as the model clause. Clause 74 is the same as the model clause except the penalties are consistent with 2018 occupational safety and health penalty amendments. Clause 75 is the same as the model clause except there is a minor amendment for clarity and the penalties are consistent with the 2018 occupational safety and health penalty amendments. Also, some WA-preferred grammar is applied and a word change to create greater clarity in the application of the note. Clause 76 is the same as the model clause with gender-neutral language, and corrects some numbering due to some new subclauses being added. Clause 76(5) applies the ministerial advisory panel’s recommendation 15, which ensures that there are people at the table with the capacity to make decisions and speak on behalf of the company. Part of that broader clause also includes some renumbering. Clause 77 is the same as the model clause but has been amended with WA-preferred spelling and grammar. Clause 78 is the same as the model clause. Clause 79 is the same as the model clause with a minor amendment to improve clarity and gender-neutral language, and some changes to make the penalties consistent with 2018 occupational safety and health penalty amendments. Hon Nick Goiran: Clause 79? Hon SUE ELLERY: Yes. It turns out we also have a WA-preferred apostrophe! Hon Nick Goiran: If we had more time, I’d ask more about that. Hon SUE ELLERY: If we had more time, indeed, so would I! The modification of the penalties in clause 79(5) applies the ministerial advisory panel’s recommendation 15. The modification is in response to public comment on the penalties consistent with the 2018 occupational safety and health penalty amendments. The ministerial advisory panel’s recommendation 15 is also captured in clause 79(6) and, again, the penalties are consistent with the 2018 occupational safety and health penalty amendments. Clause 80 is the same as the model clause but is reorganised to improve clarity. Clause 81 is the same as the model clause. Clauses 82 and 82A apply recommendations of the Boland report. Clause 83 is the same as the model clause. Clause 84 is the same as the model clause but it has been reorganised for greater clarity, and subclause (1)(b) applies the ministerial advisory panel’s recommendation 16. The DEPUTY CHAIR: Minister. Hon SUE ELLERY: Clause 84(2) implements the current section 4A—exclusion for dangerous and covert operations. Clause 85 is the same as the model clause, with the WA-preferred apostrophe. Hon Nick Goiran: I’ll just make an interjection on 84. When it says it implements the current “4A”, where did this “4A” come from? Is it the OSH act? Hon SUE ELLERY: Yes, it is. Clause 85 is the same as the model clause, again with our parochial apostrophe and grammar, and a note is added to clarify that a single direction may be given to multiple workers. Clause 85(7) implements section 4A of the Occupational Safety and Health Act for dangerous and covert operations, which I just described. Clauses 86, 87 and 88 are the same as the model clauses. Clause 89 applies the ministerial advisory panel’s recommendation 25. Clause 89A applies the ministerial advisory panel’s recommendation 17. Clause 90 is the same as the model clause, with gender-neutral language. Clause 91 is the same as the model clause. Clause 92 is the same as the model clause with a minor amendment to improve the clarity of timing. Clauses 93 to 97 are the same as the model clauses. In clauses 97 and 98, the penalties are increased consistent with the 2018 OSH penalty amendments. Clause 99 applies the ministerial advisory panel’s recommendation 25 and includes penalty increases consistent with the 2018 occupational safety and health penalty amendments. Clause 100 is the same as the model clause with a minor amendment to improve the clarity of timing. Clause 100(2) applies the ministerial advisory panel’s recommendation 18. Clause 101 applies the ministerial advisory panel’s recommendation 25 and includes some gender-neutral language. Clause 102 is the same as the model clause with some gender-neutral language, and if the member wanted clause 103 included, it is the ministerial advisory panel’s preferred response to the jurisdictional note further modified for greater consistency. That takes us to clause 103.

6432 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 24 September 2020]

Hon NICK GOIRAN: To facilitate debate, I do not have a question until clause 48. Clause put and passed. Clause 47 put and passed. Clause 48: Nature of consultation — Hon NICK GOIRAN: I refer to clause 48(2). In the minister’s response at the start of this part, she indicated that clause 48(2) was changed in response to public consultation. Who requested that change in the public consultation process? Hon SUE ELLERY: It was raised by the mining companies. They raised with government that they were concerned, given the remoteness of sites and different shifts and swing arrangements, for example, that it might not always be possible to have a health and safety rep present at that time. The language has changed so that the rep must be involved when it is reasonably practicable. Hon NICK GOIRAN: After it was raised and there was a preliminary decision by government to take on board the feedback, was there an additional round of consultation with anyone else who might have been affected by the change? Hon SUE ELLERY: I am advised that the government did not specifically ask, but the member would be aware that industry is well across the provisions set out in this bill, and no industry representatives have raised any concerns. Clause put and passed. Clauses 49 to 64 put and passed. Clause 65: Disqualification of health and safety representatives — Hon NICK GOIRAN: The minister indicated that this clause is a result of ministerial advisory panel recommendation 44. Was that a unanimous recommendation of the ministerial advisory panel? Hon SUE ELLERY: I am not in a position to tell the member who voted for what and what the numbers were inside the ministerial advisory panel. I can tell the member that it made recommendations that were then put out for public consultation. I am advised that there were more than 60 responses to that public consultation. Drafting then occurred accordingly. Hon NICK GOIRAN: By way of explanation, earlier in the consideration of the bill, a matter was included because of a MAP recommendation. Although the minister with the carriage of the bill and I had a fairly robust debate about whether we should be told further information about the MAP process and the release of minutes and the like— we will not revisit all that—there was, at the very least, an indication by the minister that the recommendation was unanimous. For consistency, I am asking whether the minister can now indicate whether this recommendation was unanimous. Hon SUE ELLERY: I am not in a position to do that. Hon NICK GOIRAN: Is that because the information is not available to the minister at this time or has there been a change in the approach taken by the government in revealing whether recommendations were unanimous? Hon SUE ELLERY: I am advised that during the previous robust debate that was had, the government indicated that it would not be sharing information for each recommendation about how many people voted, who voted, which way they voted and whether it was unanimous. The government did that for clause 26A, but it will not do it for others. Hon NICK GOIRAN: For the benefit of the record, from that I interpret that recommendation 44 for clause 65 was not a unanimous recommendation of the MAP. It must be that some concerns were raised. What concerns have been raised with the government about clause 65 at any stage of the consultation process, whether inside or outside the MAP process? Hon SUE ELLERY: I do not know that I can give the member a precise answer, but he will have noted that in the clause-by-clause information I provided to the chamber before, I said that some things had been changed as a result of public consultation. Some MAP recommendations were put out and the public consultation gave feedback along the lines of what I set out 10 minutes ago; for example, companies said that for remote locations, it would be more practical if they could ensure that a health and safety rep be there when reasonably practicable. When consultation came back that made recommendations to alter or reconsider ministerial advisory panel recommendations, they were considered. Some of them were adopted and appear in the bill before us, and others were not. Given that more than 60 submissions came back, it is too broad a canvas to set out which suggestions from the public consultation were adopted and which were not. I can set it out in broad terms, as I did in the chunk of clauses we did, but I cannot go into more detail than that. Hon NICK GOIRAN: For clarity, is clause 65 a model clause that has been modified because of MAP recommendation 44, or is it not a model clause and has been brought on simply because of MAP recommendation 44?

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 24 September 2020] 6433

Hon SUE ELLERY: The model clause requires us to insert the designated court or tribunal. To that extent, it is a model clause. It uses gender-neutral language. The ministerial advisory panel also made a recommendation. The model clause allowed us to insert the designated tribunal and MAP recommended it. Hon NICK GOIRAN: To round this out, have no concerns been raised with the government on the drafting of clause 65 that is currently before us? Hon SUE ELLERY: No, not to the knowledge of the advisers here. Clause put and passed. Clauses 66 to 68 put and passed. Clause 69: Powers and functions generally limited to the particular work group — Hon NICK GOIRAN: I understand that clause 69 is a model clause but has been amended pursuant to recommendation 12 of the ministerial advisory panel. Is there any point in me asking the minister about any other ministerial advisory panel recommendations and whether they were unanimous? Hon Sue Ellery: There is not. Hon NICK GOIRAN: I will not ask that question on this or any other occasion. Has the government received concerns, whether it be inside the MAP process, outside the MAP process or at any other time, on the drafting of clause 69 that has deviated from the model law to the extent of recommendation 12 of MAP? Hon SUE ELLERY: I have a document that I could table, if it is helpful. Just so that I am clear, is the member asking about the issues that were raised externally? Hon Nick Goiran: Yes. Hon SUE ELLERY: I do not think I can be more specific. I can tell the member the names of the organisations that made submissions, but more than 60 submissions were received. Hon Nick Goiran: With regard to this? Hon SUE ELLERY: No, generally. I am not in a position, without someone trolling through all the submissions, which will be not particularly practical, to tell the member what specific concerns were raised. I will see whether I can check one thing for the member. The practical effect of this provision is that it makes things easier for the parties engaged on a worksite. I was trying to work backwards and make the assumption that because it makes things easier for an employer, for example, maybe it came from an employer. I cannot confirm that. I think it is trying to take account of the fact that there are so many different levels on a worksite. We could use the children’s hospital as a good example. There were so many different contractors and subcontractors. This provision is trying to give practical assistance to the parties that if they do not have their health and safety rep on site but another one is on the same site, they can be used to ensure the process is not held up, but only when a serious risk to health or safety emanates from an immediate or imminent exposure. It will ensure that in those circumstances, the process is not unduly held up because the company is so small that it does not have a health and safety rep on site at the time. That is the best I can do. Clause put and passed. Clauses 70 and 71 put and passed. Clause 72: Obligation to train health and safety representatives — Hon NICK GOIRAN: I move — Page 71, line 11 — To delete the line and substitute — (c) subject to subsection (5), chosen by the health and safety representative, in consultation with the person conducting the business or undertaking. Again to potentially facilitate the passage of this bill, I indicate to members that this is the first of three amendments to clause 72 on the supplementary notice paper standing in my name. They are identical amendments to those moved by my colleague and learned friend the member for Hillarys, Peter Katsambanis, MLA, in the other place during the debate. Our opposition amendments to clause 72 reinsert model law provisions into the bill. These provisions have been taken out. We are putting them back in. They will ensure that the employer has a say on who trains the health and safety representatives, given that this entire part is about consultation and the employer will ultimately have to pay. I can continue to make the case for this and the other three amendments but perhaps the most expeditious way forward is to get an indication from the government whether it will support, oppose or perhaps not oppose these amendments.

6434 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 24 September 2020]

Hon SUE ELLERY: I hate to break the honourable member’s heart, but the government will oppose this amendment. Under the current legislation and the model bill, it is understood that the health and safety representative chose the course from the list of authorised courses. A recent New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission decision on Sydney Trains and SafeWork NSW queried whether this settled understanding was correct. The case considered the New South Wales provisions in section 72 of the NSW act. After consideration of that decision, the New South Wales Parliament passed amendments to section 72 to adopt the words proposed in our clause 72(1)(c). The amendment before us would repeat the error that the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission identified. Clause 72(1)(c) of the bill before us states — chosen by the health and safety representative. If we were to add the text proposed in the honourable member’s amendment, it would leave us with a problematic provision, given that we already have a decision from the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission. For those reasons, the government will not support the amendment. Hon NICK GOIRAN: I find it interesting that the government is now relying on a New South Wales court decision when this has never been raised before. I take the minister to the document that was tabled. It sets out the deviations from the model law. We are dealing with clause 72(1)(c) now. The information that has been provided is that the clause was drafted in response to public comment. It was not suggested that the provision was modified because of some New South Wales decision. Sitting suspended from 1.00 to 2.00 pm Hon NICK GOIRAN: Does the government concede that amendment 18/72 standing in my name on the supplementary notice paper is word for word identical to the model law? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: Member, that is correct. We have deviated from the model law in this case because of the Sydney Trains v SafeWork NSW case that came forward in New South Wales. That clause from the model law was enshrined in the New South Wales legislation and the matter of the correct construction of the clause came up for consideration. When it was introduced into the model code, it was understood that the provision would not change settled practice that the health and safety representative had the right to choose, provided the cost and the availability were appropriate. The case came forward. Commissioner Newall’s decision states — It can fairly be said that neither s.72 nor Part 12 of the Act are shining examples of the parliamentary draughtsman’s art. The commissioner’s view was that the inclusion of the words “consultation with the person conducting the business” created the problem. We wanted to remove the uncertainty created by the construction of that particular provision in the model act so that, effectively, the status quo would remain. Hon NICK GOIRAN: What weight would the Western Australian courts give to that New South Wales decision? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: Obviously, as it is interpreting a model clause provision, one would imagine that the New South Wales court’s decision would have some weight. I guess one of the things that comes out of the model code is that the jurisdictions are making decisions on the same wording, so I think there would be some weight. We note that New South Wales has taken steps to amend its legislation to deal with this. I think, member, it would not be wise for us to go down this path when we know that there is a problem with the interpretation of the model clause such that New South Wales has had to change its legislation. Hon NICK GOIRAN: Does any other jurisdiction in Australia have the same model clause in its legislation? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: We presume so, but we have not done that analysis. Suffice it to say, where it has been drawn to a jurisdiction’s attention that the lack of clarity has become apparent, as in New South Wales, it has taken steps. Hon NICK GOIRAN: I take it then, minister, that that means every other jurisdiction in Australia has the model law clause that the opposition is trying to insert back into this bill, and the only exception to that is New South Wales, based on the decision of one judge or magistrate or commissioner. Who made the decision that that was the genesis of the New South Wales Parliament changing its provision, when no other jurisdiction is doing likewise? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: We cannot say that no other jurisdiction is doing likewise. We are sure that this matter would have had consequences in other jurisdictions that may well be proposing to make similar changes; we just do not know. But we do know that there has been litigation on the model clause as it was enshrined in the New South Wales legislation and the court reported on the fact that it lacked clarity and disturbed what was settled practice. We note that recommendation 10 of the Boland review was to amend the model WHS act to make it clear that for the purposes of section 2 of the act, the health and safety rep is entitled to choose the course of training. The Boland review recommended that the model act be changed in the way that we are changing the legislation. Honestly, member, in light of what happened in New South Wales and the action taken by the

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 24 September 2020] 6435

New South Wales Parliament, and the recommendation by the Boland review, it would be quite perverse if we were to, notwithstanding that, go back to the model law, which the Boland review recommended be changed to overcome that problem. Hon NICK GOIRAN: The minister says that, but she is not able to tell us whether any other jurisdiction has done that. In the absence of that, given how insistent the government has been about the need for the model law, it is reasonable for us to assume, particularly given the resources of government, that every other jurisdiction has this model clause. The government has gone out of its way to say, “Hang on a second, members, New South Wales is doing something different.” I find it almost amusing that the government can exercise its resources to find out what New South Wales is doing, but it has no idea what Queensland, Victoria, South Australia or anyone else is doing. The government is expert because of one decision in New South Wales. Be that as it may, the minister talked about perversion of the legislation. Part 5 of the bill is indeed titled “Consultation, representation and participation”. The point of part 5 is consultation. If we agree with the government’s proposal, there will be no consultation, because clause 72 will read “chosen by the health and safety representative”. There has to be a training course chosen by the health and safety representative. Minister, who will pay for the training chosen by the health and safety representative? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: The established practice is that the course is paid for by the employer. I hope that my advisers can point me to the sections, but I understand that there still needs to be consultation. I understand that the provision provides for consultation. There will be a time frame for the training to be delivered and, obviously, there will be consultation about that. The employer will be required to pay the course fees and other reasonable costs. The clause then provides that if agreement cannot be reached with the person conducting the business or undertaking within the time frames set out in clause 72(2), either party may ask the regulator to appoint an inspector to decide the matter. The framework is set up so that discussions can take place on those matters. If there is no agreement, there is a mechanism to call in the inspector. It is not the case that we are giving the health and safety rep an absolute right to do whatever they want. Built into the structure is — Hon Nick Goiran: But only about the time when the course is undertaken, not about the cost or who does it. Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: No; it is to pay the course fees. Hon Nick Goiran: They have to pay it, no matter what it is. It could be a million dollars and they have to pay it, because it is only about paying the course and reasonable costs; it is not the reasonable course fees. You’ve got to pay for the course and reasonable costs. They are two different elements. Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: That is not how it will be interpreted in practice. The explanatory memorandum says that if agreement cannot be reached between the person conducting the business and the safety rep on the matters set out in subclause (2)—some of the matters set out are the course fees—“either party may ask the regulator to appoint an inspector”. That could be interpreted as though the course fees are matters that could be the subject of disputation. Hon Nick Goiran: That is not what the clause says. Have a look at clause 72(5). Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: It is important to understand that all courses must be authorised by the Work Health and Safety Commission. People cannot just go and pick a course that has not been approved. The explanatory memorandum states — In some circumstances, costs associated with the course … including course fees, may be significantly higher than other courses that are conveniently available to the HSR … If this is a factor in the dispute, the inspector may apportion reasonable costs to the PCBU and residual costs to the HSR. The inspector cannot require the HSR to change their choice of course. However, if the cost of the course that is chosen is higher than what is reasonable or generally available, the PCBU may apportion reasonable costs. It is a package. The PCBU can look at all elements of the package, including the course fees. The inspector may decide that because a particular course is more expensive than another equivalent course that is available, the PCBU is required to pay only the proportion of the cost that is the equivalent of the alternative available course. The health and safety rep has the right to choose, but they will not have the right to unilaterally determine how much will be paid for that course, because if an employer believes it is unreasonable, they can ask for an inspector to adjudicate. One technique that the adjudicator will have available to them is to require the employer to pay only a proportion of the cost. That is included in the explanatory memorandum, which will of course be part of the provisions that go towards interpreting the bill. If there is any dispute about this clause, the fact that this has been set out clearly in the explanatory memorandum puts beyond doubt that that is how this clause will operate. Hon RICK MAZZA: This clause seems terribly one-sided. Part 5 is titled “Consultation, representation and participation” for health and safety representatives. The PCBU will really not have much of a say, if any, on what

6436 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 24 September 2020] courses the health and safety representative takes. The model bill does. Hon Nick Goiran’s amendment basically mirrors the model bill and provides for a consultation process on what courses the health and safety representative could undertake. My understanding is that workplace health and safety should really be a coordinated approach by the employer and the employee. In fact, at the end of the day, the PCBU is responsible for the work health and safety systems and the model that is used to make sure that health and safety exists within the business. If something goes wrong, they are the ones who will be liable for it, yet no consultation process will be available to them to determine what courses should be undertaken by the health and safety representative when it comes to instituting those systems in their workplace. The minister has referred to the New South Wales court precedent. That is the case in one state, but it is not the case in other states. We have kind of cherrypicked this a bit along the way, too, because we are saying that we are doing it differently in this state from other states. Just because New South Wales has gone down this path, does not mean that Western Australia should. The model bill is quite clear. I am very concerned that this is extraordinarily one sided because the PCBU will not have an opportunity to have some input into what the courses will entail. I am therefore inclined to support this amendment. Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: I really urge members not to support this amendment; it would actually be a backwards step. The current situation is very clear. The intention of the current law, as proposed by the model law, was always to reflect what has been a long-established practice; that is, workplace safety and health representatives can choose the course provider. That has been a really essential part of this process. The representatives cannot choose just any provider; they can choose a provider from only the list of approved and accredited training providers on the WorkSafe website. This does not give a person carte blanche to attend a course when they have no idea whether the training provider will be relevant. The choice of course will continue to exist, but the course will have to be run by an accredited provider. A workplace health and safety representative cannot do some Mickey Mouse training; it has to be a properly accredited course. If there is a dispute and the employer is unhappy with the associated travel costs or the course fees, the employer has the right to arbitration and to call in an inspector to adjudicate on this. This has been the practice and this will continue. We believe that that practice was meant to be enshrined in the model law. After the model laws were adopted, the Sydney trains case came up and there has been a review of the law. We are not just saying that this is New South Wales responding to that decision. The Boland review of the model workplace health and safety law said that the model code needed to be amended in order to make it clear that the health and safety representative was entitled to choose the course of training. It would be quite perverse if we were to ignore not only what happened in that case and the New South Wales response to it, but also, more importantly, the fact that Boland said that we need to amend the model code. Effectively, we are embracing the change that was recommended by the Boland review. Hon NICK GOIRAN: For what it is worth, I think that we are both trying to achieve the same outcome. I accept what the minister has said about the explanatory memorandum. I have perused the explanatory memorandum on this point and it does indeed clarify exactly what the minister said, which is also what the opposition wants to see; that is, if there is a dispute about the cost, the course or its timing, all those matters can be brought to the inspector for a decision. I accept that that is what the explanatory memorandum states and it is what the government wants to happen. I accept the minister’s information to the chamber that that is the ordinary practice that has been undertaken for some time and that this divergence has emerged in New South Wales. My only concern is whether the clause reflects what both the government and the opposition want to happen. It is certainly our view that the preferred approach is to proceed with the amendment, which is consistent with the model law, because it makes the provision very clear rather than leaving it with a shade of grey. There is nothing more I can add. I accept that the government is not in agreement. I have nothing further to add on this point other than to say that it is regrettable that we cannot agree on the form of words. Irrespective of the outcome, for the purposes of the record, I want to add my weight to what the minister has said and say for anyone who interprets this provision, whether it be in the current form or an amended version of clause 72, that what the chamber and the parties want is exactly what is set out in the explanatory memorandum. From the opposition’s perspective, this clause is better with the amendment than without. Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: I appreciate those comments, but I urge other members who are listening to not support this amendment because we have a case in which, clearly, this point has been litigated. It has been found to be unclear and to have an unintended impact, and the Boland review recommended that we not go down that path. Hon NICK GOIRAN: Minister, when was this decision made by the New South Wales court? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: In 2017. Hon NICK GOIRAN: I will make a final point to the minister and to members. I find it interesting that this particular case happened in 2017, yet when the member for Hillarys and I were discussing the amendments, it was put to us by the government that if the opposition were minded to agree with the proposals by the government for clauses 30B and 31, which clearly we did not agree to, it would agree to what I have referred to as the “Katsambanis amendments” at clause 72. I find it odd that the government was agreeable and offering that as a solution to all this as recently as the last few weeks, yet apparently this court case from 2017 makes it impossible for the government to agree to this amendment. I will leave it at that. I have nothing further to add.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 24 September 2020] 6437

Division Amendment put and a division taken, the Deputy Chair (Hon Martin Aldridge) casting his vote with the ayes, with the following result — Ayes (15)

Hon Martin Aldridge Hon Colin de Grussa Hon Simon O’Brien Hon Dr Steve Thomas Hon Jacqui Boydell Hon Nick Goiran Hon Robin Scott Hon Colin Tincknell Hon Jim Chown Hon Rick Mazza Hon Tjorn Sibma Hon Ken Baston (Teller) Hon Peter Collier Hon Michael Mischin Hon Aaron Stonehouse

Noes (17)

Hon Robin Chapple Hon Diane Evers Hon Martin Pritchard Hon Alison Xamon Hon Tim Clifford Hon Adele Farina Hon Samantha Rowe Hon Pierre Yang (Teller) Hon Alanna Clohesy Hon Laurie Graham Hon Charles Smith Hon Stephen Dawson Hon Alannah MacTiernan Hon Matthew Swinbourn Hon Sue Ellery Hon Kyle McGinn Hon Dr Sally Talbot

Pair

Hon Donna Faragher Hon Darren West Amendment thus negatived. Hon NICK GOIRAN: I indicate to the chamber that the next amendment standing in my name at 19/72 will not be moved, because it is consequential upon the amendment that was just lost. Minister, before I give consideration to moving the next amendment standing in my name at 20/72, the minister will see that the wording is substantially similar to what currently appears at clause 72(7), which reads — The person conducting the business or undertaking must then — (a) allow the health and safety representative to attend the course of training at the time decided by the inspector; and (b) pay the costs decided by the inspector. My amendment on the supplementary notice paper, which seeks to reinsert the model law, reads — A person conducting a business or undertaking must allow a health and safety representative to attend a course decided by the inspector and pay the costs decided by the inspector under subsection (6). Not much seems to turn on this, other than it is very specific, because it connects it with subclause (6), which reads — The inspector may decide the matter in accordance with this section. It does seem to be a drafting improvement. I ask for clarification of the government’s position on this matter. Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: My advice on this note is to oppose it, but I want to take some further advice on that. The problem with the member’s proposed amendment is that it deletes reference to the time. Honestly, member, I think it is very clear from the way in which the legislation is set out that subclause (7) follows on from subclause (6). Subclause (6) provides that the inspector may make a decision. Subclause (7) provides that the person must then do the following things: allow the representative to attend the course at the time decided by the inspector, and pay the costs decided by the inspector. The member’s proposed subclause is less clear because, as far as I can see, it does not reference the time. Time is one of the issues that the inspector can deliberate upon; therefore, it loses one of those critical elements. To be honest, member, I do not think it does improve the drafting. It is very clear that subclause (7) is referring to the decision that is made in subclause (6). This just sets out the logical sequence of the decision-making. There is a dispute, an inspector is called, the inspector makes the decision, and then the PCBU is required to allow the person to attend the course at the time decided by the inspector, and pay the costs decided by the inspector. Hon NICK GOIRAN: Does the government agree that the amendment at 20/72 is identical to the clause in the model bill? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: I did ask whether we can have that document. The member can see that there is a problem with the formulation that he has put before us, regardless of whether it is a clause in the model bill. That is because it does not deal with the issue of the time of the course, and that would create a lot of difficulty. The provision indicates that, yes, this is the course that the person could go on—actually, it is not the course, because the representative will have the ability to choose the course. The two issues that are for determination are the time and the cost. We are seeking to make it clear that those two issues are critical. Therefore, we have changed the

6438 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 24 September 2020] provision in the model code and are going with a different provision. If we think it through logically, the only matters about which there could be a dispute are the time and the cost. Therefore, it does not make sense for us to take out a reference to the time. Clause put and passed. Clauses 73 to 75 put and passed. Clause 76: Constitution of committee — Hon NICK GOIRAN: I ask this question on clause 76, but, with the minister’s indulgence, I also ask it on clause 79. I understand that these clauses deviate from the model law, because of recommendation 15 from the ministerial advisory panel. Is the minister in a position to advise whether that recommendation from the MAP was unanimous? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: As I think Minister Ellery indicated earlier today, we do not intend to be drawn on the number of people who approved or disapproved any particular recommendation. Hon NICK GOIRAN: I will just make the obvious observation that that is a different approach from the approach the minister took earlier on in this bill, but it is her right to change the approach she is going to take. I ask — Hon Alannah MacTiernan: I did indicate at the time, I think, that I did that because it was a clause of particular moment. I thought I had indicated that this might not be an approach that would be appropriate to take for every clause. Hon NICK GOIRAN: The minister did. I guess what follows from that is to find out where it would and would not be appropriate. The minister is saying that it is not appropriate with recommendation 15, as is her right. Clauses 76 and 79 both turn on recommendation 15. Has the government heard from anyone, whether inside or outside the ministerial advisory panel process, identifying concerns about the drafting of clauses 76 or 79? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: We might call this the Homer Simpson clause. The idea here was to ensure that there was at least one person on the health and safety committee representing the person conducting a business or undertaking who had sufficient authority to implement the decisions and recommendations that came out of it. The idea is that, preferably, we do not necessarily have the tea lady as the representative. This is about having a representative of the boss who has sufficient seniority in the organisation to ensure that they can properly give effect to the operation of the relevant provisions. It is complex, because we are looking at two clauses at once— clauses 76 and 79. Clause 76 provides for there to be a reasonably senior person involved. The provisions under clause 79(5) came out of the public submissions, and I understand they were designed to ensure that the PCBU did not have an absolute obligation to embrace the recommendations. The person conducting the business must, without unreasonable delay, consider any recommendation and provide a response to the committee to the extent that the person agrees to the implementation of the recommendation. If the person agrees to the implementation of the recommendation, they must take any action required for the purposes of implementation. Clause 79(6) states, in part — The person conducting a business or undertaking must not unreasonably withhold the person’s agreement to the implementation … It is my understanding that there were submissions; we do not have access here to identify whom they were from, but they were motivated by the desire to make sure that following the recommendations of the committee would not be an absolute duty. This provides for a decision to consider the recommendations and not unreasonably reject them. Clause put and passed. Clauses 77 to 83 put and passed. Clause 84: Right of worker to cease unsafe work — Hon NICK GOIRAN: This clause deviates from the model law because of recommendation 16 from the ministerial advisory panel. To facilitate the passage of further clauses, could the minister indicate whether it is the position of the government this afternoon that it will not advise whether any of the recommendations by the ministerial advisory panel were unanimous or otherwise? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: Yes, member, that is correct. Hon NICK GOIRAN: Has the government received any concerns about the drafting of clause 84? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: This clause picks up a set of circumstances that is currently reflected in our occupational safety and health legislation but was not included in the model law. We think the model law fails to take into account circumstances in which a risk could be created to people other than employees—for example, if an employee is on a building site and is doing something that might lead to a beam dropping on a member of the public and killing them. I do not think these are particularly fanciful instances in the construction industry. In fact, we believe there may have been a case concerning Grocon in which serious harm was caused to a member of the public by noncompliance with these provisions. We thought this would be a step backwards, and we needed to ensure that we kept that capability.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 24 September 2020] 6439

Hon NICK GOIRAN: I understand the justification for the clause. I am just asking whether the government has received any concerns about the drafting of clause 84, as recommended by the ministerial advisory panel at recommendation 16. Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: We are not aware of any. Clause put and passed. Clauses 85 to 88 put and passed. Clause 89: Request to regulator to appoint inspector to assist — Hon NICK GOIRAN: Clause 89 is a deviation from the model law courtesy of the twenty-fifth recommendation of the ministerial advisory panel. I note that it is also the recommendation that creates the deviation at clauses 99 and 101, so to expedite proceedings I will ask this question with the minister’s indulgence: has the government received any concerns about the drafting of clauses 89, 99 and 101, which deviate from the model law because of the twenty-fifth recommendation from the MAP? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: No, we are certainly not aware of any concern about clause 89. This was just in recognition of the size of the state and, often, the inability to get an inspector out to a Granny Smith mine or whatever other place it might be where a dispute or an issue might have arisen. Often these things can be dealt with over the phone, so this is just recognition of the reality of the environment in Western Australia. Hon NICK GOIRAN: Does that also apply to clauses 99 and 101? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: Yes; they are both provisions in which we are deleting the requirement to attend at the workplace. Hon Nick Goiran: No concerns have been raised about the drafting? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: Not that we are aware of. This does not appear to have been a matter of any contention. Clause put and passed. Clause 89A: Referral of issue about application of section 88 to Tribunal — Hon NICK GOIRAN: I indicate that I have two further questions about this part of the bill. One is at clause 89A and one is at clause 100, and we will have to deal with them separately. Clause 89A is a deviation from the model law because of the seventeenth recommendation from the ministerial advisory panel. Has anyone raised any concerns with the government about this deviation? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: This happens in a few places in our legislation when matters are considered to be industrial relations issues. This is a question about whether there are issues of continuity of employment, so whether a worker is captured under clause 88. That is considered to be an industrial relations issue, so the matter will be referred to the Work Health and Safety Tribunal. This is probably because in our legislation we have recognised that certain things will be determined through the industrial relations apparatus, and this is one of those. This reflects current practice. Clause put and passed. Clauses 90 to 99 put and passed. Clause 100: Request for review of provisional improvement notice — Hon NICK GOIRAN: Clause 100 deals with the request for a review of a provisional improvement notice, and it is under division 7 of this part. I know it is a deviation from the model law caused by the eighteenth recommendation of the ministerial advisory panel. Has anyone raised any concerns with the government about the drafting of clause 100? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: We are not aware of any problem or anything that has been raised about this. It requires that if an employer is seeking a review of a provisional improvement notice, the health and safety representative must be informed, so it applies to the person who has made a request, and the other person has to be informed that a review has been requested. It seems perfectly reasonable to maximise transparency of the situation. Clause put and passed. Clauses 101 to 154 put and passed. Clause 155: Powers of regulator to obtain information — Hon NICK GOIRAN: We have rapidly passed through part 6 and the not-to-be-used part 7 of this 16-part bill, and we are now into part 8, which captures clauses 152 to 155C. The reason I have asked us to pause for a moment at clause 155 is it appears that clause 155 allows or empowers the regulator to compel people to take information. Is that consistent with existing Western Australian law? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: I understand that that is for consistency with the current law. Hon NICK GOIRAN: Is it also a model clause?

6440 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 24 September 2020]

Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: As the member can see from the document that we provided earlier, subclauses (1) and (2) in this bill are similar to those in the model bill. They are based on the model clause, but amendments have been made to improve clarity, in particular to make it clear to whom the power to set the time, place and duty to be reasonable is prescribed. This clause is setting out the powers. The powers that are being given to the regulator are similar to those set out in the model clause, but we have made some amendments to clarify in particular to whom the power to set the time, place and duty to be reasonable is prescribed. We have added “determined by that person and do whichever of the following is specified in the notice”. The fundamental provisions follow from the model clause, but they have been redrafted to provide greater clarity and certainty and consistency with the current law. Commissioner Newall said that some of the drafting in the model law is not always of the highest standard of clarity. We have made those amendments, we believe, to give greater clarity, but they also accord with the current Occupational Safety and Health Act. Hon NICK GOIRAN: By way of summary, this power to compel people to provide information that will be given to WorkSafe is substantially consistent with the model law and with existing Western Australian law. Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: Yes. We have given the member the document with the track changes, and he can see that the substance of those powers are the same as in the model code. The changes that have been made are drafting changes to give greater certainty as to with whom these various obligations lie, and my advice is that this is consistent with the current law. While I am standing, at some point we undertook to give the member some further information on clause 231. As we are motoring along, we wanted to make sure that we were able to get this to the member. I table this document and ask that a copy be given forthwith to Hon Nick Goiran. [See paper 4389.] Hon NICK GOIRAN: I have that anyway, but that is good. Clause put and passed. Clauses 156 to 171 put and passed. Clause 172: Abrogation of privilege against self-incrimination — Hon NICK GOIRAN: We are now in part 9 of the bill, “Securing compliance”. It captures clauses 156 to 190. The clause I am specifically drawing to members’ attention at this time is found in division 4, “Powers relating to documents and information”. This clause is titled “Abrogation of privilege against self-incrimination”. This goes to my earlier question on clause 155. The minister indicated that the regulator will have the power to compel Western Australians to provide information and that that is consistent with existing Western Australian law and substantially consistent with the model law provisions. But, of course, this triggers fundamental legislative principle 6, which reads — Does the Bill provide appropriate protection against self-incrimination? This clause abrogates the privilege against self-incrimination. I draw to the minister’s attention that I said during my second reading contribution that the Law Society of Western Australia provided a submission to the Standing Committee on Legislation on 6 July this year, in which it stated — There are concerns about privilege against self-incrimination and admissibility of statements to WorkSafe where a person can be charged as an individual (where their statements are not admissible) and as a PCBU (where their statements may be admissible against them). This is a concern across jurisdictions where industrial manslaughter laws have been introduced. What is the government’s response to this concern? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: Clause 172 is unamended from the model WHS act and is consistent with the privilege against self-incrimination in a prosecution provided under section 47 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act and section 29 of the Mines Safety Inspection Act. Protection from self-incrimination does not apply to bodies corporate, but it does apply to sole traders who run their own business. There may be concerns about the fundamental right against self-incrimination. The compulsion to provide answers under clause 172(1) is in line with the public interest in ensuring safe working environments and provides clear and unambiguous powers for a person to investigate matters. In that regard, some protection is offered, because the information cannot be used against the individual who provided the information. I believe we discussed that at some length earlier. This is the law at present in the Occupational Safety and Health Act and it will be repeated in the WHS act. It seems that has been the practice for some time. I guess the essence of the provision is that inspectors can compel persons to provide answers and produce documents; however, the answers and documents provided are not admissible in proceedings against the person. Hon NICK GOIRAN: The Law Society of Western Australia says that there are concerns about this provision, because although statements cannot be used against an individual, as the minister outlined, they could be used against an individual when charges are laid against that person in their capacity as a person conducting a business or undertaking. I want confirmation on whether the government agrees that is the case, as outlined by the Law Society, or whether its concerns are misconceived in any way.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 24 September 2020] 6441

Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: I do not think its concerns are misconceived. But just to make it clear: it is true that the protection from self-incrimination does not apply to bodies corporate, because one might argue it is a separate person. Under the concept of a natural person or an incorporated entity, the body corporate is separate from the individuals. But the protection from self-incrimination applies to those businesses that are not bodies corporate. Hon NICK GOIRAN: Under the provisions of this bill, what would be the maximum penalty against a body corporate that could arise from an individual’s capacity to use evidence against the body corporate? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: It would be all the penalties — Hon Nick Goiran: What’s the maximum penalty that could occur? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: The maximum penalty under this legislation is in the industrial manslaughter provisions in clause 30A that we passed earlier. Hon Nick Goiran: Clause 30A has been amended, so we want to make sure that everyone’s clear on what the maximum penalty is that could apply to a person as a result of evidence that they were compelled to give up being used against them. Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: The maximum penalty that can apply to a non-natural person as a result of documents that have been provided to the inspector is $5 million. Hon Nick Goiran: It’s not $10 million? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: The member is correct; for a body corporate, it is a fine of $10 million. Hon NICK GOIRAN: To be clear: if a person is investigated by the regulator and the regulator compels the person to provide information, is it possible for a person to be imprisoned for up to 20 years based on information that they had to give under compulsion? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: Member, it is difficult to see how that would happen. I do not know how we could jail an incorporated body. Bear in mind, an individual, a natural person, who has provided documents and information cannot have that evidence used against them in a proceeding. That information can be used only on an unnatural person, a body corporate. As it is not possible to imprison a body corporate—we can arrest a ship, but we cannot imprison a body corporate—there is no potential for imprisonment following that self-incrimination. Hon NICK GOIRAN: When charges are laid against an officer of a person that is a PCBU, does the same principle apply? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: The member’s question was: if person A gives evidence against a body corporate, could an individual then be charged and imprisoned as a result of that evidence? Hon Nick Goiran: On the basis that the officer was person A; yes, that’s exactly what I’m asking. Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: My advice is that person A, the person giving the evidence, could not be charged. If an individual—a director—provides that material, that material could not be used against them if they are charged in their own right because it would be a charge against them. They are an officer; the charge would be against them. I am advised that protection against the production of the availability of material would apply to that director because they would have that natural person protection. Hon NICK GOIRAN: I am teasing out the notion of whether this all hinges on that person being a natural person. Two scenarios arise under clause 30A(1). If a person who is charged is an individual, they could be imprisoned for up to 20 years or receive a fine of up to $5 million. I understand from the exchange that we have just had that it would be impossible for that person to receive that penalty—in fact, even to be convicted—on the basis of information that they were compelled to provide, because it could not be used against them. That is my understanding. However, if the person charged under clause 30A(1) is a body corporate, the body corporate could well be convicted on the basis of information that had been obtained under compulsion. I think that is sufficiently clear. My question regarding clause 30A(3) concerns a natural person when there is this notion of an officer of a person—the PCBU— committing a crime. In that case the penalty is 20 years’ imprisonment and a fine of $5 million. I want to get on the record an absolute confirmation that that person could not be convicted under clause 30A(3) with information that they have provided under compulsion. Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: The advice that I am being given, and I believe that it is the case, is that they would be considered to be an individual; therefore, they would be protected by clause 172(2), which provides — … the answer to a question or information or a document provided by an individual is not admissible as evidence against that individual in civil or criminal proceedings other than proceedings arising out of the false or misleading nature of the answer, information or document. I understand that that reference to an individual would be a reference to an officer. Hon NICK GOIRAN: Just to round this out, minister: would be it be possible that if a husband and wife were officers of the PCBU, the regulator could compel one of those people to provide information to the regulator, which the regulator could then use against the spouse?

6442 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 24 September 2020]

Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: I believe that that is the case. Hon NICK GOIRAN: That might cause a fair chilling effect for lots of small businesses in Western Australia. Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: Member, this is not a change from the current situation. This does not introduce any new liability, as I understand it. The same powers exist. Hon Nick Goiran: For compulsion—I can see that with regard to the ability of the regulator to compel. Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: That is right. Hon Nick Goiran: But we’re introducing for the first time this notion of a PCBU. Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: Yes. It could be that one person does not provide the information, but that information is provided by another person and that could be used in evidence, I am advised. Clause put and passed. Clauses 173 to 190 put and passed. Clause 191: Issue of improvement notices — Hon NICK GOIRAN: We are now on part 10 of this 16-part bill. Part 10, “Enforcement measures”, captures clauses 191 to 215. With the minister’s indulgence, I propose to ask my questions under this first clause of part 10. I raised some of these matters in my contribution in the second reading debate to give the minister and her advisers as much notice as possible. In particular, I draw to the minister’s attention some of the findings and recommendations of the thirty-first report of the Standing Committee on Public Administration. Finding 47 states — Safety and health representatives currently have no role in the verification of the implementation of improvement notices. Does the government agree with finding 47 of that report? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: With respect, that very voluminous report was handed down only in recent weeks. We have not prepared a response to that report. I will not answer questions in the context of a report that has only been recently handed down. I take it that the member is asking a general question about the current role of health and safety representatives. Hon Nick Goiran: Then the committee is saying that they have no role. Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: Sorry, member, but the government has not responded to this report. It has been a number of years in the making and it has only just been brought out, so I am not referencing that report. If the member has a more general question, I am happy to take it. Mr Chairman, can I ask for another swap out of advisers? The DEPUTY CHAIR (Hon Matthew Swinbourn): Yes. Hon NICK GOIRAN: We are dealing with clause 191, which is at the start of part 10, “Enforcement measures”, and division 1, “Improvement notices”. Do safety and health representatives currently have a role in the verification of the implementation of improvement notices? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: At the moment, there is no statutory role for them. Hon NICK GOIRAN: Is the WorkSafe Western Australia Commissioner and/or the director general of the department currently consulting with stakeholders to explore ways in which safety and health representatives might be employed in the process of the verification of the implementation of these improvement notices? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: We have no knowledge of that. Quite aside from the bill, is the member is interested in knowing whether we are looking at doing that in the future? Hon NICK GOIRAN: Under part 10, “Enforcement Measures” are four clauses that deal with improvement notices. The minister just indicated to me to that safety and health representatives do not have a statutory role in the verification of the implementation of improvement notices. Is the WorkSafe WA Commissioner or the director general of the department currently consulting with relevant stakeholders to explore ways in which this might be the case? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: We do not know, but we are certainly not seeking to enshrine that in the legislation. It is probably better that we confine ourselves to those matters contained in the legislation. Hon NICK GOIRAN: Is the minister telling us that at the moment, under Western Australian law, the safety and health representatives do not have a statutory role in the verification of the implementation of improvement notices and that that will remain the case if this bill is passed unamended? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: I am advised that nothing in this legislation would give a statutory role to a health and safety representative in the verification of an improvement notice. Hon NICK GOIRAN: With regard to issuing improvement notices and the process that will be set out in clauses 191, 192, 193 and 194, what is the prevalence of improvement notices being verified for compliance by WorkSafe?

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 24 September 2020] 6443

Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: When the member says “what is the prevalence”, is he talking about the rate? What exactly does the member mean? Is he asking how often do they enforce or check — Hon Nick Goiran: That is right. How often do they verify it? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: How often do they verify whether an improvement notice has been adhered to? Hon Nick Goiran: That is right. Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: I do not think we have that information on hand, but we will provide some information on that before the close of business today. Obviously, when prioritising the work, an assessment is made of the level of risk of noncompliance and the potential hazard that noncompliance would create. We are not seeking to change anything of significance here, so I am not sure which clause would turn on it. If we can get some information on the percentage of cases in which verification is undertaken, we will let the member know. Hon NICK GOIRAN: Is the minister in a position to advise whether the verification of these improvement notices for compliance involves a workplace visit? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: It does not always require an inspection of the workplace. Hon NICK GOIRAN: Of the proportion of improvement notices that will take place under division 1, not all of them will require a workplace visit. Will the minister provide us with information on the prevalence—the minister might say “frequency”—with which these are verified for compliance by WorkSafe? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: Sometimes, for example, an improvement notice might require someone to develop a policy. In that case it is not always necessary to attend a workplace to ensure that that policy has been developed and adopted. Hon NICK GOIRAN: I take it that WorkSafe issues these improvement notices. Going to the heart of my question, I want to ensure that if we are going to continue to empower WorkSafe to issue these improvement notices, they are followed up to make sure that people comply with them; otherwise, it is really just a piece of paper. Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: The member would no doubt be aware that it is often a question of resourcing and the availability of inspectors. We have added 21 inspectors to improve the ability to ensure that these improvement notices are followed and to raise the level of compliance. Hon NICK GOIRAN: If I compare and contrast that with the prohibition notices set out in clauses 195 to 197 in division 2, would the minister be in a position to also provide us with some information about the prevalence with which WorkSafe attends a workplace to check on compliance of prohibition notices? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: We do not have that material available to us at the moment because it is not specifically germane to the changes that we are making, but we will endeavour to get some information for the member. Hon NICK GOIRAN: I know the minister said it is not germane to the issue, but we are about to agree to four clauses that will allow for the statutory process of improvement notices to continue, and to another three clauses that will allow for the statutory process of prohibition notices to continue. We support that. I just want to make sure that this does happen and we do not spend our time here just agreeing to things. Hon Alannah MacTiernan: Member, we have put on an additional 21 inspectors to boost this, so we are not relying just on legislation. We did acknowledge that there needs to be a new resource, and we have provided that resource to do that. Hon NICK GOIRAN: Yes, and in due course the government will respond to the various findings and recommendations from the Standing Committee on Public Administration. Clause put and passed. Clauses 192 to 215 put and passed. Clause 216: Regulator may accept WHS undertakings — Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: I will not be proceeding with the amendment standing in my name on the supplementary notice paper because it is consequential upon an earlier amendment that was not successful. Hon NICK GOIRAN: Minister, does the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984, which is the current Western Australian law, provide authority for WorkSafe to accept enforceable undertakings? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: No, it does not. Mr Chair, I am trying to catch the attendant’s eye because I was hoping to get copies of the document that we tabled earlier. Member, this is a change. Hon NICK GOIRAN: The current Western Australian law does not provide authority for WorkSafe to accept enforceable undertakings. This is a change to allow WorkSafe to accept enforceable undertakings. Is this another one of the model law provisions? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: It is the model clause. The provision has been introduced to reflect the model scheme. There are some minor changes, some associated with our preferred apostrophe, and others more importantly because we have instituted the industrial manslaughter offence.

6444 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 24 September 2020]

Hon NICK GOIRAN: One of the recommendations from the Standing Committee on Public Administration in its thirty-first report is recommendation 38. I know that the minister said that the government has not had the opportunity to provide a response to this, and I am not asking for a response. I ask the minister to look at recommendation 38. It states — The Committee recommends that the Minister for Industrial Relations brings to the Parliament of Western Australia an amendment to the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 providing for the entering into of enforceable undertakings. The minister has just explained that that is exactly what the government is doing, albeit we are not making an amendment to the OHS act but, rather, enacting our own new act. The recommendation goes on to say — Further, this authority should clearly prohibit the entering into of enforceable undertakings for offences involving gross negligence, or where the ‘act’ or ‘omission’ causes the death of, or serious injury to, another person. Does this bill do that? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: The provision makes it clear that the giving of a WHS undertaking cannot be accepted for a contravention or alleged contravention that is an industrial manslaughter offence or a category 1 offence. Hon NICK GOIRAN: I take it the answer is yes—it is doing that, albeit with different language. That is substantively how I understand that. The committee recommendation also states that if this power, which we are about to give to WorkSafe, is granted, WorkSafe should be required to issue on its website two things — • general guidelines in relation to the acceptance of enforceable undertakings. • notice of a decision to accept an enforceable undertaking and the reasons for that decision. Will that be done? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: I believe that it will. Clause 217(2) provides — The regulator must publish, on the regulator’s website, notice of a decision to accept a WHS undertaking and the reasons for that decision. I presume that a lot of this information was available prior to the publication of that report. These provisions are contained in the model clause and in this legislation. Clause put and passed. Clauses 217 to 222 put and passed. Clause 223: Which decisions are reviewable — Hon ALISON XAMON: I move — Page 146, after line 9, the table after item 5 — To insert —

5A. Section 155A(6)(b) (decision The witness. to withhold approval of legal practitioner on other reasonable grounds) This is a sensible amendment. It will ensure that if a regulator deprives a witness of their choice of lawyer, this is one of the matters that will be reviewable. Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: We think that this amendment does identify a need, and we are happy to support it. Hon NICK GOIRAN: The opposition agrees. We thank Hon Alison Xamon for moving this amendment. Amendment put and passed. Clause, as amended, put and passed. Clauses 224 to 229 put and passed. The DEPUTY CHAIR: Members, we may not deal with clause 230 now because the amendment — Point of Order Hon NICK GOIRAN: I believe we have just put and passed clauses up to clause 229, but I note there are also clauses 229A, 229B and 229C. The DEPUTY CHAIR (Hon Matthew Swinbourn): My apologies, members. Committee Resumed Clauses 229A to 229C put and passed.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 24 September 2020] 6445

Clause 230: Prosecutions — The DEPUTY CHAIR: We have now reached clause 230 and there is an amendment at 41/230 in the name of Hon Alison Xamon; however, that deals with a new clause 230A. Member, would you like to move that we postpone consideration of your amendment until after clause 230A? Hon ALISON XAMON: Yes, thank you, Mr Deputy Chair. The DEPUTY CHAIR: Hon Alison Xamon has moved that consideration of her amendment at 41/230 be postponed until after consideration of clause 230A. Amendment postponed, on motion by Hon Alison Xamon. The DEPUTY CHAIR: Perhaps the minister might move that we postpone consideration of clause 230 until we have considered new clause 230A. Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: I move that consideration of clause 230 be postponed until we have considered new clause 230A. Hon NICK GOIRAN: Before the Deputy Chair puts that, can I get confirmation on what the last resolution of the chamber was? The DEPUTY CHAIR: It was to postpone Hon Alison Xamon’s amendment on the supplementary notice paper, rather than the entire clause. The question now before the chamber is that clause 230 be postponed until after new clause 230A. Further consideration of the clause postponed until after consideration of new clause 230A, on motion by Hon Alannah MacTiernan (Minister for Regional Development). The DEPUTY CHAIR: Hon Rick Mazza, you have an amendment on the supplementary notice paper for a new clause 230. Would you like to put that amendment now, or would you like to postpone it until after we have dealt with new clause 230A? Hon RICK MAZZA: Mr Deputy Chair, if it assists, I will not move the amendment in my name at 84/230. Just for the information of the chamber, I will not be moving the corresponding amendments I have in relation to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The first amendment is at 84/230, which is to oppose the clause, and I will not be moving that. Obviously, I will not be moving a replacement clause or the consequential amendment. The DEPUTY CHAIR: Thank you, member. Just to confirm, Hon Rick Mazza is also not moving 85/NC230. Hon NICK GOIRAN: I would like to move a new clause 230A, given that Hon Rick Mazza has indicated that it is not his intention to move the one that is currently on the supplementary notice paper in his name. I move, page 159, after line 23, to insert “230. Prosecutions” — Point of Order Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: I thought we had resolved that we were going to deal with clause 230 after we considered new clause 230A. If new clause 230A is successful, there is a consequential amendment to clause 230, which is why we were going to deal with new clause 230A first, because that would also have a consequential impact on clause 230. We will not be able to make the final determination on clause 230 until we have a determination on new clause 230A. The DEPUTY CHAIR (Hon Matthew Swinbourn): Minister, this will be the new clause 230A. Then Hon Alison Xamon’s new clause 230A will be a new clause 230B, if it is successful. I suspect that Hon Nick Goiran will oppose the existing clause 230, given the amendment that he proposes to put. Hon Alison Xamon’s other amendment will then fall away, because clause 230 as it currently sits in the bill will no longer be there, presuming the new clause 230A is successful; if not, we will get back to it. I appreciate that it is very confusing, but we will proceed with the amendment Hon Nick Goiran is proposing from the floor. Committee Resumed New clause 230A — Hon NICK GOIRAN: I will just move the amendment I am proposing and sign it, and then I will give some further explanation. I move — Page 159, after line 23 — To insert — 230. Prosecutions (1) Proceedings for an offence under section 30A or section 31 against this Act may only be brought by — (a) the DPP; or (b) a member of the DPP’s staff with the written authorisation of the DPP (either generally or in a particular case).

6446 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 24 September 2020]

(2) The regulator must issue, and publish on the regulator’s website, general guidelines for or in relation to the acceptance of WHS undertakings under this Act. (3) The DPP must issue, and publish on the DPP’s website, general guidelines for or in relation to the prosecution of offences under this Act. I appreciate that this has become a little convoluted at this point, because there are a number of competing prosecution-type arrangements in place. There is the existing provision under the bill, which the Standing Committee on Legislation indicated lacks clarity and which it drew to the attention of the government. The government conceded that and said it would propose some amendments. That is one issue. The second issue is the one that has been foreshadowed by the opposition as set out in my amendment 6/230 to clause 230; that is, it is our view that the regulator should not be able to initiate proceedings for industrial manslaughter, which at the time was limited to clause 30A, albeit that the opposition has always had concerns about clause 30B, which no longer exists and has now in effect been collapsed into clause 31. In addition, we have the prospective prosecution arrangement proposed by Hon Alison Xamon that would include authorised officers of unions. Members will also see that Hon Rick Mazza foreshadowed that he would oppose current clause 230 and move his new clause 230. When the opposition saw the new clause proposed by Hon Rick Mazza, we had some sympathy for it, albeit, with the greatest respect to the honourable member, we thought it went too far. The reason we said that is that there are a number of low-level offences in this legislation, including the one I raised with the minister earlier, which one might argue could possibly be an insurable type risk. Those types of things are beyond the necessity and resources of the Director of Public Prosecutions. However, the most serious offences under this bill are clearly under clause 30A and now clause 31, and we say that they only ought to be prosecuted by the DPP. Irrespective of what we do today, the DPP is already the only one who can prosecute under clause 30A, which will proceed in the higher jurisdictions and be an indictable offence, but what will happen with a clause 31 offence that remains open? We think it would be an improvement to put beyond doubt rather than leave in doubt who has responsibility for prosecuting these types of matters. We seek the support of members. Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: I understand the intent here, but it appears to fundamentally misunderstand how the legal regime works in this state. The DPP does not commence any charges. I am advised that under the Criminal Procedure Act all charges are referred either by a regulator or the police. The matter commences. I understand then at some stage during that charge process that matter goes before the Magistrates Court. If it is an indictable offence, obviously it is considered by the DPP, and only then it can proceed with the DPP’s approval. Matters that are indictable offences can only be prosecuted by the DPP, but I am advised that the DPP does not lay charges even in the case of manslaughter or murder. The DPP does not initiate — Hon Nick Goiran: That would not change in my new clause. Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: The member’s new clause says that proceedings for an offence may only be brought by the DPP. Hon Nick Goiran: Nothing of that effects that Criminal Procedure Act 2004. We do not propose to oppose the minister’s amendment at 66/230. Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: I am only acting on the advice I have here. I will take further advice. I am going to have to get further legal advice here. I think we are going to have to get advice — The DEPUTY CHAIR (Hon Matthew Swinbourn): Quigley, leave the chamber, please. Out! I am sorry, minister, continue. I do not know what it is about when I am in the chair and people walk in! Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: The honourable Attorney General was obviously just coming in to seek to give us some further advice! The member’s assertion that this is consistent with the Criminal Procedure Act seems contrary to the advice we have been given here. Does the member accept that at the moment the charges are not commenced by the DPP? Hon Nick Goiran: Absolutely. Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: The member does agree with that. When the member says proceedings for an offence against this act may only be brought by the DPP, what does he mean by “proceedings for an offence”? Hon Nick Goiran: The same as what the government means under clause 230(3) at the moment in its bill. Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: I do not think that is the same provision. I do not see here that our amendment says — Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN: If I might assist the minister, clause 230(3) of the bill states — Nothing in this section affects the ability of the DPP, or any member of the DPP’s staff, to bring proceedings for an offence against this Act. Something is being presumed there.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 24 September 2020] 6447

Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: Obviously, there is not great clarity on this subject. Can I ask that consideration of this new clause be postponed so we can get some proper legal advice on this. We can consider this at the end of the bill. In the meantime, we can get some advice on how these things fit in, because there is an inconsistency with this advice. If we could perhaps defer consideration of new clause 230A. Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN: Might I suggest this: the new clause and the amendments that are foreshadowed on the supplementary notice paper are very important because, if accepted in the manner in which they are being proposed by other members, they are fundamental to the manner in which a person’s reputation and, in some cases, their liberty can be put in jeopardy, and certainly be subject to financial penalties and other consequences. I suggest that we postpone consideration of division 1 to a later time. It is a fairly discrete area that deals only with the bringing of prosecutions, consequences, limitation periods and the admission of evidence. There is no reason that progress of the bill should be stalled to deal with bits piecemeal when that division can be dealt with as a unit. Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: I am happy with that. I move that we postpone consideration of the remaining parts of division 1. The DEPUTY CHAIR: As I understand it, the minister is moving that we postpone consideration of clauses 230 to 233 until after consideration of schedule 3. Point of Order Hon NICK GOIRAN: Just to confirm, the deferral of that group of remaining clauses under division 1 would include new clause 230A. The DEPUTY CHAIR (Hon Matthew Swinbourn): The motion before the chamber is that clauses 230 to 233, including the amendments on the supplementary notice paper that relate to those clauses, be deferred until after consideration of schedule 3. Committee Resumed Further consideration of new clause 230A postponed until after consideration of schedule 3, on motion by Hon Alannah MacTiernan (Minister for Regional Development). Clauses 231 to 233 postponed until after consideration of schedule 3, on motion by Hon Alannah MacTiernan (Minister for Regional Development). The DEPUTY CHAIR: In my haste, I skipped over clause 223A! Clause 223A put and passed. Clause 234 put and passed. Committee interrupted, pursuant to standing orders. [Continued on page 5457.] Sitting suspended from 4.15 to 4.30 pm QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE CORONAVIRUS — INTERSTATE BORDER RESTRICTIONS 1016. Hon PETER COLLIER to the Leader of the House representing the Premier: I refer the Leader of the House to her response to question without notice 995 asked on Wednesday, 23 September 2020, when she stated — The Premier has never stated that either of these parameters are a requirement of the Western Australian hard borders being opened. I also refer to the Premier’s comment on 7.30 on Wednesday, 16 September 2020, when he stated — … what we’ve said and this is the national approach is that if they get to no community spread in the east for 28 days, well, obviously then we can look towards the border being removed but until that point in time the health advice we currently have is the border can’t come down. How does the Leader of the House reconcile the apparent contradiction between her answer to question without notice 995 and the comments that the Premier made on 7.30 on Wednesday, 16 September 2020? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. There is no contradiction. The Premier’s comment was specifically 28 days with “no community spread”. Question without notice 975 referenced 28 days with no new cases and question without notice 995 referred to 28 days with no cases. These are all very different things. By way of example, in Western Australia on Tuesday, 22 September, we had three new cases, six cases and zero cases of community spread.

6448 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 24 September 2020]

CORONAVIRUS — INTERSTATE BORDER RESTRICTIONS 1017. Hon PETER COLLIER to the Leader of the House representing the Premier: I refer to a WAtoday article dated 28 July 2020 in which the Western Australian Chief Health Officer, Andrew Robertson, during questioning in the Federal Court, revealed that he had written to the state government suggesting it consider a travel bubble with South Australia and the Northern Territory but did not receive a reply. (1) On what date did the Premier first become aware of any advice from the Chief Health Officer regarding a travel bubble between Western Australia and other states? (2) Will the Premier table any letter or advice received at any point from the Chief Health Officer regarding a travel bubble between Western Australia and other states; and, if not, why not? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1)–(2) Advice around border controls has been constant and ongoing since the start of the pandemic. The Chief Health Officer’s advice, in which he referred to the possibility of open borders to selective jurisdictions with no community spread, noted that this would place an increased reliance by Western Australia on the effectiveness of other states’ border controls and that consideration of this risk would require further assessment. I table a letter from Dr Andrew Robertson, Chief Health Officer, dated 24 June 2020, to Commissioner Chris Dawson, Commissioner of Police and State Emergency Coordinator. [See paper 4390.] PREMIER — CLIVE PALMER — DEFAMATION PROCEEDINGS 1018. Hon PETER COLLIER to the Leader of the House representing the Premier: I ask this question on behalf of Hon Michael Mischin, who is on urgent parliamentary business. I refer to the Premier’s defamation action by way of counterclaim against Mr Clive Palmer wherein the Premier claims to have been defamed by him. (1) Did the Premier consult with the Attorney General before instructing solicitors to proceed; and, if not, why not? (2) Should the Premier’s claim be unsuccessful, who will bear the costs of those proceedings? (3) If it is the state of Western Australia, why? (4) If Mr Palmer’s action alleging that the Premier has defamed him is successful, who will pay any award of damages awarded in his favour and who will pay any costs ordered to be paid in his favour? (5) If it is the state of Western Australia, why? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes. (2) The statement of cross-claim is just one part of the defamation defence in response to the action launched by Clive Palmer. The costs of filing the statement of cross-claim as a proportion of the overall cost of defending Mr Palmer’s action is not able to be quantified, but is not a significant additional amount. (3)–(5) As former Premier Colin Barnett reportedly pointed out in December 2016 in relation to the previous government’s cabinet decision to fund the costs of defamation action against Hon Joe Francis — “It was a long established rule that if a minister, in doing his job, someone takes (legal) action against him—and that can happen for all sorts of reasons—then the State stands behind (the minister),” … I note the honourable member was Attorney General in the cabinet that made that decision. GST DISTRIBUTION — IRON ORE PRICE 1019. Hon PETER COLLIER to the minister representing the Treasurer: I ask this question on behalf of Hon Dr Steve Thomas, who is on urgent parliamentary business. I have an instruction to deliver this question with the appropriate gusto! I refer to Hon Steve Thomas’s regular questions about the government’s iron ore royalty boom, especially to question without notice 13, which he asked on 12 February 2019, in which the minister’s answer included the line — A scenario where the average price of iron ore remains at $90 a tonne has not been modelled, as this assumption is highly unrealistic.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 24 September 2020] 6449

(1) Given that the 2021 iron ore price has been forecast by Citigroup at $US110, JP Morgan at $US105 and Goldman Sachs at $US90, has the government now modelled a scenario in which the iron ore price averages $US90 a tonne? (2) If yes to (1), will the Treasurer prove that modelling; and, if not why not? (3) If no to (1), given the plethora of forecasts predicting over this price, why not? (4) What has been the average spot price of iron ore between 12 February 2019 and 18 September 2020? (5) Given the wealth of royalty riches raining down on the McGowan government since February 2019, is the Treasurer embarrassed by his reply and by the modest and underwhelming government response to the COVID-19 crisis? The PRESIDENT: I am not sure about that last part of the question, minister. It might be seeking your opinion. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank Hon Dr Steve Thomas for some notice of the question. (1)–(5) Updated iron ore price assumptions and royalty income forecasts will be released in next month’s budget. KUNUNURRA WATER PLAYGROUND 1020. Hon JACQUI BOYDELL to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Sport and Recreation: I refer to two separate media releases by the minister announcing Kununurra’s water playground plans, one from 28 July 2018 committing $590 000 to the project and one from 4 September 2020 committing $3.2 million. (1) Will the minister outline how the cost of the project has blown out by $2.6 million in the time between the two announcements? (2) Has any of the original $590 000 budget allocation been spent since 2018; and, if yes, will the minister please provide a breakdown of costs and when they were spent? (3) Will the minister table any correspondence between his office and stakeholders relating to this project? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The commitment made in 2017 was a contribution towards a water playground. Subsequent planning, community consultation and design work from the Shire of Wyndham–East Kimberley indicated a larger facility would provide a much better outcome for the community. (2) No. (3) Yes, and I table the documents. The member may also be interested in local media coverage of the project so I table that article as well. [See paper 4391.] UNITED PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS UNION OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA — AGREEMENT 1021. Hon COLIN TINCKNELL to the minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations: I refer to the United Professional Firefighters Union agreement. Has a new agreement been reached with the United Professional Firefighters Union? (a) If so, will the minister please table the agreement? (b) If not, what are the unresolved issues? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question. The following information has been provided to me by the Minister for Industrial Relations. No. (a) Not applicable. (b) An in-principle agreement was secured with the United Professional Firefighters Union on 15 September 2020, subject to a ballot of the union membership. A replacement agreement is subject to the ballot outcome and registration with the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission. PUBLIC HOUSING — SALES AND DECOMMISSIONS 1022. Hon ALISON XAMON to the minister representing the Minister for Housing: (1) How many public housing homes were sold or decommissioned in 2019–20? (2) How many public housing homes does the government intend to sell or decommission in 2020–21?

6450 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 24 September 2020]

Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) There were 196. (2) There will be 90. MOORA RESIDENTIAL COLLEGE — REDEVELOPMENT 1023. Hon MARTIN ALDRIDGE to the Minister for Education and Training: I refer to the redevelopment of Moora Residential College. (1) When will the redevelopment be completed? (2) What is the total cost of the project? (3) What is the current enrolment of the college and the projected 2021 enrolment? (4) Is it the minister’s intention to officially open the college’s redevelopment; and, if so, when? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The redevelopment of Moora Residential College is on track for completion in December. 2020. The construction work has been staged to minimise disruption. (2) The total cost is $8.7 million. (3) The current enrolment is 37 students and the projected enrolment for 2020–21 is 39. (4) A decision on the opening is yet to be made. This will be done in consultation with the commonwealth government. ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGE BILL 2020 1024. Hon ROBIN SCOTT to the minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs: I refer to the minister’s release of the consultation draft of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Bill 2020. Early comments that I have received from interested stakeholders suggest that there are many references in the bill to the regulations. (1) Have any regulations for the bill been drafted; and, if so, why have these not been released as part of the consultation draft? (2) If not, when does the minister expect the regulations to be drafted? (3) What is the government’s response to the assertion that meaningful consultation can occur only with the release of the draft regulations? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) No. (2) Stakeholders have been advised that consultation on the draft regulations will begin in 2021. (3) The bill is the culmination of more than two years of consultation with Aboriginal people, industry stakeholders and the broader Western Australian community, including more than 130 submissions in response to a consultation paper released in March 2018, and a further 70 submissions on a discussion paper the following year. Both consultation processes included extensive engagement with Aboriginal people and industry stakeholders across the state, which has continued throughout the drafting process. The consultation draft of the bill is currently out for public comment. Over the past month, detailed briefings have been held with Aboriginal groups and industry stakeholders. Information sessions are also being held in communities across the state. RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES (COVID-19 RESPONSE) ACT 1025. Hon NICK GOIRAN to the minister representing the Minister for Commerce: I refer to the Residential Tenancies (COVID-19 Response) Act 2020. (1) What is the department’s assessment of the percentage of residential tenancy agreements in Western Australia that have experienced COVID-19 related “financial hardship caused by the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic” as referred to in the act? (2) What plan, if any, does the government have for the reallocation of some or all of the $24.5 million remaining in the $30 million residential tenancies rent relief scheme fund for which applications opened on 1 May 2020?

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 24 September 2020] 6451

Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question. The Minister for Commerce has provided the following information. (1) There were 238 372 residential tenancy bonds lodged with the Bond Administrator as at 22 September 2020. The department is not informed of the financial circumstances of individual tenancies. (2) The matter is under consideration. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS — LNG SECTOR 1026. Hon TIM CLIFFORD to the Minister for Environment: I note increasing concern about the impact fugitive methane emissions from LNG are having on climate change, with findings from United States research group Global Energy Monitor demonstrating that these emissions from new gas developments are likely to be as large as, or larger than, the expansion of coal power. Would the minister please table the modelling this government uses when determining the impacts that Western Australia’s LNG emissions are having on the state’s total emissions? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The commonwealth government is responsible for the National Greenhouse Accounts and reporting on Australia’s National Greenhouse Gas Inventory. As part of the National Greenhouse Accounts, the commonwealth prepares state and territory greenhouse gas inventories, providing information on sectoral emissions, including fugitive emissions. This information is available on the commonwealth Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources website. At a project level, the Environmental Protection Authority assesses greenhouse gas emissions as part of its environment impact assessment process for significant proposals. PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE — CROWD CONTROL SERVICES 1027. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN to the minister representing the Minister for Small Business: This question was initially addressed to the Minister for Commerce, but apparently it was switched over. I refer to advice received from a business that provides crowd control services to many of the largest and most prestigious events in the south west to the effect that they are now unable to get public liability insurance and must cease operating. (1) Can the minister update the house on the situation regarding the availability of public liability insurance? (2) What are the implications for sundry other businesses that rely on events if crowd control services are not available? (3) What is the government doing to ensure continuity of access to public liability insurance for security companies? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question. The following information has been provided by the Minister for Small Business. (1) On the back of complaints raised earlier this year from adventure tourism operators, among others, about losing access to public liability cover, the Small Business Commissioner undertook a preliminary assessment into the insurance market in Western Australia. The investigation identified that given the global hardening of the market, a range of Australian insurers were no longer willing to provide cover for certain activities or set premiums far higher than what was considered reasonable in areas of high risk. It is not a situation unique to WA or even Australia. However, due to a hardening of the market internationally, global underwriters in London are making decisions on a when-it-occurs basis as oppose to an if-it-occurs basis. This has resulted in premiums in a range of insurance classes escalating sharply and products being withdrawn. Following advocacy by the Small Business Development Corporation on 28 July 2020, the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman launched a national inquiry into practices of the insurance industry impacting small business and whether insurance products are fit for purpose. Having received over 800 responses from small businesses to an online survey, ASBFEO is due to report in early December. (2) This is an unfortunate by-product of global policy settings. The McGowan government continues to work with the Australian government to consider how businesses can be best supported to ensure their ongoing survival as the economy transitions into post-COVID-19 recovery. This will require national solutions to an issue that affects business around the country. (3) The McGowan government recognises that the insurance market operates on a global basis and that it is not necessarily the role of government to intervene in such commercial arrangements. However, advocacy at a national level, through the Western Australian Small Business Commissioner, continues on this serious issue. Ultimately, the regulation of the insurance sector is the responsibility of the federal government and federal agencies like the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority.

6452 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 24 September 2020]

SCHOOLS — CANNINGTON AND MADDINGTON 1028. Hon DONNA FARAGHER to the Minister for Education and Training: I refer to the answer given to question without notice 985 asked on 22 September 2020 regarding the community consultation process currently underway on schooling in the Cannington and Maddington areas. (1) Is the minister now aware of the continuing concerns regarding the current consultation process and the request to affected school communities that the online community survey be recirculated with an additional option of “no change” being added; and, if so, what is the minister’s response? (2) If yes to (1), is the minister prepared to provide a further extension to the consultation process as requested by these school communities? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1)–(2) I have received five pieces of communication. In response, the survey period was extended by one week. The community had four weeks to respond to the online survey, which is now closed. The results are currently being collated. Survey respondents were able to indicate if they did not want any change. The survey will not be recirculated. It is not my intention to disregard the views of any of the communities. All views expressed by the community will be considered during this process and I will not act against the views of the community. However, given that Yule Brook College had asked the government to consider extending its successful academic program for Indigenous students into years 11 and 12, it is important that all local school communities understood the proposal, the potential flow-on impacts on enrolments and had the opportunity to provide feedback. PRIMARY INDUSTRIES WORKERS REGIONAL TRAVEL AND ACCOMMODATION SUPPORT SCHEME 1029. Hon COLIN de GRUSSA to the Minister for Agriculture and Food: I refer to correspondence received by me and, no doubt, other members of this place that conveys that without seasonal workers, fruit and vegetable growers and winemakers will struggle to fill hundreds of skilled and unskilled roles within the main picking season beginning from February next year. (1) Given that the primary industries workers regional travel and accommodation support scheme is capped at $3 million and is on a first come, first served basis, will the government allocate additional funding if all scheme funds have been expended by February 2021? (2) Will the minister commit to monthly reporting of the uptake in expenditure of this fund so that industry can measure its success and have an understanding of the remaining funding? (3) Given that a full-time workload is a requirement to access this support scheme, how will this cater for the sporadic nature of fruit and grape picking, which can sometimes see 60-hour weeks followed by days of no work, depending on the weather? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question. (1)–(3) I do hope we get through that $3 million very quickly because that will mean that there has been a great uptake of the program and that thousands of Western Australian seasonal workers will be out picking fruit and vegetables. Of course, if the fund is that successful and more is required to top it up, that will be considered. The government will certainly provide regular updates on the usage of the scheme. We are trying to give some flexibility around that. In terms of hours worked, we were concerned, for example, that someone might go up to Broome and pick asparagus for three hours a week and claim the $40 a day, so we were trying to put a framework around that. We will absolutely recognise a spread of hours over a two-week period. LITHIUM TAILINGS 1030. Hon DIANE EVERS to the Minister for Environment: This question is from June, so I hope the answer is in the back of the minister’s folder. I refer to the need to store lithium tailings in Western Australia. (1) Will the government develop criteria for lithium tailings to be included in the state’s Landfill Waste Classification and Waste Definitions? (2) If yes to (1), when will the criteria be included in the Landfill Waste Classification and Waste Definitions? (3) If no to (1), why not?

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 24 September 2020] 6453

Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1)–(3) Lithium tailings are typically stored in a tailings storage facility and not disposed to a landfill. The Landfill Waste Classification and Waste Definitions 1996, as amended in 2019, applies to landfills and provides general guidance on the acceptability of waste streams and contaminant thresholds for different classes of landfill. The material deposited into tailings storage facilities and any associated emissions are regulated by the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation through the Environmental Protection Act 1986. LIQUOR RESTRICTIONS — KIMBERLEY 1031. Hon KEN BASTON to the minister representing the Minister for Racing and Gaming: I refer to the answer to question without notice 967 regarding the restrictions on the sale of packaged alcohol in Kununurra and Wyndham. (1) Can the minister confirm that residents of those locations can order unrestricted amounts of packaged liquor online from metropolitan retailers and have it delivered to Kununurra and Wyndham via Australia Post? (2) Is a process in place to monitor this activity? (3) If yes to (1), could the minister please provide an explanation of why Kununurra and Wyndham retailers are not allowed to fill orders that are above the daily restrictions and made 72 hours in advance without an occasional licence while online businesses can? Hon SAMANTHA ROWE replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. On behalf of the Minister for Regional Development, the following information has been provided to me by the Minister for Racing and Gaming. (1) The Liquor Control Act 1988 provides for the director of Liquor Licensing to impose conditions on licensees restricting the sale and supply of liquor. Such restrictions are location-based and apply to the licensees in a determined area of the state. Although residents in localities where restrictions are in place may purchase packaged liquor online in excess of the restricted amounts, it is understood that some licensees that sell liquor online restrict online purchases from postcodes where restrictions are in place. Online orders are not limited to Perth metropolitan retailers and can be placed with any liquor merchant licensed outside the state. (2) No, there is no process in place to monitor the online purchasing activity of individuals. However, the government is consulting with stakeholders to develop protections in the delivery of liquor ordered, which could include online orders. (3) The Liquor Control (Section 31) (Kimberley) Notice 2020, issued by the director of Liquor Licensing on 15 May 2020, does not contain a 72-hour exemption and prevails while the state of emergency declaration is in place. The notice is only applicable to licensees in the Kimberley region and does not apply to licensees outside of the region. CORONAVIRUS — INTERSTATE AND INTERNATIONAL BORDER RESTRICTIONS — APPLICATIONS 1032. Hon PETER COLLIER to the minister representing the Minister for Police: I refer to the minister’s response to question without notice 905 asked on Tuesday, 15 September 2020. Given that the Western Australia Police Force does not require an applicant’s residential address for consideration for exemption, how is it determined that an applicant is actually a Western Australian resident? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The following answer has been provided to me by the Minister for Police. The Western Australian Police Force advises that being a Western Australian resident is not a category for exemption to enter Western Australia under the Quarantine (Closing the Border) Directions. Honourable member, I had not seen that answer. I realised that it was asked earlier in the week. I am happy to see whether I might be able to get the member a different answer. MRI MACHINE — KALGOORLIE 1033. Hon ROBIN SCOTT to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Health: I refer to a media report quoting the minister who said that construction of the MRI facility for Kalgoorlie was due to commence in late August. (1) Can the minister confirm that construction has started on the MRI suite?

6454 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 24 September 2020]

(2) If no to (1), why not? (3) If yes to (1), can the minister confirm that the people of the goldfields will not have to wait longer than the three-month period, previously stated by the minister, for their MRI machine? Hon ALANNA CLOHESY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes. (2) Not applicable. (3) The MRI suite is expected to become operational in the third quarter of 2021. BUY LOCAL POLICY 1034. Hon PETER COLLIER to the minister representing the Minister for Finance: I refer to the local content weightings and imported content loadings utilised in the government’s Buy Local policy and tender process. (1) What is the minimum weighting applied to the local content criterion when selecting suppliers for contracts or tenders above $750 000? (2) What is the weighting or loading applied for the regional business preference or the regional content preference for goods and services contracts? (3) What is the weighting or loading applied for the regional business preference or the regional content preference for housing and works contracts? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question. (1) The Department of Jobs, Tourism, Science and Innovation introduced the Western Australian industry participation strategy on 1 October 2018. Participation plans formed part of the qualitative requirements of tenders and replaced the former Buy Local policy’s local content criterion. WAIPS participation plans may be weighted at either 10 per cent or 20 per cent and apply at various thresholds. The thresholds vary; however, the minimum is $500 000 for goods, services and works contracts delivered in the regions. (2) The weighting or loading applied for the regional business preference or the regional content preference is 10 per cent to obtain a maximum benefit of $250 000 for evaluation purposes only for goods and services contracts. An agency’s accountable authority may choose to increase the maximum benefit to $1 million. (3) The weighting or loading applied for the regional business preference or the regional content preference is five per cent for each type of preference, up to a maximum benefit of $500 000 for evaluation purposes only for works contracts. An agency’s accountable authority may choose to increase the maximum benefit to $1 million. CHILDREN IN CARE — UNENDORSED PLACEMENTS 1035. Hon NICK GOIRAN to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Child Protection: I refer to the response to question without notice 939, and in particular section 3.4.23 of the casework practice manual. (1) The manual states that when a child has self-selected to live in an arrangement that has not been assessed, an assessment must be conducted as a matter of priority. What time frame must this be assessed within? (2) When a placement has been assessed as dangerous, how is this recorded in Assist? (3) For each type of placement—unassessed, unsuitable and dangerous—with what frequency is the caseworker expected to make contact with or conduct a welfare check on the child? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The casework practice manual specifies an assessment of an unendorsed placement should be arranged as a matter of priority. Timing of assessments are dependent upon the individual circumstances of the child or young person and their situation, and prioritisation decisions are made with the safety and wellbeing of the child and the child’s best interests as the paramount consideration. (2) The case management system database records all unendorsed placements and the circumstances of these arrangements are recorded on individual case files. (3) In all unendorsed placements, the safety and wellbeing of the child or young person is a priority and monitored by their case worker. A child or young person in an unendorsed placement can access all the same supports as any other child in care. The Department of Communities engages as soon as possible to

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 24 September 2020] 6455

support young people in making safe decisions to support their wellbeing. The child’s participation is central to any safety planning process and the frequency of contact with the child is based on the ongoing safety and wellbeing of the child. Child protection workers must meet with a child who is in care, alone, every three months at a minimum, to assess their wellbeing, build relationships, determine how they are progressing in care, and hear their views and wishes. HOTELS WITH HEART PROGRAM Question without Notice 977 — Answer Advice HON SUE ELLERY (South Metropolitan — Leader of the House) [5.00 pm]: I have an answer to Hon Michael Mischin’s question without notice 977, asked on 22 September 2020, and I seek leave to have that answer incorporated into Hansard. Leave granted. The following material was incorporated — (1) 30. (2) The four-week pilot concluded on 24 April 2020. Some clients remained at the hotel for a few days after the pilot ended while they waited for long-term accommodation to become available. The last client exited the Pan Pacific Hotel on 29 April 2020. Hotels with Heart was a four-week pilot project to test an emergency response to protect vulnerable rough sleepers with underlying health issues from COVID-19. The pilot was based on a health response, rather than a housing response. The situation in Western Australia changed significantly during the pilot and it was decided not to continue the pilot at the end of the four weeks due to the lack of widespread community transmission of COVID-19. (3)–(4) I will table a copy of the evaluation report for the Hotels with Heart pilot when it has been finalised. (5) The total cost of the Hotels with Heart pilot was $408,475. Funding was provided for the program to the Department of Communities through a 2019-20 supplementary funding request for COVID-19 related expenses. (6) (a)–(b) The costs of the Hotels with Heart pilot to the Department of Communities were as follows: Pan Pacific (accommodation, meals, laundry, cleaning and other associated expenses) $130,492 Ruah Community Services (administration of the Hotels with Hearts program, security for $277,983 Pan Pacific Hotel, other associated expenses) Total: $408,475 There were no extraordinary cleaning expenses, repair expenses, or compensation to hoteliers for damage. (7) No reports of unlawful or anti-social behaviour were made regarding clients of the Hotels with Heart pilot.

Question without Notice 997 — Answer Advice HON SUE ELLERY (South Metropolitan — Leader of the House) [5.00 pm]: I have an answer to Hon Michael Mischin’s question without notice 997, asked on 23 September 2020, and I seek leave to have that answer incorporated into Hansard. Leave granted. The following material was incorporated — (1) In addition to the ‘Hotels with Heart’ pilot project, the Department of Communities also implemented a pilot project to accommodate homeless people at the Woodman Point Recreation Camp. This was a pilot project to protect vulnerable rough sleepers from the COVID-19 pandemic, and was not intended as a permanent model for homelessness servicing. A total of 47 people were assisted as part of this pilot project. (2)–(3) I will table a copy of the evaluation report for the Woodman Point program when it has been finalised. (4) The total cost of the Woodman Point response was $227,109. The pilot project was funded through a 2019–20 supplementary funding request for COVID-19 related expenses. (5) The pilot project was funded as follows: (a) There was no cost for the accommodation at Woodman Point Recreation Camp as it was provided as an ‘in kind’ contribution from the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries. (b) The cost of cleaning and repairs was $12,810 (incl. GST). There were no compensation payments. The remaining funds were provided to Wungening Aboriginal Corporation, Rooforce Facility Services, EON Protection, and Accolade Catering. (6) WA Police were contacted to attend Woodman Point on six occasions. • Twice in response to aggressive behaviour towards staff; • Twice in response for fights between residents; • Once to assist with the move-on of a person due to an unauthorised re-entry; • Once in response to a medical incident. Communities and the WA Police worked closely together to ensure the safety of residents and staff throughout the duration of Woodman Point.

6456 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 24 September 2020]

DEPARTMENT OF FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES — VOLUNTEERS — CONTRIBUTION Question without Notice 991 — Answer Advice HON STEPHEN DAWSON (Mining and Pastoral — Minister for Environment) [5.00 pm]: I have an answer to Hon Colin de Grussa’s question without notice 991 asked on Tuesday, 22 September 2020, and I seek leave to have the response incorporated into Hansard. Leave granted. The following material was incorporated — (1) Yes. DFES collects data on response activities of volunteers, including number of individual brigades; groups and units’ incident responses, number of volunteer hours and number of volunteers in attendance. Report for 2018–2019 FY attached. A report for 2019–2020 is not currently available. (2) No. This information would need to be sourced from individual volunteer brigades, group and units. In the case of bush fire brigades, local governments may maintain information on their activities other than response. (3) DFES do not request this data from brigades, groups, units (or local governments) as it could create an administrative burden for volunteers. (4)–(5) Yes. The Minister is aware that the Association of Volunteer Bushfire Brigades has developed a privately owned ‘Essential Service Volunteers’ App (the App). The App does not integrate with DFES’ IT systems and does not meet the operational requirements of the Department. Currently emergency services volunteers use a variety of applications to assist with incident acknowledgement and response confirmations. Any assessment of mobile Apps for emergency services volunteers undertake a rigorous assessment process, that reviews data security, privacy compliance, cyber security robustness, reliability and availability. DFES takes seriously its obligations to all emergency services volunteers and is concerned that the App may be unreliable; have inadequate security provisions or will not meet its intended purpose. The FES Commissioner received an email from the Association of Volunteer Bush Fire Brigades President in March 2020. The FES Commissioner wrote to the Association of Volunteer Bush Fire Brigades President on 13 May 2020 seeking further information from the Association of Volunteer Bush Fire Brigades. The Commissioner has not received a response to this correspondence. The Minister received correspondence from the Association of Volunteer Bush Fire Brigades in May 2020 seeking support for the App. The Minister wrote back to the President of the Association of Volunteer Bush Fire Brigades in July 2020 to advise that it is not appropriate to endorse an operational App that has not been properly assessed. The Minister encouraged the Association to work with the Department on reporting systems to meet the requirements of new WHS legislation, which will essentially provide volunteers with the same level of protections as employees.

PUBLIC HOUSING — KARAWARA Question on Notice 3142 — Answer Advice HON STEPHEN DAWSON (Mining and Pastoral — Minister for Environment) [5.01 pm]: Pursuant to standing order 108(2), I wish to inform the house that the answer to question on notice 3142, asked by Hon Peter Collier, MLC, on 19 August 2020 to me, the Minister for Environment representing the Minister for Housing, will be provided on 13 October 2020. HOSPITALS — OVER-CENSUS BEDS Question without Notice 999 — Answer Advice HON ALANNA CLOHESY (East Metropolitan — Parliamentary Secretary) [5.01 pm]: I would like to provide an answer to Hon Jim Chown’s question without notice 999, which was asked on 23 September 2020, and I seek leave to have the answer incorporated into Hansard. Leave granted. The following material was incorporated — (a) For Fiona Stanley Hospital May – 9 June – 62 August – 72 (b) For Royal Perth Hospital May – 219 June – 78 August – 101 (c) For Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital May – 59 June – 166 August – 312

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 24 September 2020] 6457

ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR — REGIONAL WESTERN AUSTRALIA Question without Notice 942 — Answer Advice HON ALANNA CLOHESY (East Metropolitan — Parliamentary Secretary) [5.01 pm]: I would like to provide an answer to Hon Robin Scott’s question without notice 942, which was asked on 16 September 2020, and I seek leave to have the answer incorporated into Hansard. Leave granted. The following material was incorporated — (1) The Mental Health Commission funds the following Community Alcohol and Drug Services (CADS) in regional Western Australia to provide prevention, treatment and support services: CADS and the amount funded for each financial year.

Region Community Alcohol and Drug Service 2019–20 2020–21 Kimberley WA Country Health Services (Kimberley CADS) $4,246,977 $4,343,159 Pilbara Mission Australia (Pilbara CADS) $2,113,314 $2,148,606 Goldfields Hope Community Services Inc. (Goldfields CADS) $1,457,369 $1,481,707 Midwest WA Country Health Services (Midwest CADS) $1,535,258 $1,572,535 Wheatbelt Holyoake Australian Institute for Alcohol and Drug Addiction $965,197 $981,315 Resolution Inc. (Wheatbelt CADS) Great Southern Palmerston Association Inc. (Great Southern CADS) $1,258,526 $1,279,543 South West St John of God Outreach Services (South West CADS) $1,376,511 $1,399,499 Total $12,953,152 $13,206,364 The funding figures in the above table represent the amount of funding provided to each CADS for prevention, treatment and support services in total. MHC cannot disaggregate the total amounts by service type. (2) Ongoing contract management and monitoring of agencies progress against required key performance indicators measures outlined in their contracts.

PAPERS TABLED Papers were tabled and ordered to lie upon the table of the house. WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY BILL 2019 Committee Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting. The Chair of Committees (Hon Simon O’Brien) in the chair; Hon Alannah MacTiernan (Minister for Regional Development) in charge of the bill. Committee was interrupted after clause 234 had been agreed to. Clauses 235 to 272 put and passed. Clause 272A: No insurance or other indemnities against fines — Hon RICK MAZZA: I have some concerns about this clause and having a blanket prohibition over insurance indemnities. As I said in the second reading debate, I understand that charges under clause 30A are now a category 1 offence and should not be covered by insurance. I imagine that most underwriting policies would not respond to a claim for those types of offences. However, there are other offences in the bill for which there may be financial penalties. In some cases, the offences might not be specifically the fault of the PCBU. Most businesses have the ability to insure against risk. In this case, I think it is quite clear that we do not want insurance to cover issues of manslaughter. With that, I move — Page 177, line 21 — To delete “an offence against this Act.” and substitute — a crime under section 30A or a Category 1 offence. Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: I understand the member’s concern, but this really is a fundamental principle. The member will recall the case that I read out regarding the young electrical apprentice in which the fine was in the order of $36 000 and was paid out by insurance. I think there is a strong principle that people should not be able to indemnify liability of this type. This is fundamental to the whole culture that we are trying to inculcate, and that is that work health and safety becomes deeply ingrained and is the centre of management’s focus. This measure was specifically recommended by the Boland review. It looked at the New Zealand system that dealt with this by declaring contracts of insurance against the payment of fines to be void under section 29 of its health and safety legislation. The Boland review states — It appears clear that the most effective way to prevent a person required to pay a penalty under the WHS law from recovering that penalty under a contract of insurance …

6458 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 24 September 2020]

Recommendation 26 of the Boland review was very clear about making it an offence to — • enter into a contract of insurance or other arrangement under which the person or another person is covered for liability … • provide insurance or a grant of indemnity … and • take the benefit of such insurance or such an indemnity. New South Wales has done a similar thing. The minister, who is not on our side of politics, Minister Kevin Anderson, has spoken about this. He stated — Both the 2018 review and the Senate report strongly condemned the availability of this insurance, and found that it had the potential to seriously undermine the deterrent power of the Act. If those who breach work health and safety … are able to escape the consequences of their actions, their incentive to take those duties seriously is substantially lessened. The new offences will put an end to the practice of insuring for liability for work health and safety offences, and contribute to creating a strong health and safety culture in New South Wales workplaces. Point of Order Hon MARTIN PRITCHARD: Sorry, this is a strange point of order, but I thought it would be the quickest way to resolve this. A bag has been left outside the chamber. Has anyone in the chamber left their bag there? The CHAIR: One of the attendants will deal with it, thank you, member. Committee Resumed Hon RICK MAZZA: I thank the minister for that. The penalty imposed by the court in the case in which the young man was electrocuted was, I think, $38 000, and it was covered by insurance. During the week I spoke to his father, Greg Zappelli, and that was one of his main points: a penalty of $38 000 was handed down, and it was covered by insurance. I was a bit surprised that an insurance policy would respond to a criminal offence, but apparently this policy was underwritten by a group scheme to do with the electrical industry at the time. For whatever reason, it decided to pay out on this insurance policy, maybe to keep its business going with that scheme. I am proposing through this amendment for there to be insurance cover for things other than an offence against clause 30A or a category 1 offence under clause 31, which I think would cover that off. As I said, that was a unique situation in which the insurance company responded to that $38 000 penalty, but I would not think many insurance policies would cover it now. In the case of Jayden Zappelli’s death and the resulting fine, this amendment would have prohibited that $38 000 being paid out. Some businesses are not keeping their workplaces as they should and there are penalties involved. However, in respect of this bill I think that overall, when it is beyond a business’s control, there should be the ability to have insurance against that. Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: We still think the member’s amendment would seek only to limit the ability to obtain insurance for a crime under clause 30A or a category 1 offence. To get that culture, we think this needs to apply to the other offences. Often, even when there is a death, a charge is preferred under a lesser category because of some of the evidentiary problems. I will not mention the name of the companies, but there are companies that have been charged for much lesser offences, even when there have been deaths, because of the difficulty of establishing some elements of the crime. Obviously, this does not preclude insuring for obtaining legal advice and having legal representation. A party would still be entitled to insure themselves against any potential legal costs, including the cost of legal representation, but would not be able to effectively contract out of their financial penalty. We think this is incredibly important and say that the Boland review, and the New South Wales government, which has obviously updated its legislation recently, have taken this position. We therefore cannot accept that amendment. Hon ALISON XAMON: I rise to indicate that the Greens will not support this amendment for two reasons. Firstly, far too often we see that companies often incorporate the fact that they are likely to get insurance payouts as part of their business model. It becomes a disincentive for companies or PCBUs to ensure that they are undertaking safe work practices. That is the purpose of this Work Health and Safety Bill. We hope we will never have to penalise anyone, because there is enough incentive for people to ensure they have safe workplaces. The second reason is that when companies choose to abuse the insurance provisions to incorporate them as part of their business model, all the other PCBUs who are doing the right thing get hit with higher rates. Overall, it is not a good balance to strike, we do not want to make it too easy for people to create unsafe workplaces from a financial perspective and we do not want good worksites to be penalised. Hon NICK GOIRAN: The opposition understands why the government has sought to include clause 272A. As the minister said, it is one of the Boland review recommendations. Members will have heard the minister this afternoon strongly mention how this is a Boland review recommendation. I once again remind members that this is the same minister from the same government who said it was not important that the Boland review recommended the insertion of “gross negligence” on that earlier issue. I therefore find it a bit rich that this government has decided

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 24 September 2020] 6459 to cherrypick from the Boland review when it suits it. Nevertheless, consistent with that, the opposition supported the inclusion of “gross negligence” because the Boland review had recommended it and we understand why this provision is included. The Standing Committee on Legislation touched on this issue only because some evidence was given to it. Unfortunately, this is one of the regrettable scenarios in which the information provided to the Standing Committee on Legislation fell outside the scope of the inquiry because the house had said that the committee should look only at part 2, and, of course, this provision falls under part 14. I note that the Standing Committee on Legislation received evidence, including from Northern Star Resources Ltd, which said, and I quote from page 82 of the report — there should be no prohibition on companies and officers from obtaining insurance for health and safety offences and fines included in the bill; and the current position should be preserved that allows companies and their officers to obtain insurance for health and safety fines and costs other than those involving gross negligence. That is probably what Hon Rick Mazza is trying to do here. Having said that, I am inclined to agree with the minister that other offences under this bill are grave offences that people should not be able to insure against. One example is in clause 268, “Offence to give false or misleading information”, which we recently passed. An individual could be fined $12 500 or a body corporate $55 000. If a person gives false or misleading information, they should not be able to insure against that. They should have the law book thrown at them for giving false or misleading information. That said, the minister will remember that earlier in the debate, I drew the minister’s attention to what I would describe as a lower level offence for which, unfortunately, an employer could be found guilty because of a worker’s misleading or deceptive conduct. The worker has to indicate to the employer that they have a qualification, but there is a strictness towards that provision. Progress reported and leave granted to sit again, pursuant to standing orders. PREMIER — CLIVE PALMER — DEFAMATION PROCEEDINGS Statement HON TJORN SIBMA (North Metropolitan) [5.20 pm]: Thank you for this opportunity, Madam President. I rise tonight to reflect on events of the last few days in and around the Parliament of Western Australia. I refer to the present legal action initiated as part of a counterclaim to defamation proceedings brought by Clive Palmer against the Premier and the quality of the government reply to my non-government business motion today, because I think there is a connection somewhat between the two. I might deal with the litigation matter. It is obvious, I think, that the Premier’s defence of why he is engaged in a counter — Point of Order Hon PIERRE YANG: I have a point of order. The PRESIDENT: I think you are probably going to raise the point of order in relation to the potential to overstep the mark on standing order 52 for sub judice matters. Hon Tjorn Sibma, I know that you will be very careful in your comments so you do not breach that standing order. It is probably worthwhile just reminding you of that, given what you are discussing. Statement Resumed Hon TJORN SIBMA: Indeed, I shall be careful, Madam President. I note the urgency with which Hon Pierre Yang sprang to the defence, somewhat pre-emptively, on the Premier’s behalf. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon TJORN SIBMA: I reflect on the Premier’s answer to a question put by Hon Michael Mischin today that inquired into the probity of taxpayer support for these kinds of actions taken by ministers of the Crown, including the Premier. I will just make this observation: these kinds of things are discretionary. There is no such thing as them coming at nil cost to the public, and that was conceded in the answer provided today. I understand there is an operating protocol governing the support provided to ministers of the Crown in proceedings such as these; that is, they need to be referred to cabinet and there needs to be at least the semblance of the public interest being served. Indeed, they are contingent upon the minister of the Crown conducting themselves in an appropriate fashion. That is my understanding. Of course, the public conduct of a minister of the Crown is always a matter of subjective judgement, but I note that the Premier felt unrestrained in his public comments about an individual, a larger-than-life figure, Mr Clive Palmer, repeatedly and, I would say, intemperately. This is not a level of behaviour, action or conduct that the Premier has directed solely at Mr Palmer. He has directed this kind of public conduct against members of this chamber and against just about all parties in this chamber. When one sees these histrionics, these claims of defending

6460 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 24 September 2020] one’s honour against these nasty words expressed by somebody else, one might seek to ask: has the Premier himself established a precedent in his own conduct that he would not like to see repeated by other members of this chamber? It was out of a sense of restraint, perhaps, that the Premier has not found himself subject to the kinds of counterclaims that he has brought against Clive Palmer. But this issue is not actually about Clive Palmer. It is not about the Liberal Party—not at all. This issue speaks more about the insecurity at the heart of the Premier and a particular style of governance, which borders upon, if it does not transgress, the blatantly arrogant. Only somebody who could believe that they enjoy 91 per cent public approval could jettison priorities in the manner that the Premier seems to do on a daily basis. If I might reflect on this supposed popularity, it seems inconsistent with the litigation counterclaim, because one cannot hold a 91 per cent approval rate and somehow claim that their reputation has been impugned and irretrievably damaged. I do not necessarily see those two arguments holding together particularly well. Only somebody who is overconfident and is taking the public for granted, the media for granted and, dare I say, the next election for granted could conduct themselves in such an unhinged, aggressive and unbecoming manner. But we are not the victims of this. It is the members of the public of Western Australia who are victims of these kinds of actions, not because of the financial burden, but because of the skewed priorities. Nothing that is of import in Western Australia is being advanced by this Premier’s indulgence—not one thing. Nothing that the Premier is undertaking at the moment will go anywhere close to stopping violent crime in Northbridge or violent assaults against the vulnerable elderly. Nothing in this litigation counterclaim will address the shortfall in police resourcing, the mental health crisis or the critical crisis that we find with homelessness—a situation that has been exacerbated by this government’s own policy determinations. Nothing in the Premier’s self-adulating counterclaim will assist or remedy the worst incident of ambulance ramping in recorded history—records that this government now chooses to not make available to the public. I would not like to have been a person who had a heart attack in the northern suburbs last Friday afternoon and was in need of an ambulance because there was not one single ambulance available— not one! I might close on this problem that this government assumes absolutely no responsibility for, and that is to fill and agricultural workforce shortage of between 7 000 and 8 000 people. Four hundred souls have clicked through the government website to express an interest in becoming an agricultural worker. When presented with the obvious deficit, the government shirks responsibility and blames the commonwealth for not guaranteeing top-up payments. Requests have been put by Hon Dr Steve Thomas, our colleagues in the Nationals WA and other regional representatives for the government to take this issue very seriously. Why is it that in Western Australia we cannot solve this pressing agricultural disaster? I think it is because the Premier and the government he leads have become so irretrievably self-obsessed, defensive and hypersensitive that they cannot prioritise what is important to the people and communities of Western Australia or businesses in Western Australia. It is absolutely shameful. In fact, I will say this as well: it is shameful that the Premier has not come in for closer scrutiny or criticism by what passes at the moment as the media in Western Australia. RETAIL AND PERSONAL SERVICES SKILLS ADVISORY COUNCIL Statement HON MARTIN PRITCHARD (North Metropolitan) [5.30 pm]: I know it has been a long week and I know that other people wish to speak, so I will be quite brief. This week, I became aware that the Retail and Personal Services Skills Advisory Council is to close on 30 September this year. For 22 years, this institution has acted as a conduit between governments of all persuasions and the industries it represents. These industries include beauty, barbering, hairdressing, community pharmacy, floristry, food services, funeral services, and retail. The two government departments that it has mostly dealt with are the Department of Training and Workforce Development and the WA State Training Board. Over those 22 years, RAPS has provided quality advice and information to a range of people in the industries it represents, including employers, employees, community, enterprises and industry, registered training organisations and government. It has provided leadership to industry on matters associated with vocational education and training. It has supported innovation and workforce development, and has provided advice to state and commonwealth governments on training needs and priorities for public funding. It has worked with key industry organisations to identify current and future industry vocational education and training priorities, as well as facilitating the development and review of training packages in Western Australia. It has provided advice about, and assisted employers, employees and training organisations on the implementation, of training packages within the RAPS Skills Advisory Council’s coverage, and it has done so much more. I served as chair of the board for many years prior to coming into Parliament. I note, Madam President, that in the early years prior to your life in Parliament, you also gave RAPS a lot of assistance. I would like to thank Norma Roberts, who has been the CEO of the organisation for many years, and Jane and David for all their service over the 22 years, and wish them well for any future enterprises they might take up. The PRESIDENT: I also add my thanks to Norma Roberts. She has done an exemplary job in the training area, particularly for people in the retail sector. I wish her well for her future.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 24 September 2020] 6461

DEAN MORRIS — GIVE OUR STRAYS A CHANCE Statement HON AARON STONEHOUSE (South Metropolitan) [5.33 pm]: I will be very quick, because I know that other members are seeking the call. I would like to relay to Madam President and members of the chamber a meeting I had the other day with a 17-year-old young man named Dean Morris, who runs an organisation called Give Our Strays A Chance. For the last seven years, Dean has run this organisation and tried to raise awareness and funds for stray animals, and stray dogs in particular. He has raised, I think, about a quarter of a million dollars over that time, which has been donated to shelters and to saving stray animals. He is quite a remarkable young man. During our conversation, the topic turned to various matters of animal welfare, of course, but specifically to domestic violence and animal welfare, when instances of domestic violence have an impact on people’s pets and when threats to a pet impact on people being able to leave domestic violence situations. It was quite interesting to me because I have heard, through my acquaintances, horrible accounts of violence being caused towards pets. I recall one story being recounted to me of an acquaintance arriving home after a shift at work to find their beloved dog had been killed in their backyard by their ex-partner. That is an absolutely traumatic thing for somebody to have to go through. I will read an excerpt from an article written by Ms Kellie Scott that appeared on ABC Life. It states — There’s lots of reasons why women in abusive relationships don’t always leave—a lack of finances, accommodation and concerns about children. Seventy per cent of women fleeing domestic violence also report pet abuse, — That is 70 per cent — and it’s another reason many victims delay leaving. They fear the animal who has provided love and support when they need it most will be harmed. “At the very least they are worried about leaving their pets behind because they’ll be neglected; won’t be fed or cared for. Worse, they are worried their animals will be killed,” says Julie Herbert, state foster care coordinator with RSPCA Queensland. When women know their pet will be safe it allows them to take care of themselves. This is concerning to me. I have long held the view that domestic violence penalties should be beefed up and that those who prey on the vulnerable should feel the full brunt of our criminal law. I draw members’ attention to division 3 of the Animal Welfare Act 2002, which deals with cruelty to animals. Section 19(2)(a) states that it is an offence if a person — tortures, mutilates, maliciously beats or wounds, abuses, torments, or otherwise ill-treats, the animal … The minimum penalty is a fine of $2 000. The maximum penalty is a fine of $50 000 and imprisonment for five years. The concern I have is that there is no aggravated loading if this offence occurs in a domestic violence scenario. It seems to me that it might be sensible for the government to consider creating some aggravated circumstances around cruelty to an animal. If the government does not, it is something that I will advance in my own time. There is quite a stark difference between somebody who neglects an animal merely through indifference or incompetence, and somebody who deliberately and maliciously harms an animal, especially if they know that it is a way to get through to and cause pain and anguish to an intimate partner in a domestic violence scenario. Hon Charles Smith is nodding his head. As a former police officer, I am sure that he has seen the kind of scenario I am referring to. It seems to me that when an animal is abused in that kind of scenario as a vindictive weapon against an intimate partner, it is not just the cruelty to the animal that needs to be taken into account, but also the psychological effect and the terror inflicted on the person who owns the animal. If a person is able to harm an animal in such a vindictive way, that person is capable of committing acts of violence upon a human being. That should be a huge red flag to us. I think the Criminal Code, or the Animal Welfare Act, at the very least, should recognise that and there should be measures to address that. That is one aspect of the problem. I am glad to say that work is being done in this space. The RSPCA runs a service called Pets in Crisis. Women, or any people in a domestic violence scenario, who have pets and are worried about how they can move out and find accommodation can drop their animals off with the RSPCA. The government provided some support for that initiative back in 2017. When I talked to Mr Dean Morris, he informed me that another organisation called Animal Rescue Cooperative currently provides a similar service for pets in crisis in regional areas of Western Australia and that it might be rolled out in metropolitan Perth, which would be fantastic. In lieu of a criminal justice response to this issue, at least some people are out there providing services to people who are facing domestic violence scenarios and have animals and pets in crisis. I encourage members to have a look at the services provided by the RSPCA and the Animal Rescue Cooperative, and to check out Give Our Strays A Chance, which is a fantastic organisation that does great work.

6462 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 24 September 2020]

CORONAVIRUS — ECONOMIC RECOVERY — FEDERAL GOVERNMENT Statement HON ROBIN SCOTT (Mining and Pastoral) [5.39 pm]: I rise to respond to the member’s statement that was made by Hon Tim Clifford last week. He was absolutely outraged that the Prime Minister was going to enthusiastically back a gas-led recovery. This recovery was being led by the National COVID-19 Commission. It just so happens, according to the honourable member, that the commission is “stacked with a lot of oil and gas executives”. He went on to say — … economists and many scientists — Not all scientists, just many scientists — in this world are also talking about the transition that we need to head towards. That is a transition to renewable energy—not gas, not coal, but renewable energy and battery storage. These are the things we need to head towards. He does not have an argument about that with me at all because I have grandchildren and I want to ensure that the air is good and the environment is healthy. I do not want them walking around with aqualungs. At the moment our renewable energy technology is at the Ford Model T level. Until we can improve it, it will be a while before we can rely on it. At the moment it is very unreliable. Being a great advocate for renewable power, I have no doubt that the honourable member has a 6.5 kilowatt solar array system on his roof, along with a battery backup. I wish he were here. The PRESIDENT: Member. Hon ROBIN SCOTT: Sorry. I suggest that when the member goes home tonight, he turns off the main switch in his house. Before he hears that switch going click, the electronic inverter will have already switched over. He will not see any change in his house. I can guarantee that he will probably have power for two or three days, provided he does not use his washing machine or dishwasher. If he turns off his pool pump and makes sure he does not use any air conditioners, he will be able to use his laptop and watch television. If he does that, the first two cloudy days we get, he will be reaching for that switch. This is when it proves that it is unreliable. We cannot rely on renewable power. Hon Tim Clifford went on to say — It is absolutely shocking that the Prime Minister is fronting up taxpayer dollars to subsidise a gas-fired power station that will potentially be a stranded asset. That is disgraceful in my view. It is outrageous. It is fascinating that no-one in this place is speaking out against this. This is taxpayer dollars. It is absolutely disgraceful. They are powerful words, and big words as well—absolutely shocking, disgraceful, outrageous and absolutely disgraceful! We spent $750 million—taxpayers’ dollars—at the Collgar wind farm. At four o’clock on 4 February 2019, I was flying back to Kalgoorlie. The temperature in Kalgoorlie was in the high 40s, while Perth’s temperature was in the high 30s. As I flew over the wind farm, I looked down and not one single turbine was turning. I did an orbit because I could not believe it. When Parliament resumed after the summer recess, the first question I asked was how much power it was putting out. Madam President, it was probably putting out enough power to put the light on in your fridge. This is how unreliable a wind farm is when we do not have any wind. There are 111 turbines out there, by the way. The member went on to say that the government is using $52.9 million of funding to unlock more gas for the domestic market. We need more gas because industry is growing at the moment. The member continued — • Australia’s existing pipeline of 22 gas projects, along with identified and prospective gas resources, could emit up to three times the annual world emissions. That is crazy. I will tell you what is crazy, Madam President. If we shut down these 22 gas projects, the industrial world will slow down dramatically. There will be mass unemployment everywhere. Third World countries will grind to a complete halt. People will chop down trees so they can cook their dinner at night. This is why we still need to have gas and coal. Renewables can help at the moment but that is all they will be doing—helping. I am trying to think how I can put it. If we look at a goldmine, that is like a small town or a small city. The production area is the industrial area. The accommodation village is the suburbs. We even have our own Water Corporation because we have to generate water by pumping it out of the ground and we have our own Synergy because we generate electricity. I refer to the Gold Fields Granny Smith goldmine. I went there in 1988 with a team of electricians. They had six 2.3-megawatt generators, which were capable of just under 14 megawatts of power. The goldmine had a life

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 24 September 2020] 6463 span of between five and seven years, but it is still going now 32 years later. Last year, it was announced that it would be going for another 13 years. It has got rid of the generators and gone to gas. The company paid millions and millions of dollars to get the Murrin Murrin to Tropicana gas pipeline to the Granny Smith goldmine and it now has the capability of 36 megawatts of power. That is how much the goldmine has grown just like any town, village or city grows all the time. It has cost the company an absolute fortune—hundreds of millions of dollars—to get the gas, the new pipeline, the generators—everything. If renewable power is so efficient and so cheap, why would it waste time buying 24 1.5-megawatt generators and spend hundreds of millions of dollars getting a gas pipeline if it could do it with renewables? At the end of the project, there will still be renewables. Do members know why it could not sell the solar panels and the wind turbines? It is because at the moment renewable power is totally unreliable and here in the metropolitan area we need reliable power. TIER 3 RAIL LINES — ARC INFRASTRUCTURE Statement HON DIANE EVERS (South West) [5.46 pm]: That was quite impressive. How old is that thinking that it cannot move on and see how renewable power has changed? I will leave it to my colleague Hon Tim Clifford to address that in the next sitting of Parliament. I would like to discuss another old issue: Arc Infrastructure. People are not looking towards the future for our children and their children. I acknowledge that the government released the engineering report today and that it is looking for information about the $1 billion that it may cost to improve the lines. I am really pleased that it listened to its members who called for the engineering report. I am pleased that it has listened to the farmers who, through the Wheatbelt Railway Retention Alliance, had 200 people show up in Kulin, including the minister, to determine what they want done to transport their grain on rail once again. I am also pleased that the government is listening to the wider community. The issue that receives the most positive emotive response from people is that of trains and rail. Everybody has an image in their head of what they are thinking about but tier 3 lines are not just an emotive issue and they are not there for the love of them. They are there for a very good reason. They can help us in the future by providing good, sensible transport with lower emissions, less fuel consumption, less road maintenance and limiting the need to build new roads. There are so many things about it. The difficulty that I have with the tier 3 lines being shut down in 2014 is that it followed from not only the lease to Arc Infrastructure, but also changes to the lease 10 or 12 years later to make it easier for Arc Infrastructure to walk away from lines that it did not feel were economical. The former government was responsible for both those tasks. I cannot for the life of me understand what drove it to do that because it makes so little sense. I have no proof that it was anything other than the former government believing that it was doing the right thing, but to say that it was a mistake is quite generous. There had to be something going on that I still do not see. The grain was taken off functioning rail lines, although they needed some repairs. They definitely needed to be fixed up and made safe and more efficient. The lease was given to Arc Infrastructure for 50 years, but then it decided that the line was uneconomical and it would put it into care and maintenance. We have been discussing a lot of definitions in this chamber in the last two weeks. I do not know why we need to have a definition of care and maintenance, but it cannot mean what has been allowed to happen in the last six years. Now that we have the engineering report, we can see that some of the lines have been allowed to degenerate. I talk a lot about regeneration in this place, but this is degeneration. Knowingly, those lines were left to degenerate and it will cost $1 billion to fix them. Farmers were allowed to fence off the lines so that they are no longer accessible. Wow—whose decision was that? I cannot imagine. It beggars belief that someone allowed trees and shrubs to grow along the lines and farmers to plant crops right next to the ballast. These lines were used until 2014, and now people are saying that some areas are washed out. It is just unconscionable that the lines have been allowed to deteriorate. What I and the farmers are looking for is some sort of process they can be involved in to prioritise the lines, because the prioritisation list that came out is not what the Wheatbelt Railway Retention Alliance was looking for. I am talking about 200 people showing up to an event in Kulin. It has a lot of followers. Earlier this week, I presented a petition with 1 400 signatures, and I already have 200 more to add to that. A lot of farmers and grain growers who contribute to this state’s exports want to be involved in the process of determining the prioritisation of these lines. We need to involve and empower these grain growers so that they can be involved. We need to talk to the regional communities, the growers and Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd and think about the long term. The priorities are the Kulin–Narrogin line and the Kondinin–West Merredin line, but that is not what farmers are looking for. They really hope the government will look at the Narrogin–Merredin line. It makes more sense because farmers will transport their grain towards the port, but they are not likely to take it back on that other line. I really hope the government will look at that. Some reports have referred to changing the narrow gauge lines to standard gauge, which is more expensive and possibly unnecessary, given that railcars are available for the narrow gauge. I hope that the farmers and the grain growers are involved in the conversation. I often talk about deliberative processes; this is another case when they need to be brought in and involved in the process.

6464 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 24 September 2020]

The $1 billion cost seems like a lot, but remember these lines were first put in place in the early 1900s. We are talking about over 100 years of use. In 100 years, will we be using the roads we have put billions of dollars into? It is hard to say. I really hope that the government will look at those costs and do what is necessary. I know we are going to try to get federal government funding, but that is taxpayers’ dollars, too. I hope we do the best with it. I would like to make one suggestion. Last weekend, I was talking to members of the hemp growing industry. Someone has done four years of research so far on hemp sleepers, and that is something the government could look at to determine whether the sleepers could be made of hemp, which would encourage the growth of that industry. We would also be locking up carbon by doing that and we would not have carbon emissions from making concrete sleepers. There are a lot of benefits from it and I really hope that we look at it, because this is going to be a long-term process. These hemp sleepers do not even need ballast. It is something to look at that is really worthwhile. Let us be innovative. We talk about innovation and we have a department with “innovation” in its name. It is a great idea; let us be innovative as a government. Let us look forward, see what we can do, and make something for the long term. The next issue is truck transport. We need to remember that one narrow gauge freight train carries the same as 59 road trains. We are looking at fuel use that is 4.8 times higher if we put grain on trucks. We have not moved on to electric trucks yet, and we have not made truck transport any cheaper or more efficient. We use 4.8 times more fuel if we use trucks. There has to be something in there. If we are talking about climate change and having some sort of plan for the future, that is something we should look at. It is not just the fuel, but also the tyres that those trucks consume. We know that a lot of trucks use a lot of tyres, and that is another problem with waste, re-use or whatever we can do with them. We really have to look at something else. We need to put the grain on rail; otherwise, there is an impact on roads. Not only do road repairs often fall to local governments to manage, but local governments just cannot keep repairing the damage that is done to local roads by trucks. Please look at that as well. Also look at what road construction has to be carried out because of this. The grain on rail could easily be taken to the Down Road inland port near Albany and then put on rail to the port. That would save $175 million being spent on a ring-road that does not need to be built. I understand that the first shovel of earth was turned today—whoopee! That $175 million could have been used on that rail line to make it safe so that all grain could come to Down Road and then be taken to the port. That might cost $20 million or $30 million, which leaves $150 million that could be spent on the other tier 3 lines. It could even be spent doing up the Nyabing–Katanning rail line. That might cost $79 million, which would still leave another $75 million for other purposes. We really have to think about this. The lease to Arc Infrastructure is really the problem. It does not sound as though anything is likely to change, but I am still hoping that some sort of negotiation will be done so that when we put a billion dollars into new rail lines, it does not just go back to Arc Infrastructure to take out what it can, to make a profit and do nothing else. It just does not make sense. Those rail lines need to be back under the control of the government as they were prior to 1999. It just makes sense for our farmers and industry. Arc Infrastructure has not done a fine job. It is not appreciated by the people who use the line. It is taking out what it can, sending it overseas and using it for other purposes to keep its business afloat. It is not for the benefit of Western Australia. If those lines could be run by the government, that would benefit WA and our farmers. House adjourned at 5.56 pm ______

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 24 September 2020] 6465

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Questions and answers are as supplied to Hansard.

GERALDTON HEALTH CAMPUS — NURSES 3144. Hon Martin Aldridge to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Health: I refer to Geraldton Health Campus and rostered nursing staff between 1 April 2020 and 30 June 2020, and I ask: (a) how many hours of overtime were worked by month; (b) how many hours of agency nursing were undertaken by month; (c) what was the longest continuous shift of nursing staff during the three month period; and (d) how many nursing positions, by FTE, are currently vacant at the hospital? Hon Alanna Clohesy replied: I am advised: (a) Overtime hours worked by Nursing and Midwifery salaried employees at Geraldton Health Campus:

Month Hours Worked April 2020 589 May 2020 1,012 June 2020 1,182 Notes: (1) Shift data has been sourced from HSS who administers the WA Health rostering system. (2) The calculated overtime hours is based on shifts recorded as overtime, including the component of overtime hours worked within normal shifts. (3) The total overtime is based on Organisational Units that identify registered and enrolled nursing shifts at Geraldton Health Campus. (b) Nursing Agency hours at Geraldton Health Campus:

Month Agency Nursing Hours April 2020 0 May 2020 0 June 2020 0 Notes: (1) Agency Nursing shift data has been sourced from HSS who administers the WA Health rostering system. (2) The total Agency Nursing hours is based on Organisational Units at the Geraldton Health Campus / Geraldton Hospital. (c) 18 Hours. Note: Shift data has been sourced from HSS who administers the WA Health rostering system. (d) Nil. Notes: (1) Based on currently occupied and vacant permanent positions as listed in the HRIS Establishment. (2) HRIS Establishment information has been sourced from the HRIS / Lattice system. ______