Legislative Council

Tuesday, 22 May 2001

The Legislative Council met at 11.00 am. Mr Laurence Bernard Marquet, as Clerk of the Legislative Council and Clerk of the Parliaments, advised honourable members that a President of the Legislative Council was to be chosen and that the elected members, having been duly sworn in, must elect a President of the Legislative Council. His Excellency the Honourable Mr Justice Geoffrey Alexander Kennedy, AO, Deputy of the Governor, entered the Chamber and commissioned Mr Marquet, as Clerk of the Legislative Council and Clerk of the Parliaments, to administer to members the Oath or Affirmation of Allegiance required by law. MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT Swearing-in The Clerk produced the return of writs for the election of members at the general election held on 10 February 2001, showing that the following had been duly elected - Agricultural Region Bruce Kirwan Donaldson Francis Carson Hough Kimberley Maurice Chance Murray John Criddle Diane Elizabeth Margetts East Metropolitan Region Nicholas David Griffiths Peter Gilbert Da Conceicao Foss Ljiljanna Maria Ravlich Louise Clare Pratt Derrick Gordon Tomlinson Mining and Pastoral Region Thomas Gregory Stephens Norman Frederick Moore Jonathan Robert Ford John Fischer Robin Howard Chapple North Metropolitan Region Samuel George Ernest Cash Edmund Rupert Joseph Dermer Raymond James Halligan Kenneth Dunstan Elder Travers Alan Alfred Cadby Giz Watson Graham Thomas Giffard South Metropolitan Region Suzanne Mary Ellery Barbara Mary Scott Catherine Esther Doust Simon McDonnell O’Brien James Alan Scott South West Region Barry John House John Alexander Cowdell Patrick Embry William Noel Stretch Adele Farina Robyn Mary McSweeney Christine Sharp

214 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 22 May 2001]

The following members took and subscribed the Oath of Allegiance, or made and subscribed the affirmation required by law, and signed the Roll - Hon George Cash, Hon Ed Dermer, Hon Ray Halligan, Hon Ken Travers, Hon Alan Cadby, Hon Giz Watson, Hon Graham Giffard, Hon Barry House, Hon John Cowdell, Hon Patrick Embry, Hon Bill Stretch, Hon Adele Farina, Hon Robyn McSweeney, Hon Christine Sharp, Hon Suzanne Ellery, Hon Barbara Scott, Hon Catherine Doust, Hon Simon O’Brien, Hon Jim Scott, Hon Nick Griffiths, Hon Peter Foss, Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich, Hon Louise Pratt, Hon Derrick Tomlinson, Hon Bruce Donaldson - [Interruption from the gallery.] The Clerk ordered that the sitting be suspended and that the gallery be partially cleared. [Gallery partially cleared.] Sitting resumed. The following members took and subscribed the Oath of Allegiance, or made and subscribed the affirmation required by law, and signed the Roll - Hon Francis Hough, Hon Kim Chance, Hon Murray Criddle, Hon Dee Margetts, Hon Tom Stephens, Hon Norman Moore, Hon Jon Ford, Hon John Fischer, Hon Robin Chapple [His Excellency the Deputy of the Governor retired from the Chamber.] ELECTION OF PRESIDENT The Clerk reported that the office of President was vacant. HON J.A. COWDELL (South West) [11.36 am]: I move - That Hon George Cash do take the Chair in the Council as President. There is much to commend this candidacy. Hon George Cash has served as our President with distinction and he has the experience and knowledge that is required for the position. He has the undoubted confidence of this Chamber and should continue as President. HON KEN TRAVERS (North Metropolitan) [11.37 am]: I second the motion. HON GEORGE CASH (North Metropolitan) [11.37 am]: I thank the Government for its expression of confidence in me. However, I decline the nomination. HON KIM CHANCE (Agricultural) [11.37 am]: I move - That Hon John Cowdell do take the Chair in the Council as President. Over the past few years, Hon John Cowdell has served this place as its Chairman of Committees and I believe he will carry out the role of President with honour and distinction. HON N.F. MOORE (Mining and Pastoral) [11.38 am]: I willingly and happily second the motion. HON J.A. COWDELL (South West) [11.38 am]: I submit myself to the will of the House. THE CLERK (Mr Marquet): There being no further nominations, I declare Hon John Cowdell elected as the President of the Legislative Council. [Applause.] HON J.A. COWDELL (South West) [11.39 am]: With somewhat more than the customary level of reluctance, I assume the Chair. In so doing, I pay tribute to my predecessor, Hon George Cash. He has served this House as its President with distinction no less than he did as a former Leader of the Opposition and a Leader of the Government. This position is accompanied by some expectations, although perhaps not quite as many as were enunciated at the turn of the century. The Australasian Parliamentary Review states with regard to the first Commonwealth Parliament - The first and most serious business which the House . . . will be called upon to transact will be that of electing a Speaker, and it would be difficult to exaggerate its importance; for upon the character, capacity and conduct of that high officer will depend the method in which the House will exercise its functions; whether with dignity, courtesy and conscientiousness, or with laxity of manners, irrelevance of speech, waste of time and irregularity of procedure. An ideal Speaker would be a gentleman . . . who should combine great Parliamentary experience with a perfect knowledge of legal forms, precedents, usages and rulings; inflexible firmness with that suavity of address and deportment which Mazarin inculcated in his familiar “iron hand in a velvet glove”; and a keen consciousness of the responsibility attaching to the autocratic authority necessarily vested in him with exquisite tact in its exercise.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 22 May 2001] 215

Fortunately, the commentator then states - We are not unreasonable enough to expect that an ideal Speaker will be found in the Second Chamber . . . . Members, while perhaps not performing all of those functions - and I leave the role of Mazarin to the Clerk of the Chamber - I do intend to discharge my responsibilities with fairness and impartiality and to do everything in my power to enhance the standing of this Chamber and this Parliament. I thank members for the honour they have bestowed upon me. HON KIM CHANCE (Agricultural) [11.42 am]: Mr President, I take this opportunity to welcome you to the Chair, and I look forward to a productive Parliament, and a Parliament in which you can take great pride in the manner in which it is conducted. HON N.F. MOORE (Mining and Pastoral) [11.42 am]: Mr President, on behalf of the Opposition, I extend my congratulations upon your election. It is a very worthy choice of the House. It is not often that we elect a new President. In the past 24 years, and during my time in this place, you have had two predecessors, both of whom have been quite superb in the way they have conducted the business of the House. I have no doubt that you, Mr President, will continue that fine tradition we have seen in your admirable performance in the Chamber for many years as Chairman of Committees. I have no doubt that you will manage the House in an impartial way, and I wish you every success. HON J.A. SCOTT (South Metropolitan) [11.43 am]: Mr President, from the crossbenches we wish you well in your new position. We note from experience that in your previous position as Chairman of Committees you conducted yourself extremely well and, although we were very happy with the way the previous President ran this House, we very much welcome you to this position. HON M.J. CRIDDLE (Agricultural) [11.43 am] Mr President, I wish you well from my party’s point of view. I know you will carry out your duties in an excellent manner, and I look forward to working with you in this session of Parliament. HON J. FISCHER (Mining and Pastoral) [11.43 am]: Mr President, on behalf of our party, I congratulate you on your election to the esteemed position of President of this Chamber and assure you that you will have the full support of our party. THE PRESIDENT: I thank members for their kind words of approbation.

PRESENTATION OF PRESIDENT [His Excellency the Deputy of the Governor re-entered the Chamber.] THE PRESIDENT (Hon J.A. Cowdell): Your Excellency, I have the honour to inform you that I have this day been elected by the members of the Legislative Council to the high and honourable office of President of that House, and on their behalf I lay claim to their undoubted rights and privileges and pray that the most favourable construction be given to all their deliberations. THE DEPUTY OF THE GOVERNOR (His Excellency the Honourable Mr Justice Geoffrey Alexander Kennedy, AO): Mr President, it is with much pleasure that I learn of your election by the members of the Legislative Council to the high and honourable office of President of this House. I congratulate you upon your election and express every confidence that you will fulfil that office with honour and dignity. I recognise and I shall respect the Legislative Council’s undoubted rights and privileges. [His Excellency retired from the Chamber.]

PRESIDENT’S COMMISSION THE PRESIDENT (Hon J.A. Cowdell): I ask the Clerk to read the commission authorising me, as President, to administer the oath or affirmation of allegiance to members of the Legislative Council. [The commission was read.]

TELEVISION FILE FOOTAGE Statement by President THE PRESIDENT (Hon J.A. Cowdell): I inform members of the requirement for additional photographs to be taken for the board that appears outside the Chamber, and the photographer is available for that purpose. I inform members also that in accordance with the custom of the House, I have extended permission for ABC Television and the commercial television stations to take some brief file footage upon our recommencement at 3.30 pm. Sitting suspended from 11.50 am to 3.30 pm

216 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 22 May 2001]

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES Election THE PRESIDENT (Hon J.A. Cowdell): Are there any nominations for the office of Chairman of Committees? HON N.F. MOORE (Mining and Pastoral - Leader of the Opposition) [3.30 pm]: I nominate Hon George Cash for all the good reasons you gave this morning, Mr President, when you nominated him for the office of President. HON W.N. STRETCH (South West) [3.30 pm]: I second the nomination. THE PRESIDENT: Are there any further nominations? No. Is Hon George Cash willing on this occasion to accept the nomination? HON GEORGE CASH (North Metropolitan) [3.30 pm]: I am honoured to submit myself to the will of the House. THE PRESIDENT: I declare Hon George Cash Chairman of Committees. [Applause.] HON GEORGE CASH (North Metropolitan) [3.31 pm]: With the indulgence of the House. Firstly, Sir, congratulations on your appointment to the high office of President of the Legislative Council. I know from your past experience as Deputy President and Chairman of Committees that you will do an exceptional job in your new role. I say to other members of the House, as I did when I was elected President of the Legislative Council some four years ago, that I will exercise the authority of the Chairman of Committees without fear or favour. I am sure that I will retain the friendship of members of this place. Members may have noticed that I was looking at Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich when I said that! I say no more other than to thank members for the confidence they have expressed in me. HON KIM CHANCE (Agricultural - Leader of the House) [3.32 pm]: I welcome Hon George Cash’s election to the office of Chairman of Committees. On the Government’s behalf, we look forward to another four years of fair and erudite chairmanship as experienced during his term of presidency. HON N.F. MOORE (Mining and Pastoral - Leader of the Opposition) [3.32 pm]: On behalf of members on this side of the House, I join with the Leader of the House in congratulating Hon George Cash. Mr President, you very clearly explained this morning, as I said when I nominated him for the position, what a great choice he would be as President. He was a great President and you have very big shoes to fill. I am delighted the House has agreed to elect Hon George Cash, who I am sure will carry out the duties of Chairman of Committees in the same way he carried out the duties of President. HON CHRISTINE SHARP (South West) [3.33 pm]: The Greens (WA) are very pleased with the outcome of both processes that we have been through today. I am delighted to see Hon George Cash has been elected Chairman of Committees. We have worked well with him in his previous role as President. I am very confident he will be fair and even-handed to all members of this Chamber. We look forward to working with him. THE PRESIDENT: I conclude by offering my congratulations to Hon George Cash for the reasons I outlined this morning in nominating him for the position of President.

SOUTH WEST METROPOLITAN RAILWAY Urgency Motion THE PRESIDENT (Hon J.A. Cowdell): I have received an urgency motion in the following terms pursuant to Standing Order No 72 - That the Government assures the people of Western Australia, and Rockingham in particular, that it will as part of the south west metropolitan railway - (1) fully fund the rail link into the Rockingham city centre; (2) determine, in consultation with the City of Rockingham, the most appropriate exit from the city centre; (3) cancel all plans for a bypass route, direct to Mandurah or any additional link which may impinge upon the Lake Cooloongup area, the Rockingham golf course, and/or create a barrier between residents and these areas. Hon Barbara Scott. The member will require the support of four members in order to move the motion. [At least four members rose in their places.] HON B.M. SCOTT (South Metropolitan) [3.41 pm]: I move - That the House at its rising adjourn until 1 December 2001.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 22 May 2001] 217

This motion is my plea to the Government to give the people of Western Australia, and of Rockingham in particular, an assurance that, like the previous Government, it will commit funds to complete the south west metropolitan railway, linking it to Rockingham and then on to Mandurah according to the time line already established, and fully fund that link into the City of Rockingham. It is my wish and intent to ensure that the Government goes ahead with this project in consultation with the City of Rockingham. The council has the full support of the residents of the area for the line to be extended into the city. I also urge the Government to cancel any provisional plans to construct a bypass route - which is what the people of Rockingham prefer to call it - or a direct route to Mandurah. Such a route would bypass the City of Rockingham and go past the fragile Lake Cooloongup wetlands and through the Rockingham golf course. These areas must be protected for the people of the Rockingham area. The sentiments contained in my motion convey the intent of a 1997 cabinet decision that was handed down after considerable consultation with all parties, and I mean all parties. I do not intend to spend time discussing the entire rail route, but the consultation involved the councils of Kwinana, Cockburn, Rockingham and Mandurah and, in particular, the Planning Commission of Western Australia. The commission has a charter to ensure the best planning processes for the State for the long-term benefit of all Western Australians. That 1997 cabinet decision has been somewhat muddied by officers of the Department of Transport. It was decided that an alternative to the city centre route would be pursued. Some officers felt that it would be better to have the line go through the wetlands of Lake Cooloongup and the golf course, avoiding Rockingham altogether, and go straight to Mandurah. Members may not be aware that Rockingham’s population of 75 000 makes it the largest Western Australian city between Perth and Adelaide. Bypassing such a major city would be very foolish. The direct route would provide a bus terminal at the edge of Lake Cooloongup. In an attempt to secure support for this route, a number of people in the area were lobbied and uncertainty was created in Mandurah and Dawesville. Mixed messages were circulated that if the line went through Rockingham, the project would be delayed by 10 years. The engineers have confirmed that that is nonsense. It is planned to have the line completed to Rockingham in early 2005 and to Mandurah at the end of 2005. That plan will not be altered whichever route is chosen. The former Minister for Transport and the Premier of the day decided that, because uncertainty had been generated in Rockingham, a task force would be established to resolve the issue once and for all. I was privileged to be asked to chair that task force by the then Minister for Transport, Hon Murray Criddle. The task force produced a report - Several members interjected. Hon B.M. SCOTT: I did not hear any of the interjections, so I will ignore them. The PRESIDENT: It is very wise of the member not to hear any of the improper interjections. Hon B.M. SCOTT: The task force was very ably supported by the chief executive officer responsible for the south west metropolitan railway, Mr Ross Drabble. He was very professional and always helpful, despite sometimes being let down by his project manager. Mr Drabble had been in charge of the extension of the northern rail line to Joondalup and also did that job very efficiently. The task force was asked to investigate three options for Rockingham: the short tunnel route, the long tunnel route and the direct bypass route. The executive summary of the report notes that the task force distributed a discussion paper to 26 000 households in Rockingham and commissioned a telephone survey. The coalition Government believed in thorough consultation. I was pleased to be a part of the consultation process, and the people of Rockingham appreciated being asked about the plans. Attendance at shopping centres on Thursday nights and Saturdays during that process resulted in the task force receiving from the people of Rockingham 9 000 written submissions and 500 requests to make oral presentations. It has always been my view of community consultation in any process that although some people can give a written submission, not everybody can and they should be offered the opportunity to make oral submissions. We offered that opportunity and we received some 500 requests for face-to-face or telephone presentations. There was a very high level of community agreement in the submissions. Some 97 per cent of the written submissions and 83 per cent of respondents to the telephone survey supported the two city centre routes. That is going back to the route confirmed by Cabinet in 1997; that is, Rockingham should be served by a link into the city centre. The general tone of those submissions was of a community that had grown tired of waiting for a train service. Indeed, it might be interesting for members in this Chamber to note that one of the agenda items for the very first meeting of the Rockingham Road Board more than 100 years ago was that a train service to Rockingham be given top priority. Although it is outside the terms of reference of the task force, a number of submissions referred to the rail service not coming from Fremantle and considerable concern was expressed about that. The final straw would be for the service not to come to the city centre. R.G. Brockwell of Safety Bay spoke for many people in Rockingham and put it very succinctly when he said, “Rockingham means Rockingham” - I would like the Government to listen very carefully - “and a railway means trains not a bus service.” The primary reasons for the overwhelming support for the city centre route were that it would provide the best access to the city centre, it would stimulate growth in business, employment and tourism, it would provide the best access for seniors and students, and it would have minimal environmental impact.

218 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 22 May 2001]

Those members in the Chamber who were here during the past eight years will also be mindful that the previous coalition Government placed Murdoch University in Rockingham. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich interjected. Hon B.M. SCOTT: I am talking about the Murdoch University campus in Rockingham, which will have 15 000 students enrolled by 2020. It is very important for students to have access to very good transport. As a result of the task force and the options that were placed before the City of Rockingham, the Government of the day made a commitment in 2000 to fund the short tunnel option, or route 2, into the city centre, which was very much appreciated by the people of Rockingham. The exit route from Rockingham was the other issue included in my motion. I ask that the Government, in consultation with the City of Rockingham, give serious consideration to determining the most appropriate exit route from the city centre. The original 1997 cabinet decision preferred the exit route on Ennis Avenue. Unfortunately, it is not very easy to do a PowerPoint presentation of maps in this Chamber. However, the loop into Rockingham came down Dixon Road, through the city centre, back out towards Lake Cooloongup and down, which was rather foolish planning. The original decision had the exit route down the centre of Ennis Avenue and straight on, saving the middle area that would be necessary if it looped around and went back. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich interjected. Hon B.M. SCOTT: I am sorry, it is very difficult for the Hansard reporter. The current loop planned by the Department of Transport would then loop back to Lake Cooloongup and go across the wetlands, which we would like to protect. Indeed, the Ennis Avenue exit would be two kilometres shorter, and that would be a huge cost saving in the overall cost of the link to Rockingham. Today I urge the Government to commit itself publicly to supporting the link into Rockingham and to commit itself to the current time line, which I have already mentioned; that is, to Rockingham by mid 2005 and to Mandurah by the end of 2005, with full services to Mandurah and Rockingham at that time with no costly bypass route. The previous coalition Government made a very clear commitment to this rail link and committed the funds to it. I challenge the Government today to keep the promise to the people of Rockingham and to the people of Western Australia. I will finish by reading a letter from the former Premier, Richard Court, who wrote to me in February this year. It reads - fin Dear Barbara Thank you for your letter dated 18 December 2000 regarding the Government’s commitment to the dual track to Mandurah. I am writing to assure you that the Coalition Government is totally committed to bringing a rail loop through the City of Rockingham with the main Rockingham station being next to the City’s council chambers. Train services to Rockingham will commence in mid 2005 and to Mandurah later in the same year. The rail line will follow the existing Armadale line from Perth to Kenwick, then turn to the south-west to run alongside the existing freight rail line to Jandakot, where it will align with the Kwinana Freeway to run south to Anketell Road. It will then run under Thomas Road, skirting under Wellard Road and a new extension of Gilmore Drive, crossing over the existing Kwinana-Mundijong freight railway and Mandurah Road on bridges before connecting to Rockingham. New stations will be located at Thornlie, Nicholson Road, Canning Vale, South Lake, Thomsons Lake, . . . [Member’s time expired.] HON J.A. SCOTT (South Metropolitan) [3.56 pm]: It was very interesting to hear this motion. Although I share Hon Barbara Scott’s concerns about Rockingham not being linked to the rail system, that is a bit rich coming from someone who is now in opposition but who was a member of the Government that put this rail line in its current location. A mess has been made of the introduction of rail into Rockingham. I do not think the Government of the day planned to put it there; it planned to bypass Rockingham and, when the election came along, a hurried design was tacked together to stop the people of Rockingham being upset about being bypassed. The mayor of Rockingham was lobbying us because he was concerned about the sudden introduction of a second plan - not the one that would have the line going into Rockingham, but the one that would have the line bypass Rockingham. Members opposite should not tell me that it did not exist, because it did. Hon Simon O’Brien: You know very well it existed in the minds of officers of the Department of Transport, not in the policy of the former Government. Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story! Hon J.A. SCOTT: Hon Simon O’Brien is saying that the Government is completely responsible for the appalling design of the current railway. He will take all the blame because it is an appalling piece of planning and it will set back rail planning in this State for the next 50 years. If it bypasses Rockingham, not only will be difficult for people to get to the Murdoch campus, but also it will not service the main Murdoch campus when it comes to the city; in fact, it will

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 22 May 2001] 219 bypass the entire city. When that line comes to the area, it will go around the bottom of the city. It is the silliest location for a rail line I have ever seen. It has been done on the cheap. Hon M.J. Criddle: What would you do? Hon J.A. SCOTT: I would put a line straight up the freeway and into the city. Hon M.J. Criddle: How much would it cost? Hon J.A. SCOTT: I will tell the member about the cost. If he lets me finish, I will do more than that. I would have also put a hybrid rail line south from Fremantle through Rockingham without all the major tunnels. For the price of that Rockingham loop plus $20 million, a hybrid rail line could be built all the way from Fremantle, through the centre of Rockingham and back out to join the other line. The waste of money comes about not because of the cost of building the railway but because of building it where there are no passengers and there never will be passengers. Hon M.J. Criddle: It will go through an industrial area where there will be passengers. Hon J.A. SCOTT: The line is currently designed to go through the airport at Jandakot, the water-mound area there, a golf course and the Canning Vale marshalling yards. Where will the passengers be? We had the most dodgy piece of hacked together information from the previous Government in lieu of proper planning. It planned a railway line where there would be no passengers. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: It was where the marginal seats were. Hon J.A. SCOTT: That has probably more to do with it. The railway line is a very poor concept. It is a commuter line from Mandurah instead of an urban passenger line that would get people off the roads, and a properly designed network with light rail for passengers travelling from east to west. I kept telling the previous minister before he tried to put the railway line in place that he was trying to cater for 20 000 people and ignoring 140 000. Every day, approximately 160 000 people travel over the Narrows Bridge from the south. I have done my homework. Only 20 000 of them come from south of South Lakes. Some 56 000 or 62 000, depending on which set of figures are used, travel from south of South Lakes to Fremantle, which means that more people from that area travel to Fremantle than to Perth. Most people travel within that region. By ignoring those 140 000 people, the previous Government will cause the building of more and more roads into the city to carry more and more cars. The former Minister for Transport is looking at me. Recently he had another bridge built across the Narrows to take more cars into the city, yet he expects people to travel from South Lakes by rail. Members should picture this: 140 000 people are situated north of a railway line that runs east from South Lakes. The former minister expects people to drive or catch a bus south and then get on a train that will travel east for 25 minutes and then into the city, when they could have travelled straight up the freeway into the city. It is a very strange concept for moving people into the city and trying to get people to use the system. Hon M.J. Criddle: How much would the other railway line cost? Hon J.A. SCOTT: It does not matter. It will cost a helluva lot - more than $1 billion - to build a railway line that will carry only four per cent of 20 000 people, which is only 800 people a day. Hon B.M. Scott: Where from? Hon J.A. SCOTT: From Rockingham and Mandurah, and South Lakes for that matter. Hon Simon O’Brien: Some 800 people a day? Hon J.A. SCOTT: Yes. The current figures show that four per cent of the people in the metropolitan area use public transport. The former minister will be able to confirm that. Currently, 20 000 people drive to the city from south of South Lakes. Potentially, that many people could use the service. Should only four per cent use the service, that would mean 800 patrons. The former Government spent over $1 billion to cater for that tiny level of patronage when it could have put in place a system that would have provided for 160 000 people. Hon Barbara Scott spoke of the best planning for the long-term benefit of all Western Australians. By planning for that railway, the former Government has prevented a proper system being built and has wasted a helluva lot of money which could have gone into a proper network that would have got people off the roads. The former minister should be ashamed. Hon M.J. Criddle: I am proud of it. Hon J.A. SCOTT: If the former minister is proud of that, he is proud of not very much. I shall illustrate the sort of misconception that exists. Hon Barbara Scott said more or less that she did not want to see the largest of the cities situated between Adelaide and Perth - it shows how bad her directions are - Hon B.M. Scott: Rockingham is the largest city.

220 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 22 May 2001]

Hon J.A. SCOTT: Yes , but the reality is that the railway line will not go directly to the Perth. Why has the previous Government not designed a railway system that will cater for the people of Perth? Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon J.A. SCOTT: I would like to see the Labor Government have a darned good look at the design of the railway to see whether it is worth building on that route. I would like to see it start planning a proper line that is designed to get more people off roads in urban Western Australia. Fuel is becoming a very rare commodity on this planet and is getting more and more expensive. We have huge problems with greenhouse gas emissions. The idea of a rail service is not to build it cheaply but to have it carry passengers. When a railway is designed to carry passengers, members can talk about making loops into Rockingham. The planning of this railway line has been a disaster. HON SIMON O’BRIEN (South Metropolitan) [4.08 pm]: I strongly agree with the remarks made by Hon Barbara Scott in moving this motion and presenting her case. I will add to that in a moment. At the outset I acknowledge your election, Mr President, and congratulate you. All members in the House feel a strong sense of confidence in the appointment. I join with all members in wishing you well. I remember on my first day in this place some years ago that you were kind enough, as a senior member, to offer me some kind remarks on the occasion of my maiden speech. I am sure as a result of subsequent contact that I have enjoyed with you that your reserves of benevolence would not have been exhausted on that occasion. I am sure they will continue. I look forward to your term as President. Three new members for the South Metropolitan Region who are all members of the Australian Labor Party join us in the House. I am sure they will be listening to this debate with interest. When they develop an understanding of this issue perhaps they will refer the matter to the members for Rockingham and Peel. When those new members develop an understanding of the issue, they should also talk to some of their colleagues who apparently have no understanding of this matter. Interjections during Hon Barbara Scott’s remarks suggested that the railway that we are talking about has not been commenced in any way, shape or form. Perhaps those members who made the interjections should travel to the South Metropolitan Region and have a look at the extensive railway works that have already taken place along that route. In acknowledging that work started under the former Government, I also acknowledge Hon Murray Criddle, who as minister did a great deal for the people of the South Metropolitan Region by bringing infrastructure to that area. It is appreciated. Members opposite should take a trip to that region to look at the changes. They will see changes on the freeway to accommodate the railway - the railway that Labor Governments always pretend they are committed to having and Labor Oppositions pretend they will deliver. If those members had a look at the extension of the Kwinana Freeway to Safety Bay Road they would notice that the western lanes from just north of South Lake to Thomas Road, where the freeway used to terminate, have had to be moved. All the city-bound lanes have had to be moved a bit to the west, or a bit to the left when looking towards the city, to put it in words that perhaps members opposite might understand. Why did they have to be moved a bit to the west? It is because when the Labor Government built its poor excuse for a freeway, with all the traffic lights and so on, it did not leave room in the middle of that freeway for a railway reserve - so much for its promotion of suburban railways! I will come to the point of Hon Barbara Scott’s motion. She has explained the situation on the ground. I will speak to that part of the motion concerned with funding the rail link and what the Labor Government intends to do, because I believe it will not provide that which has been promised. I am led to believe that for a number of reasons. First, during the debate about the Rockingham rail link, questions were asked about whether it would be recommended and accepted. When Hon Barbara Scott was working closely with the City of Rockingham as chairman of a panel looking at this matter, I noticed the conspicuous silence of the member for Rockingham and the conspicuous silence and absence from the debate of the member for Peel. Both of them should have been keen to look after the City of Rockingham, yet they were silent and did not want to know about it. During the election campaign, the Labor Party said it would honour commitments. What else could it do? However, now the Government finds it impossible to bring itself to say that it will honour the promises it made. In all the disquietude emanating from the City of Rockingham, again the members for Peel and Rockingham and also the Labor members for the South Metropolitan Region, past and present, are quiet. I wonder whether they might be able to lend some enthusiasm to the Labor Government to deliver services south of the river to people in Rockingham who for too many years they have taken for granted. Where is the evidence that this Labor Government will slash these sorts of programs from the forward estimates? Why would it want to do such a thing? I turn to the Treasury News of autumn 2001. At page 2, our Under Treasurer, Mr John Langoulant, reports in this public document - The election of the Labor Government, and more particularly the delivery of its policy agenda, adds a completely new dimension to the tasks facing the sector. At the broadest level, this agenda involves introducing new expenditure initiatives totalling around $1.2 billion over the next four years, spread across

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 22 May 2001] 221

both recurrent and capital initiatives. The fact that these measures are to be funded from existing resources adds to the dimension of the task. Perhaps the Liberal Party got it wrong. It claimed during the election campaign that the cost of the Australian Labor Party’s election promises was between $800 million and $900 million. However, it underestimated by a good third. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: You don’t understand the difference between capital and recurrent. Until such time as you do, I suggest that you do not - The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: What is the point? You left a disastrous mess. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Mr President, may I be permitted to proceed in the brief amount of time available? The PRESIDENT: Order! Members, the parliamentary secretaries are getting overly boisterous. Hon Simon O’Brien has the call. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Thank you, Mr President. The question posed, not by me, but by the Under Treasurer, is basically where shall we find $1.2 billion to fund new initiatives - I assume he means in the priority areas of health, education and police. Hon Ken Travers: You learnt something from the election. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: That was the favourite mantra of the Labor Party, Hon Ken Travers. That is where it will spend this $1 200 million. What is more, it will find that money from existing resources. Where will it make the cuts? I will tell members where it will make the cuts. The Government will not be able to resist transport infrastructure projects like this one that are worth more than $100 million. That gives the Government its first $100 million. I am not sure where it will find the other $1.1 billion over the next few years. In questions to the Minister Assisting the Treasurer, I have already alluded to the concern felt by a range of service providers, government and non-government, across a number of sectors about where these cuts will fall to fund this so- called priority dividend. Of course, the minister responsible has failed to answer those questions in the form that I addressed them. When the Government responds in a moment, the Opposition would like to know whether it is true. Will the Government support what it said it would support, or will it gut this project out of the City of Rockingham and deny it to the people in the way it has denied them priority in the past? Will it continue to take them for granted, or will it deliver? It is time for some substance rather than the ALP’s rhetoric. I look forward to the minister’s response. HON G.T. GIFFARD (South Metropolitan) [4.16 pm]: When I was handed a copy of this urgency motion, I must confess to being a bit surprised by it, primarily for two reasons. The first is that it is strikingly similar to a question that has already been put on notice by the Opposition. I was surprised that, having put a question on notice, the Opposition should then seek to put it forward as an urgency motion. That reflects the fact that the Opposition could not think of anything else to put forward in its urgency motion. It is still completely dumbstruck by its devastating electoral loss and it could not think of anything to say on the first day of sitting this week. Therefore, it dragged up one of its questions and used it as an urgency motion. The second reason I was surprised by the Opposition’s moving this urgency motion is that I was amazed that the Liberal Opposition would want to talk about the construction of railway lines. The Liberal Party does not have any credibility when it comes to building railway lines. It is seeking to make capital out of the fact that it does not build railway lines. It closed the Fremantle railway line and left it to Labor to reopen it. Labor built the northern suburbs railway line, and of course we all know about Clarkson. The Liberal Party promised that for some considerable time during several election campaigns. It is not a party with any credibility that can come into this place and seek to lecture the Government on the building of railway lines. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! The chorus is drowning out the solo. Hon G.T. GIFFARD: I refer to what Hon Jim Scott said about the position of the Opposition when it was in government. I agree with the views he expressed here today about how the Opposition appears to have shifted ground. When it was in government, I recall that the bypass was a part of its policy, and it included the loop into Rockingham. Hon Jim Scott referred to that. Members opposite are no longer in government; they are in opposition. This is not a matter for an urgency motion, but an opportunity for the Opposition to indicate its policy backflip on the matter. I ask myself why members opposite have put forward this matter as an urgency motion when the Government has made a commitment to go forward with the Rockingham and Mandurah lines. That is not a promise from this Government that is akin to the former Government’s promise on Clarkson. Has the Opposition nothing else that it can bring forward? Is it simply the case that the Opposition has dragged up this question because it cannot think of anything else? We are debating this as an urgency motion because of approaches from the City of Rockingham to the Opposition. The city has an alternative route and the Opposition is responding to its approach. Does this urgency motion predicate some sort of policy shift by the Opposition? The only reason this is an urgency motion is that the City of Rockingham is the

222 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 22 May 2001] last group to speak to the Opposition. The Opposition’s policies are based on whom it last spoke to; that is who makes its policy. HON KEN TRAVERS (North Metropolitan) [4.21 pm]: Mr President, congratulations on your elevation to high office. I look forward to serving under you as opposed to alongside you, as in the last Parliament. I wish you all the best in your position. I am sure you will carry out the President’s duties in a fine fashion, in similar vein to the former President, who gave me much guidance when I first arrived in this place. It is amazing to see members of the Opposition wanting to talk about railway links. For the past four years I have sat in this place trying to get the then Government to implement its clear election promise that a railway line would be constructed to Clarkson. Members opposite told us that the line would go to Clarkson. If members go to Clarkson today they will see what the last Government did to meet one of its election promises - nothing. However, there will be a railway line to Rockingham by 2004 and to Mandurah by 2005 because the Labor Party has always shown its solid and sincere commitment to building railway lines in this State. Hon N.F. Moore: Are you saying you will build this one? Hon KEN TRAVERS: We will build that line. The Leader of the Opposition should look at the history of his party. He would be one of the few members who was in this place when the Fremantle railway line was closed by a Government of which he was a member. At that time 100 000 people signed a petition to have that line re-opened. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The parliamentary secretary should address the Chair, in which case there might be less invitation for interjection. Hon KEN TRAVERS: In the 1970s, 100 000 people signed that petition. I was only a young bloke then; I certainly was not in this place. The Leader of the Opposition, who was a member of the Government then, did nothing. The Opposition should not come in here on our first day with new members and preach to this side of the Chamber about this Government’s commitment to build railway lines. We have a record of building railway lines. I have previously asked members opposite in this place to name one railway line they have built in the past 100 years. I did not get an answer, because they did not build any. The mob opposite has not built one single kilometre of railway line in this State. All they ever did was to close them down. What have Labor Governments done? We reopened the Fremantle railway line, built the northern suburbs railway line, and electrified the suburban railway system in this State. We would not be debating with members opposite the detail of the Rockingham line if it had not been for previous Labor Governments. There would not be a railway service if members opposite had had their way. The closure of the Fremantle railway line would have been just the start. We would then have seen the closure of the Midland and Armadale lines. Western Australia would not have had an urban passenger rail service. Members opposite know that, and that is why they are squealing. Members opposite know that we would have been in the Dark Ages with public transport as we moved into the twenty-first century, rather than experiencing a rebirth of urban passenger transport. The only reason that it was possible for the former Government to devise its plans for railway lines to Rockingham and Clarkson - it never built them - was the actions of previous Labor Governments. Hon M.J. Criddle: When are you going to let the tender for the construction of the railway line? Hon KEN TRAVERS: This mob opposite are amazing. How quickly they change when our roles are reversed. They have received more information from the Government today than we got out of them in the past four years. Already the parliamentary secretary for planning and infrastructure has given them more information about what is going on than we got out of the former Government in the whole time we were on the opposition benches. I have always wondered what happened to the conservative politicians in this State. Did someone take their train sets away from them when they were young children? Is that why they do not want to see another train for the rest of their lives? Hon M.J. Criddle: When are you going to let the tender? Hon Peter Foss: They are not into making decisions. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Hon Peter Foss says that this Government is not into making decisions. For four years members opposite promised to build a railway line to Clarkson. Hon Simon O’Brien: We are going to Clarkson! Last train to Clarkson! Hon KEN TRAVERS: Hon Simon O’Brien does not want to talk about the former Government’s broken promise to the residents of Clarkson. The former member for Wanneroo wants to talk about that. That member said only one good thing in his life, but I will not repeat it in this Chamber. That member was wrong again. We told members opposite that the then Government would not build the railway line to Clarkson. The former Minister for Transport did a light shuffle during the estimates committee hearings by saying that the line might be built or it might not. He said one thing in this place and another in the northern suburbs. The former Premier and the former member for Wanneroo were saying that the line would be built, but it was never built. We regularly predicted that in this place.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 22 May 2001] 223

I assure members opposite that when they come into this place in four years time, at the end of this Labor Government’s current term, we will be preparing for our next four years in Government, because we will be so far ahead in the polls it will not be funny, and it will be because we have honoured our commitments. There will be a railway line through to Clarkson and one to Rockingham that will be on its way to Mandurah. The people in the southern and northern suburbs will be very thankful that they elected a Labor Government on 10 February. That will all be done. Hon Simon O’Brien wanted to talk about the budget. I am more than happy to talk about the state of the budget that the former Government left this Government. I am sure that Hon Nick Griffiths will tell us lots about the appalling state of the budget that was left for this Government. Members opposite were in complete denial about the state of that budget during the election campaign; the continued denials of members opposite probably cost them the election. If we did nothing for the next two years, if we sat on our backsides - like members opposite did for the past four years - the budget would be in deficit and that would put the State’s AAA credit rating at grave risk. I am sure that the Minister Assisting the Treasurer will correct me if I am wrong. However, this Labor Government will make sure it brings the budget under control and that it meets its election commitments. They are two very important goals that members opposite forgot to achieve. The reason the Labor Party is now on this side and the members of the previous coalition Government are on that side is very clear. Motion lapsed, pursuant to standing orders. ADDRESS-IN-REPLY Motion Resumed from 3 May. HON N.F. MOORE (Mining and Pastoral - Leader of the Opposition) [4.30 pm]: I am very pleased to be able to make a contribution to this debate. It is some time since I have had this pleasure, although it was not one I aspired to have. I assure the House that, unlike my immediate predecessor in this position, I will not take three days with my response. Hon Kim Chance: We were relying on you! Hon N.F. MOORE: Although I have already congratulated you on your election, Mr President, I do so again. The way in which you have managed your parliamentary career and your role as Chairman of Committees have given you a good background for the role of President. I have no doubt you will be an excellent President, as have your two predecessors who have occupied the role during my time. I am delighted, Mr President, that you are wearing the gown and have not gone totally into civvies. Hon Clive Griffiths wore the full regalia, but Hon George Cash got rid of the wig. I congratulate also Hon George Cash on his election to Chairman of Committees. He was an excellent President and I have no doubt that he will carry out the duties of Chairman of Committees in a similar way. I congratulate also the Labor Party on its election win. It achieved what most people believed was unachievable. The number of seats held by the Labor Party has increased significantly as a result of the election. It deserves to be congratulated on achieving that victory. I will refer to some of the detail later. I congratulate also Hon Kim Chance on his election to Leader of the House. I have no doubt he and I will work well together. I was not so sure I would be able to work well with the person I thought might have been elected to the position of Leader of the House, but that is another story for another day. Hon Kim Chance interjected. Hon N.F. MOORE: I agree; that occurred every second day. The other days were the problem. I congratulate Hon Nick Griffiths and Hon Tom Stephens on their elevation to the ministry. I have no doubt they will be good ministers and will work hard in their portfolios. I congratulate the parliamentary secretaries, Hon Graham Giffard, Hon Ken Travers and Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich, on their promotion. I was hoping the promotion of Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich would mean that we would hear less from her. However, I suspect that after today that will not be the case. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: You love it. Hon N.F. MOORE: I suspect the member is right. I remembered how hard we worked to get here; then I heard all those interjections again and I thought perhaps I had made a mistake! Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: I am the reason you are not leaving! Hon N.F. MOORE: Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich is right. Hon Ken Travers: He is blushing. Hon N.F. MOORE: I am blushing; I cannot believe it. I congratulate the new members who have been elected to the Chamber. They know who they are, so I will not mention their names. The election has caused a significant turnover of members in this Chamber. I hope the new members find

224 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 22 May 2001] this Chamber to their liking. I mentioned the other day that members often come here thinking they would like to see this place closed down or that it is irrelevant or acts only as a rubber stamp. However, I guess it has changed recently. Most members who come here thoroughly enjoy their time in this Chamber and get great satisfaction from being here. I have no doubt that will apply to all members here today. Congratulations also to all the former members who have been re-elected. We look forward to the next four years of hard work and hard debate in the spirit we have come to expect in this Chamber. It is different from the Assembly, which is a good thing. If we can maintain decorum and respect for one another we will achieve good things in this Chamber in the next four years. Mr President, I must say that the opening day was the most disorganised opening day I have seen in the 24 years I have been a member of the Legislative Council. I do not want to be highly critical, because these things happen when we try to do things differently. On this occasion the Government decided to have a different, low-key opening. It did not have a military procession, nor did it invite people into the Chamber. However, it grew and an Aboriginal dance group performed at the front of the Parliament and Ken Colbung welcomed the Governor. About 10 people were crammed into a tiny little area at the front of Parliament House, which created an absolute shambles. I hope that next time the Government does something different, bearing in mind the traditional opening has occurred for as long as I can recall and has run like clockwork, it will be organised so that everybody knows where they are supposed to be and what they are supposed to do. When a new Parliament is opened it is important that members be allowed to invite guests, unlike the case at the opening of this Parliament. Although I have already congratulated the Labor Party on winning this election with a significant increase in seats in the Legislative Assembly, I note that the swing to the Labor Party was only 1.4 per cent. It is extraordinary for a party’s seat count to increase from minus 11 to plus 11 with a 1.4 per cent swing. I acknowledge that the electors decisively voted out the coalition. However, they did not vote in the Labor Party; they voted for various other parties, which, by virtue of the way the preferences ran, saw the Labor Party win many seats it would not otherwise have won. The Labor Party may feel good being in government. I know how members feel because I have been there and done that. Hon N.D. Griffiths: It beats the alternative. Hon N.F. MOORE: It is vastly better. The Labor Party should not think that 34 per cent, or whatever the percentage was, is a mandate to do everything it wants. The people did not vote overwhelmingly for the Labor Party; they voted overwhelmingly against the coalition, which message we must take on board. It is important the Labor Party understands that as well as I do. It was an interesting election and the preferences of Greens and One Nation had a significant impact on the result, although some of the analyses I have read suggest that the One Nation preferences were the reason the coalition is not the Government. Other people have suggested the Greens (WA) preferences put the Labor Party into office. I do not know the facts about that, because people make judgments on election results and it is often difficult to know who is correct. The major parties did not do well with their primary votes and the Labor Party got in with the support of preferences from the minor parties. That led to a very dramatic increase in the Labor Party’s membership in the Assembly, where it gained only a 1.4 per cent swing in the primary vote. I notice that 10 female members are in this Chamber. That is a third of the number of members, which I think is the Labor Party’s quota. Compared with the way this Chamber has changed over the years, that is a significant change. Ten women members in this Chamber is a vastly better reflection of the way the community thinks than it has in the past. It was a gentleman’s club in what some would call the “good old days” but it has changed forever. I welcome those 10 women members, who will add a special dimension to the way the House contemplates its legislation and business. Although Hon Kay Hallahan was a minister in this place in the previous Labor Government, this Government has not yet appointed a female minister in this place. I am a bit sad Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich is not a minister. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: You are not as sad as I am. Hon N.F. MOORE: I suspect that, based on the way ministers are required to work in the House, we would have heard much less from her. Although she obviously does not have the numbers, perhaps when things change she will be sitting in one of the three front seats. We also have the Greens (WA), who have the balance of power. I doubt whether some Greens candidates would have had their deposits returned if their primary votes had been the relevant measure. Our system allowed parties that gained 0.2 of a quota to have five members elected in five different electorates. It makes one wonder about the system. Hon N.D. Griffiths: That didn’t happen in the East Metropolitan Region. Hon N.F. MOORE: No, it did not. Our electoral system has given us the make-up of this Chamber and some members’ primary vote was almost negligible. That must be looked at very carefully. As members may know, the Liberal Party is contemplating challenging the result in the Mining and Pastoral Region. The member concerned is Hon Robin Chapple. I told him earlier today that the principle is, “Last in, first out.” Given that he was the last member to be sworn in, I hope he will be first out after the Court of Disputed Returns has deliberated on this matter.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 22 May 2001] 225

Hon Greg Smith referred to the very complicated vote counting system for the Legislative Council in his valedictory address - which I hope will prove to be premature. Votes in the Mining and Pastoral Region went to many different parties and that gave a distorted result. The Opposition believes that the counting method used in that electorate was not correct and that Hon Greg Smith should have been elected. Members on this side have suggested that the Government should pay for this challenge. Undoubtedly members opposite will ask why they should do anything to help the Opposition. However, the issue in this case is not whether someone has done something improper or illegal, but obtaining a determination about how votes should be counted. Having considered legal and mathematical advice, I believe that confusion exists about the proper counting method. I do not know whether the Act or its interpretation is incorrect, and I may be wrong on both counts. However, it would be appropriate for the Government to fund the challenge so that we know once and for all. As it stands, a member has been left with the task of funding a challenge in the Court of Disputed Returns to clarify the situation in respect of vote counting for members of this Chamber. In all sincerity, I ask the Government to contemplate the issue from that point of view. It should not simply say that it will not give the Liberals a free kick; it should do what must be done to establish whether the votes are being counted properly. In our role as the Opposition, members on this side will do whatever they can to ensure that the Government delivers on the many promises it made during the election campaign. Those promises were extensive and expensive. Hon Simon O’Brien has already referred to the Treasury estimate of $1.4 billion - Hon Simon O’Brien: It was $1.2 billion. Hon N.F. MOORE: The Opposition rounded off the figure to $1 billion during the election campaign. The Government has made very significant promises to the electorate, and it is our job to ensure it delivers. We should also ensure that it does not send the State back into the depths of despair we experienced the last time members opposite were in government. In addition, we must ensure that the Government is accountable, and we will take that responsibility very seriously. It will be our job to ensure that the Government does what it said it would do. A number of promises were made relating to my electorate, and I will watch closely to see what happens. The Government promised to spend $100 million during its first term to build a bitumen road from Karratha to Tom Price. In fact, the new Speaker said that if that did not happen he would resign or not stand again. He may have said that because he does not intend to stand again anyway and it looked and sounded good on television. Main Roads WA has estimated that it will cost $244 million to build the road, but the Government has promised only $100 million. I am not sure how it will deliver - will it be half a road, half bitumen and half gravel, one lane instead of two lanes, or will there be no bridges? Members on this side look forward with interest to see how the $100 million will achieve a $244 million road from Karratha to Tom Price. The Government also promised $1 million for a swimming pool at Dampier. No-one asked for one and the local authority does not know who will run and maintain it. The Government has also promised another 11 staff members in the Department of Minerals and Energy office at Kalgoorlie to deal with native title issues. Members opposite have been in power for just over 100 days and not one extra staff member has been appointed to that office. Given that we now have this wonderful new relationship regarding native title issues, the Government will say that the department does not need any more people. Members on this side will await the fulfilment of that promise. If it is honoured, it will be a waste of money, because the problem is not the number of staff but the State’s legislation and native title system. The Government also promised $1.3 million for the construction of a seawall at Onslow. I look forward to the completion of that project because it is sorely needed. Apparently Ningaloo is to be put on the World Heritage List, and I also look forward to that. However, it is pity that government members did not talk to anyone about the listing. If they had been around when the Commonwealth Government was putting Shark Bay on the list and if they had attended the public meeting dealing with the issue at Denham, they would know that 300 people opposed the move and three supported it. There is not a lot of enthusiasm for World Heritage listing, particularly because it means the Commonwealth Government takes control of an area and does not contribute any money. The Government has promised $15 million for the construction of a hospital at Derby. Hon Greg Smith mentioned the tidal power project in his valedictory speech. Can the Government get out of the contract and will it? Will a tidal power station be built and, if so, how much will it cost? These are important issues and we on this side look forward to hearing announcements about them. The Government referred to a $75 million regional investment fund that will be available to local communities in regional Western Australia. Again, opposition members look forward to that money being made available. Hon Tom Stephens, Minister for Housing, stated at a meeting in Broome that he supported the principle of returning royalties to the regions from which they were collected. In other words, if Dampier and Karratha pay $500 million a year in royalties for iron ore and so on, we should send back a good proportion of that money to those communities. I have always argued that royalties are taxes and, like other taxes, they should go into the pot and be distributed on the basis of need across the State. My view has not been electorally popular, but I firmly believe that we cannot follow any other path. If we were to return that revenue to those communities, half the State would have no money. That money is such a significant part of our budget that that cannot be done. Hon Tom Stephens’ view is very populist. That term was used by a former member of the Labor Party during the election campaign when describing his former leader. I will illustrate

226 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 22 May 2001] the appropriateness of that description. I want to know whether the Labor Government intends to return royalties to the region from which they were collected or whether the member is talking through his hat, as he is wont to do when visiting his electorate. The most significant Labor Party campaign promise relates to fixing up the health system. It is fantastic that since the election, no longer is there a daily article in The West Australian about the health crisis. We had that day after day leading up to the election. The average voter could have been forgiven for believing that the Western Australian health system was completely broken down when we all knew that the system was good. The day after the election, the new minister said that the system was good. Hon N.D. Griffiths: It is now. Hon N.F. MOORE: It has not changed one bit. This Government has not provided any extra funding. The only improvement is that The West Australian no longer runs articles about the health crisis every day. We also do not have ambulance bypasses on a daily basis. That is a tremendous achievement by the Government! Not one extra cent has gone into the health system since the election; yet, we do not have ambulance bypasses. I am beginning to wonder whether those ambulance bypasses were organised deliberately to ensure that the then Government got bad coverage. Why else would there be a change in this, or perhaps ambulance bypasses are taking place but we just do not hear about them anymore? I say to the media, which ran that health crisis story for about two years, that it should have a look at it because it is still there. Nothing has changed. The same things that happened then are happening now. The Government made a big play of this and got a lot of votes because it was going to fix the health system, which it told everyone was in disarray and was totally ruined. It is a very difficult business to fix. It is a very expensive system to run, and health care will be a serious problem for this nation unless we get our policies right and work out what is fair and reasonable. Health care will be a millstone around this Government’s neck - as it is for every other Government in Australia - because the Government cannot turn it around as it said it would. The good thing is that, since the election, it has not had that media coverage day after day. Maybe people will start to have some confidence in the health system again, because they are not constantly reading about the things that are going wrong. We have just reached the end of the first 100 days of office for this Government, and those who could afford it paid $1 000 to attend a dinner and listen to the Premier talk about those first 100 days. I thought a speech on the achievements of this Government in its first 100 days in office would have been the shortest speech in history. It is a bit unusual for people to pay $1 000 to hear about that. This is the party that supposedly represents the workers; it is the workers party. How many of those workers paid $1 000 to hear the Premier tell them how good the Government has been? Hon Peter Foss: It is the champagne socialist party. Hon N.F. MOORE: Champagne or chardonnay; whatever we like. We have a few chardonnay socialists around. Hon Kim Chance: It is a party for all Western Australians. Hon N.F. MOORE: So all Western Australians could go along provided they paid $1 000? It sets a very nasty precedent; that is, if a person wants to meet a minister and hear the Premier talk, it will cost that person $1 000. I have heard on the grapevine that some companies with which former members of the Labor Party are now involved are lobbying companies. They will start to become the preferred lobbyists as far as government ministers are concerned. People who want to meet a minister will go to one of these companies, and if they succeed in getting the minister to agree with what they want, the company will take a success fee. I am told that already happens in Queensland. Hon N.D. Griffiths: That is absolute rubbish! Hon N.F. MOORE: I sure hope it is, because a very serious rumour is going around about it. Hon N.D. Griffiths: Former members of the Liberal Party are lobbyists and are very respected lobbyists. Hon N.F. MOORE: That is exactly right. However, I am saying that lobbyists who came to see me as a minister never received success fees. They made an appointment to see me, like everybody else, and could do so any time they liked. I used to ask people why they were using lobbyists. I told them that they should just come and see me anyway. They did not need to pay a fee to a lobbyist to talk to a minister. If that is the only way they can get an appointment, there is something wrong. The rumour is that the new Government may have its favoured lobby companies, which will get a fee for their successes. Hon N.D. Griffiths: What is the basis for that assertion? Hon N.F. MOORE: The member knows how rumours go around. I have been told that people cannot even get to see some of the backbench members. Someone who tried to see the member for Geraldton had to queue for three months. Hon N.D. Griffiths: That is not right. Hon Kim Chance: I have met more than 350 individuals and groups in the time I have been a minister. Hon N.F. MOORE: I have no doubt that Hon Kim Chance has. Hon Kim Chance: Not a single one of those was a professional lobbyist.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 22 May 2001] 227

Hon N.F. MOORE: I suspect that he is one of the ministers who is organised. He is an organised person; he is in control of what he is doing. Hon Kim Chance: I am the most disorganised person I know. Hon N.F. MOORE: He seems to be organised. There is a view that the Leader of the House is on top of his portfolio if that is what is going on. I would expect that from him, but he is one of a small number in Cabinet. The view in the community now is that the situation is totally chaotic. The State has gone from being a State of excitement to a State of confusion. The ministers do not make decisions, they do not answer correspondence and they are not seeing people. This is what people are telling the Liberal Party in very large numbers in very loud voices. Every time the Labor Party gets into government, it starts to give the public service the willies. Now it wants to sack half the public servants. Last time it got into office it took away 10 per cent of their salaries, and some of them still hate the Labor Party for that. Every time it gets into government it gets stuck into the public service. I do not know why it does that because traditionally public servants voted Labor, but they do not know whether they are coming or going. The Government is holding an inquiry into the machinery of government and everybody is sitting on the edge of their seats wondering who will go next. I will talk about that a bit more. In the first 100 days of this Government’s term, there was also the little indiscretion by the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, Alannah MacTiernan. I thought the Press was a bit rough on her. People can get caught for these sorts of infringements. I do not think it is a hanging offence. It was the aftermath that caused the problem; that is, first, she did not tell anybody anything and tried to keep things quiet. I can understand people doing that; however, when they get caught out, they must wear it. The Premier tried to fob it off. The worst part of it is the way the Government has rearranged the transport portfolio. Nobody knows who is in charge of what. I do not think even the ministers know who is in charge of what. There is total chaos as a result of a member driving her car too fast. If government members thought what she did was not so terrible, they should have left her where she was and at least retained a sensible system of administration under which ministers knew what they were supposed to be doing in a very important part of the Government’s activities. This crazy allocation of transport responsibilities has been brought about by a silly overreaction by the Premier. Most people do not agree with me on this issue; they think that Hon Alannah MacTiernan should have been sacked, and maybe that should have happened. It is the populist reaction in which the Premier jumps 100 miles an hour the moment the chilly winds of the media blow around his neck. We have also seen strikes in the first 100 days. I thought they would be a thing of the past with a Labor Government. I did not think bus drivers or nurses would go on strike. I thought a Labor Government would avoid those sorts of things. We are told all the time that the Labor Party has a special relationship with the unions and the working people of Western Australia. However, what happened in the first 100 days? Serious strikes took place and the Government sat back almost paralysed, not knowing what to do. On top of that is this wonderful situation in the industrial world in which no ticket, no start is now back in vogue, and Kevin Reynolds and his mates are running around frightening the hell out of everybody. Yet, the minister sits back like Nero, does nothing about it, and says, “Perhaps I should tell somebody to tell them to stop doing it.” The task force, a group with some power and respectability in the system, has been removed. Now we are back to the bad old industrial relations days. The irony is that the Labor Party is in government. During the coalition’s term in office, the level of strikes and industrial disputation was minimal; it was hardly an issue. Now we hear the Treasurer and the Premier going on about the previous Government blowing all the money and leaving a big black hole. That is what every Government says. It has become quite boring. Every time a party is elected to govern, it is traditional for it to say on its first day that all the money has gone, there is no money left in the budget, the State is in a terrible shape and, therefore, it must either charge this or slash that. Eventually we believe it. The problem is that the Government has committed to so much expenditure - the figure of $1.2 billion is the Under Treasurer’s assessment - at a time when there is no great big pot of gold in the kitty. Jeff Kennett left a heap of money, thinking he would be around for the next term to spend it, and Premier Bracks inherited a big heap of money in the kitty, but he blew that in the first budget. However, we did not leave the current Government a big kitty full of money; we spent every cent there was to spend. Hon N.D. Griffiths: You were the highest spending Government in history. Hon N.F. MOORE: That is exactly right. Yet, every day in this Chamber members opposite told us that we were not spending enough. In every urgency motion and speech we were told that we were not spending enough. The Labor Party cannot have it both ways. One of the fascinating things about the next four years will be to see how the Labor Government can afford to pay for its significant election promises within the budgetary constraints of Western Australia. We will be looking at that very carefully to make sure that the Labor Government delivers what it said it would deliver. We will also do our best to make sure that it does not take us down the path of losing our AAA credit rating, which the Australian Labor Party did last time it formed the Government. [Continued on page 235.]

228 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 22 May 2001]

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE NATIVE TITLE, MINERAL TENEMENT APPLICATIONS 40. Hon N.F. MOORE to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for State Development: (1) Is the Department of Minerals and Energy processing mineral tenement applications on pastoral land where native title has been extinguished as a result of the Ward decision? (2) If not, why not? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. As the member would know, the High Court is presently considering an appeal against the full Federal Court decision in the Ward matter. Against that background I provide the following answer to the question - (1) Processing of applications for mining tenements over enclosed and/or improved pastoral leases is continuing in accordance with the provisions of the Mining Act 1978, but determination of any such applications has been suspended for the time being. (2) The Government proposes to await the final report and recommendations from the Technical Taskforce on Mineral Tenements and Land Title Applications before reviewing this position. The task force is due to report to government by the end of July 2001. MINING LEASES, MUNDIJONG 41. Hon N.F. MOORE to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for State Development: I refer the minister to his answer to question without notice No 27 of Thursday, 3 May 2001, in which he states that the Warden’s Court is an appropriate forum at present - (1) Is it the Government's intention to create another forum at which environmental issues may be raised? (2) If so, what will be the nature of the forum and what will be its powers in the granting of tenements? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: (1)-(2) The Government made a commitment during the election campaign to examine the possibility of establishing a land and environment tribunal. The Government will make no decisions on these matters until this commitment has been properly examined. TOTALISATOR AGENCY BOARD, TURNOVER TAX 42. Hon BARRY HOUSE to the Minister for Racing and Gaming: (1) What is the cost to government revenue of the Government's recent decision to reduce the Totalisator Agency Board turnover tax from five per cent to 4.5 per cent? (2) How does the Government propose to replace this revenue; that is, what extra taxes and charges will be applied to make up the shortfall or what services or expenditures will be reduced by the amount of this revenue? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: (1)-(2) The Government was very pleased to honour its election commitment to cut TAB turnover tax by 10 per cent. It is estimated that this racing year - for the benefit of the member, that is the period ending 31 July - the revenue forgone will be approximately $1.7 million. The amount of revenue forgone over the forward estimates will turn on the amount of TAB turnover. It is anticipated that TAB turnover will increase, so at the end of the day the State will be better off in its revenue collections. BUILDERS CATEGORISATION SCHEME 43. Hon GEORGE CASH to the Minister for Works and Services: (1) Can the minister outline to the House the financial categories applicable to building works the subject of the Department of Contract and Management Services’ builders categorisation scheme? (2) Can the minister outline the relevant appeal process available to building contractors dissatisfied with the outcome of their applications? (3) If there is an appeal process, is it justiciable? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I will take that question on notice, if Hon George Cash wishes - it is a long time since we have called him that - and provide him with a detailed response to it. Hon George Cash: Is there some reason? Has there been a change to the categorisation?

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 22 May 2001] 229

Hon TOM STEPHENS: Not that I am aware of. I look forward to providing the member with an answer to the question. If he does not put the question on notice, I am happy to communicate the answer at the first opportunity.

WHEATBELT, DECLARATION OF EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES 44. Hon M.J. CRIDDLE to the Minister for Agriculture: (1) Following the historic success of the previous minister, Hon Monty House, in securing the federal Government's agreement to a declaration of exceptional seasonal circumstances in the wheatbelt in February 2001, will the minister confirm that he - (a) recently pursued an extension to the declared area when he had been told by his Seasonal Advisory Committee on two occasions that this application would not meet National Rural Advisory Council exceptional circumstances criteria because of its ambit nature, and that it was subsequently rejected by the NRAC; and (b) wrote to the federal Minister for Agriculture, Hon Warren Truss MP, on 17 May 2001 asking that he make available for interest rate subsidies for farmers in the area covered by the failed application a sum of $10 million in commonwealth funds that this minister knew were already fully committed to existing federally-funded agricultural schemes in Western Australia? (2) In the light of the federal minister’s response, will the minister now reapply in line with the criteria to assist those individual farmers who could qualify outside the area already declared for exceptional circumstances? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) The case for an extension of the exceptional circumstances boundaries was based on evidence of economic impact on farmers similar to that in the existing exceptional circumstances area. The additional areas included whole shires and had the strong support of local government. My advice from the Seasonal Advisory Committee was that it supported the application for extension of these boundaries. (b) The request to the federal minister was based on a contribution of $5 million by the State, on the condition that the federal Government provided an additional $10 million. Hon M.J. Criddle: Is this the latest? Hon KIM CHANCE: This is the offer I made to Warren Truss, which I believe the member referred to in his question. It is certainly true that I identified the $10 million as being available from the Rural Business and Development Corporation’s No 2 trust fund account, because the sum of that trust fund does exceed $10 million. However, it requires the authority of the federal minister to release that money. The fact is that there are some commitments to that fund. However, those commitments are fully topped up by the Commonwealth under arrangements. (2) I have formally requested that the federal minister provide clear evidence of where the application failed to meet exceptional circumstances requirements and have indicated that, on receipt of such advice, I will adjust the State’s request for an extension of the exceptional circumstances boundaries. The federal minister has made it clear in discussions about the limitations of the existing exceptional circumstances program that he sees the process as a partnership, which includes an open and full sharing of information. It is unfortunate that the member used a term that I concede was used by the federal minister in the description of the State’s second claim for exceptional circumstances when the member used the adjective “ambit”. Lest people be misinformed by the nature of the second assistance claim, it is, as my answer made quite clear, a claim that was endorsed by the adverse seasonal conditions committee; that is, it was endorsed by and not set aside by the committee. Lest people feel that they have been misled in this matter, to be within the boundaries that are determined for exceptional circumstances brings no privilege to any farmer save the privilege of being able to prove his case that he meets the guidelines. It does not bring any benefit to anybody unless they can prove that they meet the exceptional circumstances guidelines, which are, in shorthand, two negative years income out of three. For members to say that this is an ambit claim, and in particular for the member’s colleague, the member for Merredin, to describe it as an ambit claim - The PRESIDENT: Order! I am sure the Leader of the House is addressing precisely the question rather than other matters. Hon KIM CHANCE: Indeed I am, and it is a very important issue. To describe this in any way as an ambit claim is to ignore the reality that being within the boundary brings only the benefit of being able to prove that one qualifies under the provisions. It is a disgrace.

230 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 22 May 2001]

Hon M.J. Criddle: You don’t mean the guidelines. Hon KIM CHANCE: It is a disgrace for the member for Merredin to have said, as he did about people in his own electorate, that they should not have the opportunity to prove that they qualify. It is a disgrace and I hope that the member for Merredin regrets saying that.

FOREST TIMBER RESOURCES, ALLOCATION 45. Hon PETER FOSS to the Minister for Forestry and Fisheries: (1) When will the minister be in a position to announce allocations of forest timber resources? (2) How detailed will this announcement be? Will it deal merely with total quantities, or will it state a method of allocation? Will it allocate actual quantities to particular people, or will it be in some other form? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) The announcement will be made in the next few days - it has not been finally decided. However, the timber volumes have been determined by Cabinet. The reason they are not being announced at this precise time is to allow the Government to finalise negotiations with the two affected unions, in particular regarding the worker assistance program. Those negotiations are now at an advanced stage. I expect the final announcement to be made within the next few days, and probably no later than Friday of next week. Hon Peter Foss: What for? How detailed will it be? Hon KIM CHANCE: It will be announced as a single figure for jarrah and for karri, not a bracket of figures. I understand the member’s question. Hon Peter Foss: How is it to be allocated? Hon KIM CHANCE: It is too early to determine how that allocation process will take place because arrangements are already in place, as the member is aware, for two mill clients; that is, Blueleaf Corporation Pty Ltd and Nannup Sawmill. Today, the Government heard of a proposition from Sotico Pty Ltd, which is yet to be presented to it in great detail, regarding its jarrah operations. The Government will need to consider the impact of the Sotico bid. I understand the Sotico bid today did not contain a set volume requirement, although there have been discussions leading up to this stage. From that point, I believe the balance of the question can be answered quite quickly, but a decision must be made on whether the Government will accept the Sotico bid. The Government will then determine what flows from that. However, the final determination will depend upon the rate of take-up of the business exit provisions when the Government will know for certain how much of the cake is left to be divided among the millers who choose to remain in the business.

MARINE RESERVES, MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 46. Hon GIZ WATSON to the minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage: I refer to the annual report of the Marine Parks and Reserves Authority for 30 June 2000, which discusses the establishment of marine reserves and states - The difficulty is partly due to the limited resources that can be directed to the planning and consultation programs. The MPRA is most anxious that Government now provides sufficient funds to allow the effective implementation of management strategies that the indicative management plans recommend. (1) Will the minister ensure that sufficient funds are available to implement these management strategies? (2) What funds are allocated for 2000-2001 for the implementation of the management plans for the following marine reserves - (a) Ningaloo Marine Park; (b) Shark Bay Marine Park; (c) Jurien Bay Marine Park; (d) Shoalwater Islands Marine Park; (e) Marmion Marine Park; (f) Swan Estuary Marine Park; and (g) Rowley Shoals Marine Park? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has asked that this question be placed on notice.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 22 May 2001] 231

RAIL LINK, ROCKINGHAM CITY CENTRE 47. Hon B.M. SCOTT to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure: (1) Will the Government assure the people of Rockingham that it will stand by the cabinet decisions of 1997 and 2000 to fund the short tunnel route for the rail link into Rockingham city centre? (2) Will the minister examine, in consultation with the City of Rockingham, the total removal of the bypass or direction route? (3) Will the minister, in consultation with the City of Rockingham, examine the Ennis Avenue exit route from Rockingham? Hon G.T. GIFFARD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Government has made it clear during and since the election that it is committed to the provision of rail services between Rockingham and Perth. (2)-(3) The Government is currently examining and costing options that have been presented to it by the City of Rockingham.

FIRE IN SOUTH WESTERN ECOSYSTEMS, SYMPOSIUM 48. Hon CHRISTINE SHARP to the minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage: I refer to the symposium “Fire in South Western Australian Ecosystems: Impacts and Management”, which is being organised by the Department of Conservation and Land Management and the University of Notre Dame Australia. (1) Who initiated the symposium? (2) Who is financing the symposium? (3) If the Department of Conservation and Land Management is financing the symposium in total or in part - (a) what is the budgetary allocation; and (b) was this expenditure included in the forward estimates for this financial year? (4) Who selected the speakers for the symposium? (5) Is the minister aware that not one of the speakers listed in the full-day agenda for the symposium is addressing the following points - (a) the impact of fire, prescribed or otherwise, on carbon dioxide emissions and consequent contribution to the greenhouse effect; (b) the effect of forest fire smoke on air quality and public health; (c) the effect of forest fires on carbon sink values and carbon credits; and (d) the effect of reduced rainfall on forest fire behaviour? (6) Will the minister please examine the omission of these significant issues? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has asked that this question be placed on notice.

REGROWTH FOREST, INCLUSION IN NATIONAL PARKS 49. Hon PETER FOSS to the Minister for Forestry and Fisheries: The minister will recall a question asked of him at the Timber Communities Australia breakfast in Fremantle regarding the inclusion of regrowth forest in proposed national parks. (1) Is the minister now in a position to say whether any of the proposals for national parks include regrowth forest? (2) What details is he able to give of that? (3) What impact will this have on the timber industry? (4) Was the inclusion of regrowth forest, if any, by way of inadvertence or ignorance, or was it intentional?

232 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 22 May 2001]

Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(4) To answer the last part of the question first, the inclusion of regrowth forest within the boundaries of national parks was clearly intentional, because there is a convention that national park boundaries need to make some sense, as does the ecosystem itself. We must separate that very clearly in our minds. Perhaps this question might more properly have been asked of the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. To the extent that I have sought answers to the same question, I am able to say that we must clearly define the issues of reserved old-growth forest and national parks. They are separate issues. National parks can, of course, contain regrowth, old-growth, and two-tier forest, as well as gravel pits and rocky outcrops. However, the issue to which the member refers - that is, the reference I made to the Timber Communities Australia breakfast - related to the matter of whether some of those regrowth blocks that had been nominally placed within indicative boundaries of national parks were or could be released for use by the timber industry. Not all of those questions have been answered, because they will require some fairly sophisticated study, which is what occurs prior to the national park being gazetted. Hon Peter Foss is well aware of that, as a former Minister for the Environment. Similarly, room exists for some block swapping between the national park boundaries and the state forest that may be used for timber extraction on the basis that it is better to have a national park with contiguous areas and boundaries that make sense rather than have a block of state forest within a block of national forest or conservation reserve. Hon Peter Foss: Do you know areas yet? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, because those areas need to be resolved. Members can draw from my answer that the volume that will be announced will be the volume that we believe is sustainable upon the known area that can be used by the timber industry.

PUBLIC HOUSING, ABORIGINAL FAMILIES 50. Hon DERRICK TOMLINSON to the Minister for Housing: Is the minister aware of a claim made by Joanne Walsh from the Tenants Advice Service that in the Midland area of Perth about 280 Aboriginal families, with an average of three children, are permanently locked out of public housing? If the minister is aware of that claim, has its veracity been checked and can he advise how many Aboriginal families in the Midland area are permanently locked out of public housing? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I am not aware of the specific claim of the Tenants Advice Service in reference to the Midland area. I have attended a Nyoongah housing summit at which the person of whom the member has spoken described a very large housing problem facing the Aboriginal community. They are issues that are correctly described as being critical. The Ministry of Housing policy has a number of hurdles for applicants to have to jump before they go onto the waiting list for housing. If applicants have a substantial debt or damage bills that they are not tackling, they are locked out of the waiting list unless they commit to making a contribution based on their capacity to pay the debt that has previously been incurred. I appreciate the member’s genuine concern. I will ask the Ministry of Housing to look at the specifics and see what I can do to improve the circumstances to which the member has referred.

KENWICK TO MANDURAH RAIL EXTENSION 51. Hon J.A. SCOTT to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure: (1) What contracts have been signed or otherwise entered into for the Kenwick to Mandurah electric rail extension? (2) Will the minister table details of these agreements? Hon G.T. GIFFARD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Contracts for forward works have been undertaken when there has been an interface with Main Roads WA freeway works. At Kenwick, where the railway will pass under Albany and Roe Highways, the railway tunnel has been constructed as part of the Roe Highway extension. At Glen Iris and Anketell, where the railway will cross under the Kwinana Freeway, the railway tunnels have been built as part of the Kwinana Freeway extension project. (2) The client for the Kenwick tunnel is Westrail-WAGR, and the contractor is Consolidated Constructions Pty Ltd. The works commenced in March 1999 and are substantially completed. The client for the Kwinana Freeway interchanges and extension is Main Roads WA, and the contractor is Thiess Contractors Pty Ltd. The works commenced in January 2000 and are substantially completed.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 22 May 2001] 233

TRANSPORT FARE INCREASES, PENSIONERS AND CONCESSION CARDHOLDERS 52. Hon RAY HALLIGAN to the minister representing the Minister Assisting the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure: (1) Is it intended that pensioners and other concession cardholders will be excluded from having to pay any public transport fare increases during the next four years? (2) If not, why not? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: (1) Yes (2) Not applicable. RURAL YOUTH LEADERSHIP PROGRAMS 53. Hon B.K. DONALDSON to the Minister for Agriculture: (1) Will the minister continue with the rural youth leadership programs in the same format and numbers as put in place by the previous Minister for Agriculture, Monty House? (2) What funds are available to the Rural Business Development Corporation for programs such as this program and to assist those who have missed out on exceptional circumstances boundary enlargement? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1) No, it is not my intention to continue with the rural leadership programs in their present form, although I do have an ambition to continue it in an expanded form. (2) The second part of the member’s question leads me to another answer. The progress rural WA program contained a number of community leadership and community development initiatives, some of which were extremely successful. This program was funded from a number of sources including the trust fund to which the member referred - the Rural Business Development Corporation trust fund, which is better known as the RAFCOR No 1 trust account. I was advised that the balance in that account just the other day was $5.4 million, so I am sure this answer is accurate. The member is correct. That is the source of the $5 million that I offered to the commonwealth minister for him to match on a two-for-one basis after the commonwealth minister had rejected our second application for exceptional circumstances assistance. Even if that $5 million is not used for that purpose, I do not intend to continue the progress rural suite of programs in their current form. The Commonwealth has recently made an alternative offer to us in that regard, and we have made a bid for some funds which will require dollar-for-dollar matching funds. As I recall, that is of the order of $20 million over three years. I would far prefer a solution to be found by the progress rural suite forming a separate foundation which will still attract some state money, some of which has been promised in the Government’s policy over and above the progress rural WA program but to seek private sector funding to fill in the balance. That could be successful. That program needs to be depoliticised. That program drew some heavy criticism in the rural sector, despite its success in many areas. It was funded from drought relief money. We now have a drought but no money to pay for its consequences. It was also seen as a political machination of the National Party.

DEPARTMENT OF CONTRACT AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES, REGIONAL CONTENT PREFERENCE POLICY 54. Hon GEORGE CASH to the Minister for Works and Services: I refer to the Department of Contract and Management Services’ regional content preference policy. (1) What is the current rate for materials and services, and is that rate goods and services tax exclusive? (2) What is the prescribed distance for participation in such a preference system? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I do not have the detail on those matters, but I will ensure the information is made available to the member.

GAMBLING ON THE INTERNET 55. Hon BARRY HOUSE to the Minister for Racing and Gaming: (1) Is the minister aware of proposals to ban gambling on the Internet and the potential of this measure to dramatically affect the racing industry? (2) What action does the minister intend to take to protect the average punter’s ability to place a bet with the Totalisator Agency Board over the Internet?

234 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 22 May 2001]

Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: (1)-(2) I am very much aware of the Howard Government’s ill-conceived proposition to ban gambling, including wagering on the Internet. Hon N.F. Moore: Do you support gambling on the Internet? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: Although the Western Australian Government does not want to see casino-type gambling proliferate in the community, it is opposed to the Howard Government’s proposed ban on wagering. I am aware of the damage that proposal would do to the TAB and to the operations of the Lotteries Commission. I trust the Howard Government will desist from its proposal. So far I have written to each Western Australian senator and I have raised the matter with the relevant federal minister, the federal Opposition and ministers in other Australian jurisdictions. I have raised the matter also with industry bodies and have asked them to raise the matter directly with Western Australians who represent us in Canberra. I raised the matter directly also with Senator Amanda Vanstone at a ministerial conference in Adelaide a few weeks ago. I understand that this Government’s action is similar to the action taken by the previous Government. Hon N.F. Moore: It is identical. FORESTRY POLICIES, EFFECT 56. Hon PETER FOSS to the Minister for Forestry and Fisheries: (1) Has the minister calculated the effect on state revenues of his Government’s decisions on forestry? I refer not only to old-growth forests but also to the locking up of regrowth forests in national parks. (2) Has he calculated the cost of packages necessary to assist people affected by his Government’s decisions on forestry? (3) Is the assistance being contemplated merely to assist people to depart from the industry or is some more positive assistance contemplated? (4) Where will the money come from to pay for these packages? (5) Has the minister progressed from his earlier answer to the timber industry that he did not have the faintest idea? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I know I should not answer a question with a question, but did I really say that? Hon Peter Foss: You did. Hon KIM CHANCE: I am pleased to provide an answer to that question, of which I did not receive any notice. (1)-(2) The effect on state revenue has been calculated. It could have been calculated in a number of ways. In gross terms the loss of stumpage could be calculated at about $12.5 million a year. Over a four-year program it will be approximately $50 million. Bearing in mind that is a gross figure, a number of offsetting issues will reduce that. I would be speculating if I tried to provide a net figure. However, in the spirit of answering the question I can advise that it will be in the order of $2.5 million to $3 million per annum. That is my best shot at answering a fairly complex question without notice. Hon Peter Foss: If you take the other amounts out, less money will be available to the public. Hon KIM CHANCE: It will be. The net sum is costed into our total financial consideration. It is fairly well understood that we had anticipated spending $57 million on the program, which includes the allocation of $15 million from the Commonwealth, which funding we understand to be assured within the package and have heard nothing to suggest that the Commonwealth will not come on board. (3) No. Two important components of the assistance package deal with departures; that is, the worker assistance package, which includes a suite of issues such as training and relocation, which are treated as departure issues; and, of course, the business exit assistance, which is also departure assistance. However, we have already seen an important component of the package work to some extent with both the Nannup Sawmill and Blueleaf Corporation Pty Ltd. Hon Peter Foss: Neither of which were started by you. Hon KIM CHANCE: I am happy to acknowledge that. Blueleaf Corporation was started and completed by the former Government. Nannup Sawmill was started by the former Government and completed by the current Government. They have provided an interesting model for the future. The Sotico Pty Ltd issue is an extension of that model. The investment attraction is an important component of the package, a component about which the Government is very enthusiastic. The more money we pump into the investment component of the package the less money will be required to be spent elsewhere. As the issue develops that will be obvious, particularly in Manjimup, with value adding flowing

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 22 May 2001] 235 from the Sotico decision. The most difficult thing about trying to calculate the quantum of the whole package - that is, with those two exit provisions and the investment attraction issue - is getting away from ring fencing the three components. Although we try to determine a set number for each component, every time one changes it has an impact on the other. That can be healthy, but Treasury insists we have fairly clear guidelines for each component. I think in practice they will be shown to be very flexible. Although Hon Peter Foss did not ask about the business exit allowance, it will be difficult, consequently, for me to tell the House exactly how much money has been allocated for the business exit allowance, for example. Hon Peter Foss: How much has been allocated and found overall? Hon KIM CHANCE: At this stage it is $57 million. Hon Peter Foss: Has it been allocated and approved by Cabinet? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. The question of whether it will be sufficient has been addressed by the Government, and I believe we can find more if it is needed. It is not our intention to bean count on this; we want to fulfil our objective and cause the least amount of pain to the south west communities as possible.

MINES PORTFOLIO, CORRECTION TO ANSWER Hon KIM CHANCE: I seek leave to make a statement to correct an earlier answer I gave. [Leave granted.] Hon KIM CHANCE: On Wednesday, 2 May this year I answered question without notice No 11 from the Leader of the Opposition in relation to the mines portfolio. I referred to the Government having established a parliamentary committee to inquire into and report on the effect of long working hours on the health, safety and wellbeing of employees in the mining industry rather than saying more correctly that the Government will ask Parliament to either establish a committee or refer the issue to an appropriate standing committee. I regret the error.

ADDRESS-IN-REPLY Motion Resumed from an earlier stage. HON N.F. MOORE (Mining and Pastoral - Leader of the Opposition) [5.40 pm]: I referred earlier to the confusion that exists about the transport portfolio. During question time today we noted that Hon Graham Giffard is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure and Hon Nick Griffiths is the minister representing the Minister Assisting the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. That is an example of the mess that has been created. Eyebrows opposite were raised when a question was asked of the Minister for Racing and Gaming. Members obviously thought it should have been asked of Hon Graham Giffard. It is a shambles. Again during question time, Hon Nick Griffiths did not tell members that the Government is forgoing $4 million in Totalisator Agency Board revenue. That figure is based on the estimates made available to me when I was minister. That amount would pay for one primary school. For the next four years - which the minister did not mention - that will equate to four primary schools. Members opposite talk about priorities! This money has been provided even though we are to have an inquiry into racing and gaming. Surely it would have been better to wait until after that inquiry had been completed before handing over more money. Four primary schools will not be provided because this Government has pursued the populist route and has given that money to the racing industry. I refer members to the promised royal commission into the Police Service. We have been told over the past eight years that there is significant corruption in the Police Service. The coalition Government made a mistake in not establishing a royal commission a week after gaining power. If it had, it would not have had to deal with the issues and would not have had the then Opposition claiming every week that such a royal commission should be established. Having promised such an inquiry during the election campaign and for four years prior to that, the Labor Government now wants to delay its establishment. I do not know for how long; perhaps a year or two. The Commissioner of Police is horrified because his officers will be waiting around for another year or two before the royal commission commences its inquiry. We have also been told that the inquiry’s terms of reference will limit it to investigating only the 10 years prior to the commencement of the inquiry. If it starts in a year, its terms of reference will cover one year of the Lawrence Government, eight years of the Court Government and one year of this Government. Hon Ken Travers: Are you nervous? Hon N.F. MOORE: No, I am not. It would be interesting to find out what went on during the Burke, Dowding and Lawrence Governments. Several members interjected.

236 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 22 May 2001]

Hon N.F. MOORE: It can go back for as long as the member wishes; I would be delighted to see that. The Government has limited the time frame to 10 years to ensure that events that occurred during the previous Labor Government’s term in office are not investigated. Reference was made in today’s The West Australian and on the radio this morning - Hon N.D. Griffiths: Not another newspaper speech! Hon N.F. MOORE: No, it is not. Reference was made to Stephen Wardle. Mr Wardle’s mother was interviewed by Liam Bartlett this morning and she wondered why her son’s death would not be part of the inquiry. I do not know why no inquiry has been conducted into his death. She pointed out that the 10-year limit would preclude investigation of his case. Ex-deputy commissioner Les Ayton was then interviewed and he said that, as far as he was concerned, the inquiry should pursue all issues that suggest a trail of corruption regardless of the time frame. That would be a far better approach. The 10-year limit is being imposed to avoid investigation of the activities that occurred during the Burke, Dowding and Lawrence Governments. The Minister for Health, a former police officer, may have an interest in this. Last weekend’s The Weekend Australian carried a photograph of the minister looking very unhappy. A story to the left of the photograph referred to the hospital inquiry blow-out. Interestingly - I do not know whether it was deliberate or an accident - beneath the photograph was an article reporting that the police royal commission has been put off. Liam Bartlett asked someone a few days ago whether government members are concerned about the former deputy police commissioner and now Minister for Health and the royal commission. The former Opposition was screaming for a royal commission into the Police Service every day of every week of every year of the coalition’s term in office. Those same members now have a very different attitude. The community view is that the Government is going soft on this issue because it has realised what the inquiry might discover. I am keenly looking forward to the royal commission to see what is scaring members opposite. A similar situation confronts us with the royal commission into the finance broking industry. Ian Temby, a former Western Australian Labor candidate, has been appointed to undertake the inquiry. Several members interjected. Hon N.F. MOORE: I ask members opposite to imagine what they would have said had the Court Government appointed a former Liberal candidate as a royal commissioner. Hon Peter Foss: He was the man who shafted Greiner and who was later found to be wrong. Hon N.F. MOORE: He has a good record. However, the Attorney General is now telling all those poor people who thought the Government had committed to paying them compensation that they should think again. What a dreadful thing to do! When in office, members on this side said that a Government should not pay compensation unless its instrumentalities were found to have acted improperly or illegally, in which case there may be a case for compensation. Hon Jim McGinty has spent the past four years, during which the Court Government was in office, giving everyone in Western Australia the impression that a Labor Government would pay compensation. Now that members opposite are in office they must tell the truth. There will be no compensation and they know that. Again, many people have been misled and - Hon N.D. Griffiths: Get your facts straight; it was three or four years. Hon N.F. MOORE: I will make it two years or two weeks. The fact is that he stood outside Doug Shave’s office playing to the television cameras and telling the finance brokers’ victims that a Labor Government would look after them. That was never true. Several members interjected. Hon N.F. MOORE: That is correct. I am told some people are very keen to let government members know what was said about compensation. The new ministry has 14 members. That is the greatest mistake this Government has made. It is another populist tactic. Members opposite think that move will provide better government. Some ministers cannot cope with their portfolio responsibilities. Some have reasonable portfolios, and Hon Nick Griffiths has the pick of the bunch. On the other hand, Hon Clive Brown is running almost every department that has anything to do with raising revenue in Western Australia. The minister is responsible for resources development, mines, commence and trade, tourism, the goldfields-Esperance region and small business. It is no wonder that he does not know whether he is coming or going. Hon N.D. Griffiths: He is doing a good job. Hon N.F. MOORE: Not that I have noticed. Several members interjected.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 22 May 2001] 237

Hon N.F. MOORE: I am paying attention. He made one decision that I was told about in answer to a question today. He has decided that the Miriuwung-Gajerrong decision will not apply in Western Australia. In other words, the law in respect of native title and pastoral leases is not being applied in Western Australia. He has made a decision to terminate the granting of leases. That is the law of Western Australia. Just because the Government thinks that the High Court might change it sometime down the track does not mean it can ignore it now. If people put in an application for a tenement under the Ward decision, they are entitled to have that tenement granted, because native title has been extinguished according to the law that now exists in Australia. However, that lot on the other side, who could not care less about the mining industry, and still does not even have a minister for mines - Hon Ken Travers: You are living in the past. Hon N.F. MOORE: No. There has been a minister for mines in Western Australia for the past 110 years - until now. Do members know what that says? It says that the Government could not care less about the mining community. It has forgotten it even exists. It also forgot that there was a tourism industry, because it forgot to appoint a Minister for Tourism as well. Two weeks after the Cabinet was announced, it had to reshuffle Cabinet to include a Minister for Tourism. I asked the Government the other day why it could not admit it made a mistake and that there was an oversight in terms of mines, and why it would not appoint a minister for mines. The populist Premier did not want to do that, obviously. The Government has sent the mining industry the message that it does not care what the industry is about, even though it is the biggest industry in Western Australia by a long shot. Hon Ken Travers: You are a dinosaur. Hon N.F. MOORE: We will soon find out about that. The Government has put the mining industry offside in the first 100 days. It has absolutely put the tourism industry out to pasture. It does not know to whom it should talk. The Government announced its Minister for Tourism two weeks after the first Cabinet was announced because it forgot about that industry. It has now shoved it under commerce and trade as part of the restructure of government portfolios. People do not know whether they are coming or going. Half the Tourism Commission has been given to another agency. The Tourism Commission is now not involved in trying to get tourism development in Western Australia; it is all about trying to get people to come here. It is just a marketing organisation. The Government is causing havoc because its minister has too much on his plate. By taking the populist line of having 14 ministers instead of 17, it has put an enormous burden on its ministers. They will wear out in five minutes; they will not be able to cope. What the Labor Party will do is exactly what it did when last in government. It brought in advisers, straight out of the Labor Party and straight into the ministerial offices, who then gave us WA Inc. Hon Peter Foss: They are mini-ministers. Hon N.F. MOORE: That is exactly right, because the ministers cannot cope. The Government is better off with public servants who know what is going on and with less onerous responsibilities on ministers. It works better and the Government will be sorry in due course. I do not know how that decision got through Caucus. Obviously, it got through Caucus in the same way as that business about crime, which Julian Grill exposed during the election campaign. Did Caucus not make these decisions based on the fact that they would never stick after the election? Was that not on law and order? I think it was, and you, Mr President, would remember as well as I. The Government has 14 ministers and, quite frankly, some of them have workloads that are too onerous. It is as simple as that. I know because I have been there and done that. When Hon Ed Dermer has done that, and if he thinks I am wrong, he can tell me so. Two ministers are involved in supporting and assisting industry - Hon Clive Brown and the Leader of the House. The other 12 ministers are spenders or, in the case of Hon Nick Griffiths, organise how the spending is done. I do not believe this Cabinet will be able to deliver the goods, and we will go down the path we went down before in which political advisers run ministers and their offices. That is a recipe for disaster. There is also the great code of conduct that came out as a result of one of the Government’s ministers getting into trouble very early in the piece. However, there are no consequences of the code of conduct. It just means that if members tell lies more than two or three times, and get caught of course, they will be thrown out. The machinery of government review is a good idea. Every now and again one needs to look at the structure of government in Western Australia. I think some good ideas have come out of what I have seen of it. I take a fairly serious interest in the administration of government. However, members should not believe for one minute that superministries will solve any of their problems; in fact, it creates problems for them. The Government will finish up with one chief executive officer covering about seven different departments and not knowing anything about six of them. As a result, more people will need to be appointed to head those subdepartments. After a while a new layer of administration will be created over the top of what existed before. That is what happened in Victoria, and it will happen here if the Government is not careful. I will wait to see how this works and until I see the final report of the review before I make any final comments. I said - Hon Nick Griffiths might take this into account - that the Totalisator Agency Board and the Lotteries Commission are being put under Treasury. That worries me because Treasury is avaricious. All it wants is to get money from people, whether it is taxpayers, agencies or people paying fees. The TAB and the Lotteries Commission make a lot of money for the Government. One of the good things about those departments is that

238 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 22 May 2001] they are at arm’s length from Treasury. Treasury cannot just grab their money because of the way they are structured. Putting those departments under treasury and finance - Hon N.D. Griffiths: I think you should wait and see what happens. Hon N.F. MOORE: I will. I know that Hon Nick Griffiths is a sensible person and I expect he will come up with a sensible solution. I worry about those two departments because they are cash cows on which Treasury would love to get its hands. Hon Peter Foss: I would be scared about money going the other way, like it did under the Burke Government when it gambled all the money away. Hon N.F. MOORE: That is true. Part of the review of the machinery of government report is the idea that it will get rid of a big stack of CEOs. Maybe there are too many CEOs. I do not know what is the right number of CEOs. All I know is that the right number will ensure the right level of support and service is provided to the community effectively and efficiently. At times there might be too many and at other times there might not be enough. One thing I do know is that when a Government gets rid of 30, 40 or 60 CEOs, it is getting rid of an enormous amount of expertise, experience, knowledge and understanding of the system. Hon Ken Travers: Will you increase the number of CEOs next time you get into government? Is that a promise? Hon N.F. MOORE: The Government cannot cope. It will get rid of them now and replace them with political appointments. That is what the Labor Party did last time. When Brian Burke was Premier, he said that he had politicised the public service so much it would take the next Government 10 years to get rid of public servants. We did not get rid of them; we could not. That is what happened last time and it will happen again. I can see it now; the Government will shove out all the apolitical, hardworking CEOs in the public service. Before I became a minister, I was a critic of public servants. I thought they did not work hard enough and spent a lot of time drinking cups of tea until I started working with them. The public service of Western Australia is incredibly good. Its expertise and capacity is fantastic. Some of the CEOs are absolutely brilliant, and the Government is going to shove a heap of them out the door. That is a waste of talent and expertise. As I said before, the Government will have to fill those positions down the track when it finds it cannot cope. It will bring in its ALP supporters who politicised the public service and we will go down the WA Inc path again. Another area of this review is education. When I was Minister for Education I made a deliberate decision to split the then Ministry of Education. It was one big conglomerate of an organisation, and the person at the top knew about one- quarter of what was going on among all the different organisations. Private schools were part of the Ministry of Education, so the government education system was telling the private education system how much money it could have. Of course, it was giving private schools very little because they were competing with each other. We broke it into different parts. The Curriculum Council was a separate organisation that ran curriculums. The Education Department runs government schools and the Office of Non-Government Education, or educational services, was set up to do specific jobs. If the minister cannot meet with each of those CEOs on a regular basis and understand what they are doing without having someone over the top, he is not doing his job. Hon E.R.J. Dermer: Why was that portfolio taken from you? Hon N.F. MOORE: Hon Ed Dermer can speculate all he likes. I thought I did a good job, but that is a matter of opinion. However, we all have our ups and downs. I have had more ups than downs. When I look at my political career, I realise I am on the positive side at the moment, which is more than I can say for Hon Ed Dermer. The review of government is a good thing. It needs to be done and I congratulate the Government for doing it. I will reserve my judgment about the end result until I see the final configuration of it. I say to ministers and to members opposite that there is no point in creating burdens for themselves that they cannot manage, because then they cannot govern properly; they do not have time. Being a minister is a very burdensome business. It is very onerous. Ministers work long hours, make lots of decisions and get no time for rest. If they have too much to do, they do not do it properly. The Government should not try to use the populist line of getting rid of people and thinking that it will make for good government, because it will not. The question of electoral reform is now on the agenda. Sitting suspended from 6.00 to 7.30 pm Hon N.F. MOORE: Before the dinner suspension I spoke about the Government’s intention to change the electoral system in Western Australia. The Minister for Electoral Affairs has already made a number of proposals that the upper House should be changed. There have been several different versions of how it should be restructured. I can understand the Labor Party arguing for one vote, one value; it always has. I cannot think why its members feel that it is so necessary in the Legislative Council. The Senate, which is the equivalent in the federal Parliament, is nowhere near one vote, one value; in fact, the number of constituents that each member represents is quite lopsided because every State is represented by the same number of senators. I have not heard the Labor Party suggest one vote, one value in the Senate but, for obvious political reasons, the Labor Party is arguing that it should apply in this House. I have seen some

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 22 May 2001] 239 of the figures. We might as well get a telephone box in which to hold our party meetings if the Labor Party achieves its objectives. During the election the Liberal Party did some research on the one vote, one value question. If there were one vote, one value in both Houses, it is estimated that approximately 16 seats would be moved out of the country into the city. That is a very significant change in the way in which the electoral system operates in Western Australia. If the Labor Party tells the country people of Western Australia that it wants to take away 16 country seats and move them into the city, I suspect it will be roundly criticised in regional and rural Western Australia. It is interesting that when this was talked about during the election process, the new member for Eyre, who had taken the Labor Party to task on native title issues during the election campaign, said that he would not vote for one vote, one value in a fit. He worked out that his seat would be combined with Kalgoorlie and that the people in that area did not want it. I just wonder what his position will be in the caucus room when he says that he will not support it. I will be corrected if I am wrong, but I think the rules are that he must go somewhere else. It will be interesting to see whether Mr Bowler is prepared to stand by what he said during the election campaign to get himself elected, what he says now that he is a member of Parliament and whether he continues to have the same view about one vote, one value. I will not say any more about that now because I suspect we will be talking about electoral matters for quite a long time during the next four years. One can only hope that the Labor Party is not successful in gutting country representation in Western Australia in both Houses. I want to make a few comments about the convention-exhibition centre and the soccer stadium. I do not very often agree with Kevin Reynolds, as members will appreciate, but he made a comment the other day which I thought was absolutely spot-on when he asked the Government why it is not pushing to get this project going. As he quite rightly said, and as I have said on countless occasions, thousands of jobs are involved in the construction and operation of the convention-exhibition centre and the soccer stadium. We will never get a better deal for this State than that which is now available. If this contract falls over, we shall still need a convention-exhibition centre. We shall eventually do what every other city has had to do; that is, pay for it out of taxpayers’ money because the Government will have to pay the whole lot. The Government has a contract with Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd, subject to finance, that will produce a $40 million stadium for $10 million. That is almost unique. In most parts of the world stadiums are built only with taxpayers’ money. If the Government cannot make the contracts stack up and move the projects forward, the taxpayers of Western Australia will be up for many hundreds of millions of dollars because we will need the facilities anyway. I support Kevin Reynolds on this, and I hope the Government takes note of what he has had to say because he is quite right about jobs. When the previous Government was going through the process of entering into the contract for the convention-exhibition centre, Tony Cooke also publicly supported the project because he said that it was good for jobs in Western Australia and good for his members, which is important. I am not sure anymore which minister is responsible for the convention-exhibition centre and the stadium. It used to be the Minister for Tourism, but, as I said earlier, the Minister for Tourism is overwhelmed with everything else he must do. The Government is splitting the role of the Western Australian Tourism Commission. Whichever minister is responsible must take hold of the matter and say that the Government wants to make it work. The ministers should be as tough as they like with Multiplex because it is a very tough operator and negotiator. If there is a genuine reason for the extension - I do not know the reason because I have not seen the request for an extension - the Government should have given it to Multiplex, even for another month or two, to make the project work. The Government will never get a better offer than the one on the table now. I hope that the responsible minister will take hold of this, get together with Multiplex and make it happen. It is extraordinary that Perth Glory has indicated that it wants to walk away from the stadium and go to Leederville Oval, but still wants $8 million of the Government’s money to develop Leederville Oval for a total of $12 million. I do not know what it will get for $12 million, when a $40 million stadium is pretty fundamental and not a lavish new stadium at all when compared with, say, the Colonial Stadium, which cost $300 million. In my view, a $12 million stadium at Leederville Oval would provide temporary seats and a very average amenity for people to watch soccer. I would be very interested to know what the Government’s position is on this, because until now the Government has publicly said the right thing; that is, it has a contract with Multiplex and therefore will not enter into negotiations with Perth Glory or the Town of Vincent on this issue. However, there are some suggestions that the minister has had meetings with those people about the matter. I do not know whether that is right or not. The matter needs to be sorted out. Somebody needs to take charge of it, bring the parties together, bang their heads together very hard and tell them it has reached the stage at which this can be made to work and they must make it happen. In respect of our populist Premier, I refer to the position of the Agent General in London. It was recently announced that a public servant will become the next Agent General in London. By extension, somehow or other the argument is that members of Parliament really are not suited for appointment as the Agent General in London. That is absolutely absurd. Of the past three, for example, Hon Clive Griffiths has been a superb Agent General. He has brought his political knowledge plus his knowledge of business to the corridors of power in London and in Europe. He has been very good for Western Australian trade and commerce. His political understanding has been very useful for that. The Agent General prior to Hon Clive Griffiths was Hon Bill Hassell, who was a very good Agent General with a different

240 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 22 May 2001] style from that of Hon Clive Griffiths. The Agent General before Hon Bill Hassell was Hon Ron Davies, who was a former leader of the Labor Party and also an excellent Agent General. The knowledge and experience people gain in politics are very important for the role of Agent General. The Premier is suggesting that politicians are just not good enough to have the job and that it must be given to public servants or somebody else. That is demeaning to members of Parliament. It is hard enough as it is to get the media to at least reflect on the sort of work we do and to treat us somewhat differently from used-car salesmen and journalists, who are at about the same level of popularity as politicians in the scheme of things, without the Premier saying that politicians are not suited to the role of Agent General in London. The situation with members’ travel is similar. A member applied to use his imprest account to travel to learn about his shadow portfolio, and he was criticised up hill and down dale for doing it. What is the point of providing funds for travel if people are not allowed to travel? The Premier, populist again, jumped on the bandwagon and said that because the member did not tell the Parliament where he went and whom he met every day of the week, the rules would have to be changed. Somehow or other, the Speaker is now saying that maybe he should decide who travels where and when, and whether they should or should not be allowed to do so. I am pleased that the Speaker has made a decision to bring Assembly committees into line with Council committees, whereby committee members must say in advance where they are going. However, I must say to the Speaker that that will not make any difference to what the Press reports. The Press does not think members should travel anywhere. As we live in the most isolated part of the world, members should travel regularly - it should be compulsory that we travel frequently. However, the Premier, who jumps on the bandwagon, has said that we should tighten the rules and stop members travelling. The Premier is the person who approves or disapproves applications for travel. If he thinks something is wrong with the system, he will not approve an application. I think Hon Peter Foss’s travel was approved by the Premier. Then when the Press did not like it, Dr Gallop took the populist line again, jumped on the bandwagon and said the rules must be tightened. I have heard about 50 times since I have been in Parliament that we must tighten the rules because the Press does not like members of Parliament travelling. If we keep criticising ourselves on these matters, it is more grist to the mill for the media and more denigration for members of Parliament as a group of people. It suggests that members of Parliament are not capable to spending taxpayers’ money properly, and that is an insult to members of Parliament. Hon Peter Foss: Indeed, I thought it was quite appropriate for the Premier to visit Tony Blair. Hon N.F. MOORE: Yes. He obviously learnt something. Perhaps the Premier might have to help Tony Blair now because he is facing an election. I will comment quickly on the Centenary of Federation celebrations. Of course, that was not an occasion for celebration for secessionists. I do not think there is much to celebrate regarding our Federation bearing in mind the way in which the Commonwealth has grown at the expense of the States, and now that the Labor Party is in government, it will argue the same thing for the next four years. However, I enjoyed going to Melbourne for the occasion. It was important for members to be able to attend that. Again, we were criticised for going there at taxpayers’ expense, but it is important that members attend these historic occasions. It was interesting how politically correct the celebration function was. There was constant recognition of the Aboriginal traditional owners at the beginning of most speeches. Hon Barry House: About a dozen times. Hon N.F. MOORE: Yes. We heard about reconciliation every time somebody opened their mouth. Women’s rights and issues were a recurring theme throughout the day. We heard about republicanism and multiculturalism. All the politically correct issues were to the fore in all the speeches. Regrettably, the young lady who made the last speech was not talking on behalf of the young people whom I know. She was repeating what adults had said, and I think she was reflecting that more than what young people in Australia are saying. However, she spoke very well, and I am not being critical in that sense. It was interesting that much was said about Alfred Deakin but nothing was said about Edmund Barton. Edmund Barton, our first Prime Minister, was the subject of a book written recently by Geoffrey Bolton. It is an excellent book that describes the significant contribution Barton made to Federation, and the job he did as Prime Minister and as a member of the High Court of Australia. To a large extent we have underestimated Barton and spent a lot of time talking about Alfred Deakin as the great force for Federation in the early federal Parliament. I suppose that Deakin’s being a Victorian was one of the reasons we heard a lot about him, because it was a Victorian celebration, in Victoria, organised by the Victorian Government and monopolised by the Victorian Premier - a marvellous example of how one can use an occasion like that to promote oneself. I am not being critical - that is just how it happens in politics. I think the only person who mentioned Edmund Barton in his speech was John Howard, the Prime Minister, but of course he is from New South Wales, as was Barton, so I guess that comes into the situation as well. It was also disappointing that no Western Australians - Graham Edwards made this comment - were considered good enough to be acknowledged as Australians worthy of recognition on such an important occasion. It was an interesting

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 22 May 2001] 241 experience and I am pleased I went. However, I am a little concerned about the direction in which some people think this country should go in the next 100 years of Federation. Having been Minister for Mines and the opposition spokesperson on mines, I will talk briefly about the mining industry before I conclude. As I said earlier, the mining industry is being ignored by the Government. I guess that is epitomised by its failure to appoint a minister for mines. One issue that is a threat is the new policy of no mining in national parks or nature reserves, whatever that means. I am interested to know what that policy will entail and what will happen to existing tenements in nature reserves or in national parks. At the moment, approval from Parliament is required for mining in a national park. That seems to be a pretty good way of doing business. I understand that under the Labor Party’s policy, no mining will be allowed in either national parks or nature reserves under any circumstances. That is a silly policy, because some parts of national parks could be mined until the cows come home in exchange for areas outside national parks. The Labor Partydid that while in office some years ago - I think it was the Rudall River National Park. The attitude to native title is a very naive approach. The price of negotiation has now doubled. People out in the sticks have told me that if someone wants a negotiated settlement of a native title claim, the price is now twice as high as it used to be. I was told today, in answer to a question about the Ward decision on the Miriuwung-Gajerrong claim, that the Government is not operating under the law by granting tenements as determined in the Ward decision. Also in answer to a question today, the Labor Party talked about setting up a land and environment court. Again, this is absolute disaster stuff for industry. Some members may not be aware of the situation of Iluka Resources at Mundijong. A lot of nonsense was talked about that during the election campaign. The Warden’s Court is seen as a place in which people can talk about social and environmental issues and in which decisions are made by the warden. However, in my humble judgment, his role is to make decisions about the correctness or otherwise of the marking out of a tenement, and the environmental issues should be considered only when a proposal for mining is put forward. If the land and environment court and the warden make decisions about mining before a tenement is granted and before a mining proposal is put forward, the downturn in the mining industry will be significant. New industrial relations legislation is also proposed that will impact severely on the mining industry, which survived in the past eight years only by virtue of our industrial relations policies. That industry has gone through a very tough time. Significant cost cutting and significant improvements in productivity have been brought about by our industrial relations system. I am pleased that the Mines Occupational Safety and Health Advisory Board has not been joined to WorkSafe under the new structure of government, but I have been told that that is very much light-on-the-hill stuff for the union movement. It would be a significant backward step if responsibility for safety in the mining industry were taken from the Department of Minerals and Energy and put into WorkSafe. However, that is what the unions want and that is what the last Labor Government sought to do. As an aside, I add that Carmen Lawrence gave the then Trades and Labor Council of WA $60 000 about three weeks before the election she lost to assist the TLC to take over safety in the mining industry. It never gave it back, even though the roles were not swapped over. There is also a standing order which refers to state agreement Acts being sent to committees of this House. That has the potential to impact significantly on the mining industry. However, we will talk about that when we deal with that change to the standing orders. The situation the mining industry faces at the moment causes great alarm. I guess the tragedy of recent political history is that the only people in the Labor Party who knew anything about the mining industry - that is, Julian Grill and Mark Nevill - have both left politics, and also Mark Nevill has left the Labor Party. I am not sure whether Mr Grill has left the Labor Party, but I suspect many would wish he had if he has not already. Hon Peter Foss: The other thing they have done, which not many people are aware of, is change the grounds for assistance to appeal to the High Court, and they threw away the best argument. Hon N.F. MOORE: That is exactly right. We can see a scenario developing, with the Greens (WA) having the balance of power in this place, in which the mining industry, which is the cornerstone of our economy, will be facing pretty tough times. We accept the verdict of the electorate. It has tossed us out in no uncertain terms. We have to prove ourselves worthy of being re-elected in four years time. The way this Government is going at this time, it is on the cards that members opposite will be one-termers. As a Government we achieved a great deal in many areas. History will record that it was a good Government, provided that historians do not use The West Australian as their primary source of information, because for most of the past eight years it got things wrong on a regular basis. I pay tribute to Richard Court as our Premier. He had a hard act to follow when he came into politics - a very successful father, who had also been the Premier. Richard Court was a very good Premier for Western Australia. He had the interest of the State and its people at heart, and many good things were done during his eight years as Premier. If Richard Court has a fault it is that he is prepared to give everybody a fair go rather than jumping on a populist bandwagon and sacking people here and there just because the Press say he should. That is

242 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 22 May 2001] an admirable trait, and one I hope the new Premier takes on board. Richard Court can be proud of the contribution that he made to politics in Western Australia. I am sad that he has decided to leave politics. However, he is doing it for number of reasons, including wanting to spend some time with his family. Of course, being Premier takes one away from one’s family on a regular basis. I look forward to the next four years and to ensuring that the Government delivers what it says it will deliver. We want to ensure that we do not go down the path the Labor Party took us down when Burke, Dowding and Lawrence were Premiers. We want to ensure the Labor Government delivers what it promised it would deliver. At the same time, if it turns out that the Government cannot afford that, we will ensure it explains why it cannot afford it, and how it will pay for what it will do. That will be the great challenge that the Labor Party faces in having made significant and expensive promises to the electorate. The Labor Government will have a conundrum that the cost of delivering on those promises may be more than the State can afford. If it has to cut out $1.2 billion worth of expenditure in order to cater for the new initiatives it will bring in, it will be hard work. I look forward with great interest to the next budget knowing that traditionally Labor Governments are great spenders, good borrowers and very good at pork-barrelling their way through the political scenario. We work on the basis that people deserve a good Government and it is our job to ensure that the Government in power is a good Government. I hope it is, because the people of Western Australia deserve it. His Excellency, Lieutenant General John Sanderson, who has become our Governor in recent times, has carried on the fine work of his predecessor Major General Michael Jeffery. The new Governor is a very approachable and generous person, and his wife is the same. I have had a lot of pleasure in working with them on a number of occasions. I thank him for delivering the speech on behalf of the Government to the Legislative Council and I look forward to the next four years. HON SUE ELLERY (South Metropolitan) [7.52 pm]: Mr President, I apologise to you and to the House for my voice; it is not normally this croaky. Congratulations on your election this morning, Mr President. I noted that you received genuine and warm commendations from across the House, and I know that they are well deserved. I have had the pleasure of working with you in party forums for many years and I look forward to the Cowdell wit and wisdom dispensed from your new Chair. I support the motion that was moved by Hon Ken Travers. I am proud and excited to take this opportunity to introduce myself to the House, and to put on the record some comments on a range of public policy matters that are of particular importance to me. At the outset I want to thank the voters of the South Metropolitan Region for placing their faith in the Australian Labor Party and in me to represent the diversity of their interests. It is a responsibility that I take very seriously. I intend to repay their confidence by working hard to ensure that the commitments made during the election campaign are honoured. The Governor, in his speech, outlined the key areas in which this Government intends to deliver honest, accountable and inclusive government, prudent financial and economic management of the people’s resources, and social reform to deliver high quality public health and education, and to improve community safety and protect and sustain our environment. I look forward to playing my part in delivering on those commitments to Western Australians in this new phase of my career. I have spent my career to date working in politics and in the community sector, and in the past 12 years I have been privileged to serve the working people of Western Australia in the trade union movement. I have been lucky to work for a number of different unions covering a broad range of working people, including local government, registered nurses, Department of Conservation and Land Management workers, Main Roads workers and agricultural workers; and, for the past seven years, the members of the Australian Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union. “Miscellaneous” is not in that union’s title for nothing. During my time there, I worked with members in water and manufacturing, members employed as Aboriginal health workers in the community control sector and in government, and with members employed in child care, in disability services, in aged care, in private health and in the public health sector: The ALHMWU is at the forefront of major change within the trade union movement as it embraces the “organising focus” - a name given to the strategy that is based on empowering workers to take the union forward. It is a strategy that can just as easily be applied to community activism and the role that we as political leader ought play in empowering those in our community whose voices are not always heard. In essence, a checklist is applied to every activity undertaken. It includes the questions: Does this empower people; does it expand the base of leadership in the community; and does it build the political voice? These are questions I will be asking myself in the course of my term here to ensure that I remain true to the principles that brought me here. I know I bring the aspirations and the hopes of those union members with me. I know they are eagerly awaiting the changes to Western Australian industrial relations laws, in particular, that the Gallop Government was elected to deliver. Those industrial relations changes are critically important because the previous Government ripped away the safety net from WA workers. I have learned a lot from the union members that I have worked with, but one of the most inspiring times for many of us in the WA union movement was during the 1997 campaign to oppose what became known as the third wave of industrial relations legislative changes. Those legislative changes have since been judged by the people of Western Australia and by many others, including international bodies, to be grossly unfair. The role this House played in 1997 in getting those changes in place was not one of which it can be proud. However, sometimes out of adversity, the

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 22 May 2001] 243 human spirit can soar, and in the cooperation between sometimes rival unions, the political education and empowerment of ordinary workers, the greater understanding of the process of parliamentary democracy, the creative approach to campaigning, the huge numbers of Western Australians who marched on the streets to protest, the friendships formed and the food and entertainment shared on cold and rainy nights across the road at Solidarity Park, the courage of those who occupied part of Parliament House, and the unbridled joy on the night of the first workers’ embassy ball, our spirits did indeed soar. During that campaign, and many others less sensational than that campaign, I have been privileged to work with and learn from some wonderful mentors. I particularly acknowledge Helen Creed and Keith Peckham as union leaders who know that true leadership is as much about teaching and nurturing as it is about managing people and money and making tough decisions. In the broader Labor movement I have been mentored by many great women and I am pleased to see some of them here tonight. Pat Giles, a former Western Australian Senator and now a very busy activist at an international level, is a shining example of how to pursue feminist objectives with grace and dignity in a male- dominated Parliament. Cheryl Davenport never lost faith that I would get into Parliament. I am enormously proud to be her replacement in the South Metropolitan Region. Joan Kirner has motivated and no doubt will continue to motivate me and many other Labor women. For sheer grit and determination in the face of enormous pressure, Carmen Lawrence has also set an example. These five women, among whom I include Helen Creed, continue their commitment to encourage more women to become involved in politics. Over the past five years they have founded and developed the new Australian political organisation Emily’s List - I wear its brooch tonight - a financial and political support network for Labor women candidates. To date Emily’s List has assisted 54 new Labor women into Australian Parliaments, taking the total of Labor women nationally to 124. I am proud to be both a member of Emily’s List and one of those 124 women. I am very pleased to be one of five Labor women in the Legislative Council. Women in Western Australia have achieved a lot since the first woman, Ruby Hutchison, was elected to this place in 1954. However, there is much to be done, particularly in respect of pay equity. Nineteen sixty-nine saw the first win in the fight for equal pay for women. However, until real change happens in recognising that the value of the work done predominantly by women - for example in the caring and service industries - is worth at least as much as that done predominantly by men in, say, the manufacturing industries, we will not have pay equity. We should highly value the work of those who care for our children in child care centres and our elderly in residential aged care services. We put their welfare and indeed their very lives in the hands of those workers. However, if we regard the rates of pay as a measure of the value we place on their work, we will have a disparity. A child carer is paid $12.31 an hour, a carer in an aged care facility is paid $12.93 an hour, and a manufacturing worker first year out of apprenticeship earns $13.34 an hour. These are award rates of pay. The previous Government’s workplace agreements saw rates of pay drop in many industries in which women work, and the gap between earnings increase. This Government has already taken action to redress this by raising the minimum wage, and more change is to come. Labor was elected on the promise of a review into discrimination in the workplace, including in particular recommendations on ways to reduce the gender wage gap. One way of constantly reminding the players in industrial relations to pursue pay equity would be to enshrine that as one of the objects of the relevant industrial relations Act. I look forward to that happening. The Labor Party has not always historically been the voice of change for women. However, the modern Labor Party has done much while in government to improve the status of women. I know that the women in this new Government and others have high expectations in that regard. It used to be from the outside that the sisterhood was watching. Now that the numbers of the sisterhood inside the Parliament are growing, the sisterhood is among us, and Western Australian women will hold us accountable to deliver for them. Electoral reform, with particular regard to the role of this House, has long been Labor policy. The Labor Party went to the election with a public commitment to introduce one vote, one value legislation. In its report No 1 of August 1995, the Commission on Government made a number of important recommendations on the role of this place, which we have an obligation to pursue. Among them was that the electoral system for the Legislative Council ought to be changed if the Council is to properly perform the functions of a House of Review. However, to my mind the question remains: at the beginning of the twenty-first century, particularly as we celebrate 100 years of development and finetuning of the Australian version of parliamentary democracy, do we still need a House of Review? We have in place three tiers of government and many checks and balances. In any event, checks and balances can be applied genuinely only in the absence of partisan behaviour. In the debate in this place in 1997 about the industrial relations legislation, the House did not provide an independent review. A calculated partisan decision was made. If we put aside the merits or otherwise of the legislation in my example, the Legislative Council duplicated the role of the other place in that instance. I do not believe that is what the people of Western Australia wanted. The question becomes all the more pressing when the system of electing this House of Review is weighted very unevenly against the majority of the population. In preparing this speech, I read a number of first speeches from the past. I was fascinated to read in the first speech of Hon Ruby Hutchison, or Red Ruby as she was known, her call for electoral reform to recognise, and I quote -

244 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 22 May 2001]

. . . the fact that the people have given a decided answer that democracy has reached the stage where we can expect to attain fair and just representation in both the halls of Legislature in this State. That was in 1954. I look forward to real change in the electoral system arising from the current round of negotiations. I acknowledge the role of my family in getting me to this point. At the outset I must make a confession to you, Mr President, and my comrades on this side: it is as a result of the politics of the other side that I am here at all. My parents met at a Young Libs function in 1959. I have now “fessed up”. Political discussion was always a part of the household as I grew up. I come from an extended family of very strongly opinionated folk, some of whom sadly are no longer with us. However, I thank them for respecting the rigours of debating. They rarely agreed with the views I held, but I was encouraged to hold my own in an argument. I did not get my brand of politics from my family, but I got a commitment to involvement in political matters. It is only as I have matured that I have realised the invaluable lessons taught me through the process of argument around the family table. As a seething adolescent I remember looking on these loud and often alcohol-fuelled arguments as grossly embarrassing. It later dawned on me that they were teaching me to play a role in public policy. They were also teaching me about the effects of alcohol, but that is another story. I was taught that I should have views about important social questions of the day, that I should learn how to properly articulate them and that I should act on them. I was privileged in that sense and I recognise that the opportunities I was given are not afforded to many. Still on my family, in January 1994 my mother was involved in a very serious car accident, which changed all of our lives forever. As a result of that accident we have experienced the frustrations and the mind-numbing exhaustion of working our way through the disability and health systems. We have also met and formed relationships with some fantastic carers and service providers. However, it takes a very resourceful and focused effort to survive the process. Unfortunately, it also takes money. Very many Western Australians will have had an even worse experience than my family had. Western Australians with disabilities deserve better. I am pleased to be part of a Gallop Government that is committed to significantly improving services for people with disabilities and their families. From my experience I know that Western Australian families supporting a family member with a disability need much greater coordination of services. Families continuing to work and provide care in the home rather than in an institution should not have to run around among a range of community agencies and government departments trying to work out which of those services meet their needs and how they can fit into their assessment criteria, all the while dealing with the consequences and the emotional aftermath of a traumatic accident. I am proud to be part of the Australian Labor Party for many reasons, but one of those is that we have a strong history of caring for people and of making real social change. I want to see the Government build upon the important changes made in the disability area under the last Labor Government. It is also important that real change in this area is not held up by arguments between State and Commonwealth Governments about how funds are to be allocated. I am pleased that the Gallop Government supports more flexibility in funding arrangements rather than an ideological commitment to impose a competitive tendering regime. In the human services area, competitive tendering has not resulted in better service delivery to those who desperately need it. In disability services, for example, pitting longstanding agencies that have built holistic services around target group needs against newcomer organisations that crunch the numbers to provide a basic service has not had a positive outcome. Competitive tendering for those agencies already operating on shoestring budgets forces down the wages of employees and reduces the range of services available from each agency. As a result, the users have even more running around to do because they must go to more agencies to get the services they need. Labor’s commitment to initiatives that recognise the role of carers and to review and improve services for those carers who want to stay in paid employment is long overdue. I look forward to playing my part in implementing those initiatives. Equally, the improved coordination and flexibility of respite services promised by this Government is critically important to many Western Australians. Finally, I acknowledge my partner, Peter, who put up with all the craziness that goes with someone aspiring to be elected to this place. We have an interesting time ahead of us, not the least because of the hours we work. Peter is a shiftworker, and his hours and mine in this place will make life interesting. We will probably never see each other. However, we are looking forward to the journey ahead. As a new member of Parliament I look forward to working with my colleagues in this place to deliver honest and inclusive government. [Applause.] HON JON FORD (Mining and Pastoral) [8.13 pm]: I, too, congratulate you, Mr President, on your recent election and look forward to the next four years working under your instruction and guidance. I acknowledge the Nyoongah people on whose traditional lands I stand. I stand in this place, not as a great statesman or a master orator, but as a common man with common ideals and common virtues. I believe I have been blessed with an extraordinary passion for social justice and equity.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 22 May 2001] 245

In my speech I will address a number of issues that I believe will give my colleagues in this place an insight into the way I view the world and why I find myself standing here now. Perhaps in future I will reflect on this time and measure my views against this record. I have not completed an in-depth statistical analysis, nor have I carried out extensive interviews; I have merely reflected on my life over the years and tried to compile an intelligible account of conversations, flickering memories and deep-rooted staples of my character. All members are aware of the cynicism and angst directed at Parliament and those of us who are privileged to serve here. I believe that this is the result of a perception - right or wrong - that we as individuals are collectively self-serving and in a practical sense add little value to the general population’s day-to-day life. In general, we are perceived to behave badly. What defence can we offer to address the perceptions of the blind man I met in Halls Creek the other day sitting in the dust without shelter or water while we debate the location of an entertainment centre? Are we relevant to a young couple deciding which bill will not be paid this month as we argue about whether the behaviour of a member of Parliament is acceptable? Is a young girl who has been sacked from her shop assistant job because she has turned 18 years of age interested in how many hours a week we work? Of course, the answer is no. What can we do to turn these perceptions around and to ensure that this place receives the respect it needs to be effective in carrying out the people’s will? Do we gag the Press? I am sure many of those who have frequented these corridors, rooms and Chambers over the years have fantasised about the possibility. However, the press reports are about our debates and actions, so the journalists are not to blame, nor is ignorance of political processes. We are not misunderstood. We are the masters of our own destiny. We are judged by our actions, not our words. We must listen to our constituents. We must show empathy and act accordingly. We must be measured in our debates. We must examine relevance and what value can be added to our constituents’ lives before we emotively attack each other. Although we have high office, we are still human and must acknowledge the frailties of human nature. We must respect and accept each other. We must debate the issue and not the individual. If we cannot manage these simple things, how can we expect others to respect this place? The old adage “respect is earned not given” has never been more relevant to us in this place. If we fail in restoring faith and trust in this Parliament, Western Australians will suffer and history will hold us all accountable. I will address some issues surrounding those forces that attempt to balance social development and material gain. History shows that over the centuries, in an economic sense, there has always been those who have and those who have not. Many different techniques have been used and developed for those on each side of the fence to try to exert influence to gain some advantage over opposing groups. Some of those methods have been novel and some have been extreme. The French Revolution is an example of an effective method of influence of the have-nots over the haves - the guillotine was a great arbiter. The exploitation of slaves in the Americas at the turn of the twentieth century was an effective way of the haves getting it over the have-nots and keeping the hourly rates down. There have been wars, battles and massacres, but thankfully in recent times Australians have been generally spared these extremes. However, many Australians now choose to battle out their class differences through collective actions. Trade unions have played a significant role in representing the have-nots of this country, and still do. The Eureka stockade, the moratorium marches of the 1970s and the Aboriginal tent embassy protests in Canberra have a common thread; that is, they involved a group of people who put their individual views and personal ambitions aside to form a single voice to increase their chances of success. Over time, some endeavours failed and some were successful. All would have failed without collectivism. Nations recognise the advantages of collective bargaining. Small nations form temporary alliances and unions to be heard and to be effective for the people they represent. As a collective they pool their resources to influence greater nations that require their votes for their own agenda. The struggles continue between the haves and have-nots, the just causes and the injustices of life. As I stated, trade unions have played a significant role in maintaining the balance between those who are powerful and those who, as individuals, are weak. Despite being portrayed from time to time in the media and by employer groups and conservative zealots as corrupt bullyboys hell-bent on removing the individual’s right to deal fairly with benevolent employers, unions are good. Not only are they good, history has proved that they are essential to developing a fair and just society. I ask members to imagine how Sydney Harbour would have looked to the world during the Olympics if the 1970s green bans imposed on harbour-side development by the Builders Labourers Federation had not been successful. How much more work would have been lost overseas if not for the constant vigilance and action of the union movement in Western Australia? No matter what their detractors say, unions are as entrenched in Australian culture as football, Holden cars and meat pies. Australians have taken great pride in the ethos of mateship, a fair go and a classless society. Whether that is true today or has ever been, and to what extent, continues to be debated from time to time. Nevertheless, these values have played a great part in the development of our collective psyche. Unfortunately, they are increasingly pushed aside in the charge to embrace material value and economic rationalism. How does user-pays fit with mateship? How does making an unemployed person who is five minutes late for an assessment at Centrelink wait another week for his or her next appointment fit with a fair go? How does reducing public funding of legal aid fit with the notion of a classless society? Unions are portrayed from time to time as self-

246 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 22 May 2001] serving, antisocial organisations. I have been a proud and active member of the union movement continuously since I left the Royal Australian Air Force in 1981, and I expect that I will remain a member until my retirement and beyond. My own experience has been far from undemocratic. I joined the union because my mates were members. I joined because, as an individual, I felt powerless against the boardrooms and faceless men who occupied them. I joined and remained a member because I wanted the same opportunities afforded me to be available to my children and their children. Not once have I felt coerced to act against my will or intimidated by union officials. There have been times when I was not happy with the outcome of a vote or a direction of the union, but that is democracy. I have had to live with decisions I did not like of the last Government for eight years, but I accept that this is democracy. The fact is that, while working on the tools as a blue-collar worker, as a member of my union I felt empowered and secure in my job. In recent years I have witnessed the adverse effects on my work colleagues and other company employees who have been coerced and bribed out of collective agreements. For those people who have accepted the cash inducements of their employers, it has not taken long for the initial euphoria to wear off. In many cases these individuals quickly suffer insecurity and stress at work and at home, as well as being alienated from their communities, despite the good bank balance. During the lead-up to the last election, a miner lamented to me that he had not seen his best mate socially since he had gone to an individual workplace agreement because they had been placed on opposing 12-hour shifts and their days off did not align for about 18 months. I witnessed communities bitterly divided because the tactics of divide and conquer by the town’s major employer were trying to force workers away from agreements that had served both parties well for many years. Families and friends of many years have been torn apart, and to what end? This company makes a healthy profit, but not enough, it seems, as the shareholders enjoy from the company down the road. It is not just the worker-employer relationships that have suffered from this unchecked drive for material wealth. Recently I met a man who runs his own medium-sized engineering construction maintenance business. He lamented to me about the good old days in the 1970s and early 1980s when, in his view, business in the resource sector was based on the ethos of “as long as everybody made a quid, everyone was happy”. However, now he was glad he was retiring, because he had seen many small businesses go broke because now the major companies just screwed people to the wall. He told of profit margins that were so tight that he could just pay his wages but did not have the capital capacity to see out the hard times, carry out research and development or expand so as to compete with the larger companies. He was worried about the future of his employees, because once he left he could not imagine anyone buying his business because no-one would want to work the hours he was now forced to do. This is a great example of the difference between an individual’s outlook on the world and that of a faceless corporate executive. They are as different as chalk and cheese. On the whole, the employee is happy if he or she can pay the bills, go out to dinner from time to time and pay off the mortgage. The contractor is happy as long as everyone can make a quid. This is reflected in his attitude towards his employees, himself and the major companies. The corporation is there not to supply service, to supply goods, to maintain a family, nor to achieve a lifestyle; the corporation exists purely to create wealth for its owners and shareholders. I am not implying that corporations, companies, their executives and their owners are antisocial; I am trying to show that they are driven by different priorities and agendas from those of ordinary Australians. With few exceptions, large corporations act only in the interests of making money. I believe this is one of the core reasons that self-regulation so often fails or is ineffective. This is why people die at work. In mining, my experience has consistently shown that when capital flow is low, the first things to suffer are the so-called “soft” issues such as safety and job security, along with maintenance. In the early 1980s I witnessed times when I believed companies would even manipulate issues that would inevitably cause a strike, and when the stockpiles decreased, the issue would suddenly be resolved. One year it was so predictable we took bets on when the trouble would start based purely on the predictions of the ore stockpile levels. Why do we hear arguments from employer representatives, even in years of record profits, that there will be job losses every time the unions have some success in the arbitration commission for an increase in the minimum wage? The answer is simply that corporations are not willing to decrease profits, so jobs are lost or not replaced to feed the unchecked and growing fervour and desire for capital. I do not begrudge corporations or companies making money. I recognise that nations, Governments and healthy economies need free trade and businesses that can make sound profits. The fact that a profitable company has the capacity to grow feeds other businesses and, indeed, in the end feeds the people. In my electorate the perception of the constituency is that during the resource booms of the late 1960s and 1970s, when the north west of this State was opened up at an unprecedented rate, along with the biggest local township infrastructure investment that has ever been witnessed since the gold rush era, the social investment was forced upon the companies as part of the agreements signed by them and the Western Australia Government of the day. I do not know whether that is true, but that is the perception. The perception now is that the resource towns have diminished, communities are struggling and government services have dwindled while the Governments of the day reap the royalties and the resource companies’ investment in the communities is reduced to small donations for local sporting clubs and community groups. Why does this perception prevail? As a whole, the resource sector is well and the future potential for development is staggering. I and the people who live in the resource districts of this State believe that successive

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 22 May 2001] 247

Governments have let these developments off the hook. They pay royalties, but where is the ongoing local commitment? I realise we must make some concessions to encourage and assist in the establishment of projects, but we must ensure that the maximum benefit from these ventures is invested for ordinary Western Australians, just as the companies’ directors push for maximum returns for their shareholders. I recognise that these companies make a significant contribution to this State, but the point is that if our State were a publicly listed company and we were the directors, would our shareholders be happy with the returns we get for them? While in my electorate I am constantly asked about how we can ensure a greater level of local content in fabrication, local supply of goods and services, investment in youth employment, local company preference, etc. Some specific examples come to mind. In Karratha residents would like to know why, although they are next to one of the greatest gas reserves in the southern hemisphere and part of Australia’s largest resource development, no natural gas is reticulated in the township. In Port Hedland struggling small businesses ask why they must pay rates and the resource companies do not. In Perth large contracting firms want to know why they are not ensured assistance to compete for fabrication work and, in some instances, not asked to tender at all. We must address these concerns with action, not just rhetoric. I know the job cannot be done overnight, but we must be seen to be working for our constituents or all of us here will feel the consequences. I believe it is time for us as a nation to debate what is fair and reasonable profit. What is a reasonable social dividend? Should taxpayers invest in infrastructure and support the working poor and the unemployed when corporate Australia sacks tens of thousands of workers while still announcing record profits? Why is the shareholder’s interest more important than that of the unemployed Australian? Why should our redundant friends, our unemployed neighbours, be told they have a mutual obligation to us when it is the Governments of this nation that gave corporate Australia the privilege of deregulation? As leaders of our communities, States and Commonwealth, we are obligated to help the working poor and the unemployed, not because it is the Australian way or what one would expect of mates; it is because these Australians are victims of our decisions, policies and ideologies. What can we do to turn this around? We often complain that the Commonwealth milks the revenues of our State and redistributes them inequitably. However, this is only part of the problem. We need to be innovative. We need to encourage business to show real social responsibility to those who have invested their lives in this State. We should invest our citizens’ money in infrastructure to encourage more businesses to expand and develop in Western Australia. However, we, as custodians of our State’s expansive resources, must ensure that all Western Australians gain real benefit from them. It is the Government’s role to ensure that in the ongoing struggle between those who have power, resources and influence, those who have little and those who represent them, people are allowed to debate and express their views without an unfair advantage. The current industrial relations legislation is a good example of an unfair advantage. It assumes that an employee and employer are of equal status; for instance, that a 16-year-old shop assistant could somehow negotiate on equal terms with an employer. Some will argue that this is not true; but, Mr President, that is the reality for many of our young people. Until this legislation is changed young people in this State will be exposed to exploitation. We must not allow legislation that attempts to silence and decimate unions, any more than we should legislate to allow companies to be controlled by the State. Mr President, as you can see, I have developed strong opinions on issues of social justice and equity and, perhaps, these next few words describing some of my early years will explain how these views have been formulated. In 1958 I was born into a poor family which lived in a tent village on the banks of the Edward River at Deniliquin, New South Wales. My father then was an itinerant worker who initially supported my mother, his daughter and five sons through market garden labour and fruit picking. He eventually gained work as a dragline operator for the Murray River irrigation scheme development which, unfortunately, meant he was away from home a great deal. My parents’ relationship deteriorated and money at home became very tight. Social safety nets at that time were very limited and this was compounded by the fact that they were not married. However, my brothers, sister and I stayed with my mother as a family unit. My mother earned a little money singing at the local hotel and house cleaning, and received gifts from the charity of friends and the community. In 1959 the government authorities decided that it was in the best interests of the two youngest children that they be removed from the family unit and adopted or fostered out. I was the youngest of these children. My sister recalls coming home from school to see my mother sobbing on the ground whilst my brother and I were bundled into a black car and driven away. She chased the car until she could run no further. A few months later my remaining brothers and sister were taken to a children’s home in Sydney. But what of me? I was the lucky one. I was adopted into a loving family. I could not explain to all members just how grateful I am for the love, care and affection I have received and still do from my mother and father, Rob and Eunice Ford. Had they destroyed all the adoption documents, as they were instructed to, I probably would not have been reunited with my siblings some 32 years later. What is the relevance of all this? Despite all that love, and all that care and support, I never felt that I fitted in. There was always something missing. At times I felt so alienated that I imagined something was wrong with me. I cannot describe the relief - in fact, I do not believe anyone who has not been through this experience can understand - and the joy of being reunited with my biological birth family, of being able to talk to people whose processes work like mine,

248 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 22 May 2001] who share common views, who sound similar, who look similar and who, despite being separated for many years of their lives, share similar traits and habits such as handwriting, the way they eat meals and the sports, hobbies and interests they have participated in over the years. When I was reunited with my brothers and sister for the first time, I felt as though a part of my life, my soul, had been reconnected and brought back to life. Do I hate the people who removed me? No. Am I suspicious of their motives? No. Do I regret that I was removed from my family? Mr President, yes I do. Some 18 months ago while visiting New South Wales for the birth of my grandson, my wife and I revisited Deniliquin. As I stood on the banks of the Edward River, a small punt went past with a couple of lads out for some fishing and fun. For the first time in my life I felt ripped off. I genuinely felt sorry for myself. I looked at those children and thought, “That should have been me 30 years ago”, and I grieved for a different childhood that I would never know. Mr President, despite the love that had been generously given to me; despite the good intentions of all the people who thought they were looking after my best interests; despite all of this, at that moment I believed my whole youth had been stolen from me. I hope, Mr President, that you can see why, to me, many of the arguments around the Aboriginal stolen generation have completely missed the point. Why argue about motives? Why debate who was responsible? To me the term “the stolen generation” refers not just literally to a generation of stolen Aboriginal people; it refers to that part of the heart that has been stolen from every one of those people - every mother, father, brother, sister, son and daughter affected by the policy of that time of removing children from their families. We, as a community, should accept that it happened; that children were removed from their communities and from their families against their parents’ will. The evidence is there; it is living and breathing amongst us. No matter what the motive surrounding the policy, it was the wrong thing to do. I know it was wrong. This was just a part of the many injustices perpetrated against Aboriginal people. As Australians, we must recognise the impact of government policies of the time and demonstrate some real empathy for those whom those policies and decisions affected. We must assist, where we can, with the healing processes, not because we should accept responsibility for the actions of those who have been before us but because it is the right thing to do. Mr President, reconciliation is part of the healing process. If we cannot actively move towards the goal as a society, we can never be united and we will never be whole. I thank and acknowledge the following people and organisations. I thank the people of the Mining and Pastoral Region who have allowed me this greatest of opportunities and privilege, for the chance of living and working with all the great characters of the north west - the Knobbys, the Bone Heads, Crackers and the like! I hope I can give back something of substance to the communities of the Mining and Pastoral Region that have rewarded me and supported my family so well. I thank the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, its members, organisers and staff for their support and protection during my past employment, and their continuous ongoing vigilance, political and industrial activism, especially for the working people of the Mining and Pastoral Region. I thank the Maritime Workers Union for the support its members have shown me in my political endeavours over the years. I thank Jock Ferguson for his friendship, guidance and support. I thank the Australian Labor Party for showing faith in my abilities. I thank my predecessor, Hon Tom Helm, for the many years of friendship and his commitment to the people of the Mining and Pastoral Region. I thank all my previous work colleagues of the past 10 years who have had to endure my incessant political rantings and who, regardless of this, still managed to talk to me. I thank Lyn Jager for being a great mate over the years. I also thank my father and mother, Rob and Eunice Ford, my brother Peter Ford, my sister Bonnie and brothers Bruce, Shane, Patrick and Stuart. I thank my great and dear sons Liam and Rohan and my beautiful daughter Erinna who, one day, I hope, will be the President of Australia; my grandson Zac; and my in-laws Kevin and Annette Jeffcoat. I especially acknowledge the great love and support shown to me by my wife, friend and partner, Taryn, who has remained with me, despite having to endure the challenges and grief that I am sure living with me has given her, and without whom I would never have achieved the level of success I have enjoyed in my life to date. [Applause.] HON E.R.J. DERMER (North Metropolitan) [8.39 pm]: I open my remarks today by congratulating you, Mr President, on your election and to congratulate your esteemed predecessor the Chairman of Committees, Hon George Cash. With the House’s indulgence, I shall reflect on the history of this Chamber, which continues to make great strides today and will in the near future. This of course relates to the electoral reform process that I would like to deal with. The history of this Chamber is very interesting. It is interesting to look at the paintings and photographs outside the Chamber to see the evolution of this House from 1832, when it consisted of the Governor at the time appointed by the Colonial Office and four senior officers. The Chamber is evolving towards the true democracy it will be once the Gallop Government’s program for electoral reform is fully implemented. This is a matter of great interest to a member of Parliament in this Chamber at this time when we are on the brink of completing the democratic evolutionary process

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 22 May 2001] 249 through the electoral reform program of the Gallop Government. Mr President, your election today as the first Labor President of this Chamber is of special historical importance. It is a sad reflection on the history of the Chamber that its leadership has not in the past reflected the changing political choice of the people of this State. By virtue of the Chamber’s malapportionment in the past the leadership of the Chamber has not been open to the normal variation. It is a matter of great historic progress for the Chamber to have elected a Labor member as President for the first time in its history, but it is also a sad reflection on the fact that this Chamber has not had, and has still not attained, full representation of and full accountability to the people of Western Australia. Reflecting historically brings me to an expression of my enthusiasm for the motion moved by my friend and colleague in the North Metropolitan Region, Hon Ken Travers. That enthusiasm is based on the Gallop Labor Government’s program. In the years I have been a member of this place, I have listened, always very respectfully, to Her Majesty’s representatives deliver speeches at the opening of Parliament. My special enthusiasm is that this time it was a speech that presented to the Parliament - the people’s representatives - the program of a very positive, enthusiastic Government that will deliver wellbeing for the people of this State. With the member for Cottesloe as Leader of the Opposition, this Government will continue to deliver wellbeing for the people of this State for a long time to come. It is tremendous to be part of this debate, to offer my thanks and appreciation to His Excellency the Governor on the delivery of his speech, and to offer support and enthusiasm with the confidence that this time the Government’s program, as outlined in His Excellency’s speech, will be implemented. Members on this side of the Chamber are deadly earnest. We have gone to great pains to listen to the people of Western Australia to ascertain their deepest aspirations. We will do the hard work that must be done to deliver on those aspirations. It was interesting this evening to hear the Leader of the Opposition reflect on the impact of the eight years of the Court Government. That impact was clearly understood by the people of Western Australia, and their clear understanding was demonstrated by the electoral result on 10 February. It will be a different understanding in the Western Australian community after the first eight years of the long Gallop Government that I confidently predict, because it will deliver. There was a special gravity to His Excellency’s speech to this Chamber to open this Parliament, because it represented a government program that will be delivered and fully implemented. This Government will not shy away from the difficult fiscal challenges it confronts. With the utmost care, it will reorder priorities in the application of the resources of the State and ensure that its program is delivered - a program worth delivering because it is based on the clear understanding of the Gallop Government of the genuine aspirations of the people of Western Australia. Therefore, it is with tremendous enthusiasm that I am pleased to thank His Excellency for the delivery of a speech that entailed hope. Listening to the very heartfelt, genuine and strongly delivered inaugural speeches of my colleagues Hon Sue Ellery and Hon Jon Ford this evening reminded me of the time when I delivered my first speech in this House. I remember that the one word which was the focus of what I saw as important for this State was hope, and ensuring that the people of Western Australia had the opportunity for an excellent life in time to come. I reflected on aspects of our society that were not positive. In fact, it is not making too strong a point to say that many aspects of our society are reflections of despair. It is our duty to turn around that despair, to turn it into hope and to offer real opportunities for each Western Australian to improve his or her lot. The program put forward by the Gallop Government is encouraging. It contains many concrete and practical steps that will progress the hope of Western Australians in many practical ways to enhance their opportunities for the future. It is with enthusiasm that I am pleased to back the Government’s program and to thank the Governor for his articulation of that program in his speech in this House. I return to the ongoing history of this House and its evolution towards real democracy. In 1987, leading up to the 1989 election, there was a degree of electoral reform for this Chamber. It was far from perfect. It continues to be the case that half this Chamber represents one-quarter of the population; the other half represents three-quarters of the population. To any reasonable person, that can be assessed only as an unfair and undemocratic state. In the past, the unfairness of the representative nature of the Chamber was worse. The electoral reform that was achieved and implemented for the first time in the 1989 election allowed for a change in the nature of the Chamber; it allowed the Chamber to have a different representative structure from the other House, and in that way enhanced its role as a House of Review. It has imposed on Governments a need to convince members of Parliament who are not directly adhered to that Government through party allegiance to support the Government’s legislative program if it is to be implemented. The election in 1989 was conducted under the new proportional representation system - new as it then was. It altered the nature of this Chamber. The defection of Hon Reg Davies from the Liberal Party deprived the conservative forces in Western Australia of control of the Legislative Council for the first time, and when the conservative forces no longer had absolute control over this House, it changed character and became a genuine House of Review. Governments of whatever persuasion needed to convince people who were not part of their party and were not part of the party discipline adherence factor that would normally enable the Government to assume it would receive majority support in the Chamber. It put the onus on Governments to obtain the support of members outside their party if they were to get their legislative program through. It is interesting to reflect that during the course of the last Parliament the numbers in this Chamber were such that when the Court Government wanted to put legislation through, it needed to convince only one non-coalition member that it was reasonable and worthwhile legislation. On many occasions the Court Government failed to get its legislation

250 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 22 May 2001] through, and my assessment is that in most cases that reflected the unreasonable nature of the legislation. I remind members that at that time the Court Government had a wide menu from which to select. The Australian Democrats were represented in this Chamber, but they are no longer with us. They came unstuck through the folly of their policy proposals. The Greens (WA) obviously prospered during the course of the last Parliament, and have increased their representation from three to five members. There was the loyal opposition in the Labor Party, which understood its duty to apply rigorous scrutiny to the Government at the time. Through two unfortunate defections from Labor Party ranks, in the end there was a repertoire of two Independents - it may be more appropriate to call it a menu of two Independents. The Court Government needed to convince only one of those people to get their proposals through. On many occasions the proposals put forward by the Court Government were so absent in logic that they were unable to achieve the support of these various members of Parliament, and their programs failed. In that sense, this Chamber, working as it is constituted with proportional representation, provides an effective House of Review. The Gallop Government will face a similar challenge. Without the support of members of this Chamber from parties other than our own, we will not advance our legislative program. We understand that. The smaller set of ministers surrounding the Premier, Dr Gallop, understand this. Their answer is not to bemoan the numerical situation in the Legislative Council; their answer will be to put forward legislative proposals of particular and special quality that will be understood by all members of the Chamber. I am sure that they will have no trouble at all in convincing members of the Chamber who are not of the government party of the merits of their legislation and the logic in supporting that legislation. On that basis, we anticipate that the Gallop Government will achieve the progress of its legislative program, rightly, subject to the effective and rigorous review of this Chamber; and by virtue of the quality of the Government’s legislation, the legislation will progress nevertheless. I have long had a keen interest in the history of parliamentary democracy. It has been a matter of personal regret that the Parliament in my home State is one in which the evolutionary progress of democracy through the Westminster system has, to some extent, stalled. We had that progress leading up to the 1989 election, but we still continue to have the scandal of an essentially unrepresentative, malaportioned voting system. I said before that three-quarters of the population are represented by half of this Chamber and one-quarter by the other half. Effectively, that is a malapportionment of three to one. When a comparison is done of electors represented by members from the extremes of the six regions the malapportionment is closer to four to one. This is unacceptable and a matter of concern. As a citizen of this State I am very concerned - and have been for a long time - that the Westminster system of democracy, as it has evolved in this State, does not compare well with that in the other States in the Commonwealth of Australia. It is with great enthusiasm that I look forward to the electoral reform program being delivered through this Chamber and the other Chamber - certainly not by weight of numbers in this place, but by the inherent value and logical presentation of the electoral reform program when it is delivered. It is interesting to reflect on the comments of the Leader of the Opposition this evening. He was endeavouring to defend the indefensible; he was endeavouring to defend this inherently unfair electoral system that we have. He tried to twist the argument by putting an emphasis on depriving country citizens of Western Australia of a fair level of representation. The true argument is the fact that metropolitan citizens of Western Australia are deprived of a fair representation because three-quarters of the population is represented by only half of this Chamber. I had occasion in the last Parliament to debate this point with the now Leader of the Opposition, the then Leader of the House. I made the point then, and I am happy to repeat it, that what rural Western Australians need is not an unfair, distorted or excessive number of representatives in Parliament, but representatives of quality. Rural Western Australians heard and understood my message. The then Leader of the House promised that he would take this message to rural Western Australians. I think he thought that they would be concerned that they might lose their distorted number of members of Parliament. However, I was pleased when he took the message to rural Western Australians. I was pleased when I had occasion for a short period to be in Albany immediately after Christmas and saw the advertisements on television and the message they were driving home; that is, that the conservative forces wanted to retain that malapportionment. That is because I knew that rural representation is not dependent on the number of members but on the quality of members. I knew that rural Western Australians would understand this, and they did understand this. We have had a terrific outcome from rural Western Australians. Let us make this clear. Hon M.J. Criddle: Are you talking about real rural Western Australians? Hon E.R.J. DERMER: Hon Murray Criddle can define people how he likes, but I understand who Western Australians are. All Western Australians of adult age are enfranchised with a vote. It is a matter of great misfortune that some votes are of more value than others. It is interesting that the then Leader of the House said that he would make it clear to rural Western Australians that the Labor Party’s program would be to get rid of the unfairness in this Chamber, and to ensure equal representation for all Western Australians. Hon M.J. Criddle: What about the Senate? Hon E.R.J. DERMER: I am happy to get onto that. Clearly the Liberal Party pushed this issue very hard in its election advertising campaigns. When the good people of Albany, Collie, Bunbury and Geraldton voted on 10 February they were fully enlightened of the Liberal Party’s view that it would oppose electoral reform to get rid of the inherent unfairness in our representative structure in this

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 22 May 2001] 251

Chamber. When they were enlightened in this way, when they considered this, they totally ignored the argument from the Liberal Party. I have evidence to back my claim. I think they heard my argument, and I am pleased about that. They are wise Western Australians living in rural areas. They understood that their welfare, opportunity and hope did not depend in any way on having bloated ranks of too many conservative members tripping over each other rather than representing their constituents. They have an eye for quality. I think the new members for Albany, Geraldton, Bunbury, and Collie, my colleague Hon Adele Farina as the new member for the South West Region and your good self, Mr President, are evidence to demonstrate that the people of rural Western Australia understood the thesis that I put forward last year in a way that the then Leader of the House never understood. They understood that their representation was not contingent on exaggerated numbers and on an unfair system, it was based on the selection of quality representatives who knew what their needs were, who would work hard to ensure that their opportunities were enhanced and their hope for a better life similarly enhanced. I am pleased that Hon Kim Chance is performing the role of Leader of the House. He certainly understands the needs of people throughout Western Australia. He understands the importance of primary industry. He will ensure, through quality rather than numbers of members of Parliament, that rural Western Australia will be well represented. The Senate is very interesting. I am glad that Hon Murray Criddle reminded me of this, because the Leader of the Opposition raised it earlier. Trying to draw an analogy between the way the Senate evolved with a set number of representatives for each State and the way this Chamber evolved is to attempt a false analogy. Hon Murray Criddle has kindly reminded me of this point and given me an opportunity to explain. Prior to 1901 the Australian continent was occupied by six self-governing British colonies. It is interesting to reflect on the fact that many of the powers in the original federal Constitution, that are entailed in the power of the Federal Parliament and the Federal Government, reflected the residual powers that were still held by the British Empire at the time when the self-governing colonies came into being. Foreign affairs and defence were the main residual British powers over those self-governing colonies. As democracy was evolving in Australia it was those powers, naturally, that were entrusted to the Commonwealth Government. The people of those colonies, which were to form the Commonwealth of Australia, were thoroughly consulted. The process, of which I am very proud as an Australian, in the same way I am very concerned as a Western Australian to have this unrepresentative Chamber governing me, is a very peaceful evolution of the federation without the cost of a life. It is important to note that in the end the consultation was resolved by referenda. Each State had an opportunity to vote to become part of the federation. I was interested to note that the Leader of the Opposition suggested, although not explicitly, a certain sympathy for the secessionist movement. It puzzles me that someone with that view would bother going to Melbourne for the Centenary of Federation event. However, although I could not attend through work commitments, I was delighted that my colleagues were able to attend that great celebration of the foundation of our nation, which can claim proudly and almost uniquely to have achieved democracy without bloodshed. Each State held a referendum when the States were self-governing British colonies. Part of the contract to fuse these States to create this great nation was an acceptance of the Senate voting structure. I am happy to accept the historical legacy of that great democratic act from the late nineteenth century in each of those self-governing British colonies that led to federation, including the Senate structure. That did not happen in this Chamber. The situation here was quite the reverse. Understandably, in 1832 the Colonial Office in London appointed the Governor, with four senior advisers. It has evolved and we are nearing the final step of democracy. The people in Western Australia have never had an opportunity by referendum to determine the nature of this Chamber or its representation. The Brian Burke-led Government made a very serious bid to reform this Chamber and to ensure that it was to become truly representative and democratic. The outcome of that initiative was not to achieve equal voting value but to achieve some progress towards that end. That progress was important towards the evolution of the Chamber today, where the conservatives no longer have a guaranteed monopoly. Your election today, Mr President, reflects that. When it was first elected, the Burke Government proposed proper equal voting value. It wanted to put that proposition to the people of Western Australia by a referendum. However, the conservative forces, which still had a monopoly in the Chamber, prior to the reforms implemented in the 1989 election, blocked it. By way of an unfair voting system, they had the guaranteed majority, which they abused to reinforce their privilege. They denied the people of Western Australia an opportunity to hold a referendum that would have allowed the people of this State to resolve the matter. One of the great strengths of the Australian democracy is the legal requirement to have matters often resolved by referendum. That is the difference with the Senate, where that decision was made collectively and democratically when the six self-governing colonies led to federation. They accepted the importance of ensuring representation for small States. When we wanted electoral reform here in the mid 1980s it was denied because this Chamber refused to have a referendum on the issue. I believe we had effectively a referendum on 10 February. I believe Hon Norman Moore indicated today that when people were voting on 10 February they were voting on electoral reform, which was spelled out in the Gallop Labor Party’s program. It had been central to state Labor programs in Wester Australia during many elections. People

252 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 22 May 2001] understood the Labor Party’s policy. What was the result? We have new members for Albany, Geraldton, Bunbury and Collie. That is a clear endorsement of this Government’s program for democratic reform. Hon B.K. Donaldson interjected. Hon E.R.J. DERMER: We were not shy about our policy, nor were members opposite. People made an informed decision. No election is decided by an issue in isolation. In deferring to the comments of my colleagues opposite, electoral reform was not the only issue; nonetheless, it was important. We were entirely up front about it. Our opponents’ opposition to reform was up front and people knew the views of both sides when they voted. Through our preferential voting system, people have a wide choice of whom to vote for. At the end of the day many more people voted for the Australian Labor Party than for the Liberal Party. Another important element that arose prior to 10 February was the appalling performance of too many of the Court Government’s ministers. I had an interesting opportunity to speak to many of the good citizens of the town of Albany in the lead-up to the election. For a city boy I have a reasonable insight into how Western Australians across the State think. It would have been easy to become despondent in the light of the importance of those regional seats in deciding the outcome of the last election, and the size of the swing needed in Albany to return it to Labor representation after 27 years. In recent elections the Labor Party came close to coming third in the competition to win Albany and now it has a Labor member. According to my insight, country Western Australians appreciate quality of representation and are excellent judges of it. People in Albany understand that when they have a local member who they believe deserves their trust they will vote for that person. Prior to the last election, the local member for Albany, who was also a minister of the Crown in the Court Government, had demonstrated a lack of ability to live up to the great trust afforded him by the people of Albany when they chose him as a representative in 1996 and in previous elections. They were loyal and backed their local member until he showed there was good reason to no longer trust him. I would like to think that the lack of trust was based not on his personal morality but on his judgment, which led to many of his mistakes. I focus on Albany because it is a clear example of my argument. Trust existed, evidenced in 1993 and 1996, when people happily voted for their incumbent member. When that confidence in his judgment disappeared, as it did suddenly, in response to his limited performance as a state minister of the Crown, the trust evaporated. That sort of evaporation of trust caused the dramatic swings in various Legislative Assembly districts throughout the State. The people in Albany demonstrated clearly that the importance of their representation is not based on how many members they may have. They certainly would not want to take advantage of other Western Australians by having a vote- weighted unfair electoral system. In Albany two factors occurred together that determined the result. Both of them were based on the wisdom of the people of Albany in selecting candidates. The man they elected in the past demonstrated his lack of trustworthiness and good judgment and performed badly as a minister of the Crown. In its wisdom, the Labor Party endorsed Peter Watson, who had given much to the community. The coming together of those factors - the loss of trust in the previous member and the good fortune of finding such a good candidate in Peter Watson - resonated and accounts for the enormity of the swing. The Leader of the Opposition made it clear tonight that he has learnt nothing. He has not learnt that the challenge facing members opposite is to demonstrate that they are quality members of Parliament. I do not recall his words exactly, but I am sure I heard the Leader of the Opposition suggest that if we had electoral reform - if every Western Australian’s vote had equal weight in this Chamber - the conservative parties would have no chance of winning office. That is an extraordinary admission. I have grudging admiration for the Leader of the Opposition - he is a serious- minded individual - and that admiration has increased as a result of his admission. It was very honest. I agreed with and supported him when he said last year that he would deliver my message to rural Western Australia that the voters should choose quality candidates rather than stick to an unfair voting system that gave them many representatives. That message was delivered and the result was increased Labor Party representation for rural Western Australia. Tonight we had another erudite and honest statement from the Leader of the Opposition when he spoke about the impact on the conservative parties of one vote, one value for this Chamber. I cannot believe the free kicks the Government is getting. I used to dream about the member for Cottesloe being Leader of the Opposition, and now it has happened. The downside of that is the enormous responsibility that falls on the Government because it is important to all Western Australians that that man never become Premier. We will work long and hard - as we would anyway - to ensure that that never happens. I remind members of the Opposition that under the Westminster system they have a duty to scrutinise the Government. To date, question time has not been an encouraging demonstration of their capacity. I hope they will all improve. So far, the first four question times have shown that members opposite have a lot to learn about being effective in opposition. It is important that members of the Opposition learn to scrutinise properly. I am confident that each of the Gallop Government’s 14 ministers is of such quality that he or she can handle any questions standing on his or her head, even if the quality of the questions improves. That is our challenge; the challenge for members opposite is to do their job properly. The Opposition has an even greater responsibility; that is, to provide the people with a realistic choice at the next election. It is in that respect that the Opposition has let the side down: Colin Barnett as Leader of the Opposition.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 22 May 2001] 253

It is important for balance and constitutional stability that opposition parties do their job properly during question time and that they provide a real choice at each election. To do that, members opposite must have a very good look at themselves and the State and they must listen to the people. They should understand what the people of Western Australia want and present policies at the next election as a challenge to the quality administration of the Gallop Labor Government. The people should have a real choice. I was concerned to hear tonight that the Leader of the Opposition does not want to do the hard work to develop the Liberal Party as a real choice at the next election. He wants to hide behind an unfair voting system. His assessment - it is probably realistic - is that unless the opposition parties wake up to themselves, without an unfair voting system they will have no chance. That is the very clear message and the Government understands it. To make any difference, members opposite must understand their responsibilities and put themselves forward as a realistic option. They must compete with the Government in the market place of ideas and not hide behind an unfair voting system. Perhaps the admission voiced by the Leader of the Opposition is a glimmer of hope. It suggests he understands that if members of the Opposition want to be taken seriously, they should examine themselves, listen to the people of Western Australia and put themselves forward as serious competition to the Government. I appreciate the opportunity to put these thoughts into the ether as part of the consideration of His Excellency’s speech. I was in two minds about my contribution. A long-term Gallop Labor Government will be a reality and it will be good for the State. I hesitate in giving advice to the Opposition, but as a Western Australian I will not be entirely partisan. I hope members opposite listen to my advice and lift their game as scrutineers of the Government. They must present a real option to the people at the next election. I am sure the people will choose the Labor Party, but members opposite must at least try not to hide behind an unfair voting system that has been described by the Commission on Government as inherently corrupt. Debate adjourned, on motion by Hon B.K. Donaldson. TREASURER’S ADVANCE AUTHORISATION BILL 2001 Receipt and First Reading Bill received from the Assembly; and, on motion by Hon Kim Chance (Leader of the House), read a first time. Second Reading HON KIM CHANCE (Agricultural - Leader of the House) [9.19 pm]: I move - That the Bill be now read a second time. The Treasurer's Advance Authorisation Bill authorises the Treasurer to make certain payments and advances for authorised purposes chargeable to the consolidated fund or the Treasurer's Advance Account within the monetary limit available for the financial year commencing 1 July 2001. The monetary limit specified within clause 4 of the Bill represents an authorisation for the Treasurer to withdraw up to $300 million for the financing of payments and advances in the 2001-02 financial year. The purpose for which payments and advances may be made from the Treasurer's Advance are set out in clause 5 of the Bill and remain unchanged from those authorised in previous years. When payments are made in respect of a new item, or for supplementation of an existing item of expenditure in the consolidated fund, those payments will be charged against the fund and submitted for parliamentary appropriation in the next financial year. Members would be aware that a number of activities, such as works and services, are initially financed by way of a Treasurer’s Advance, which is subsequently recouped from the department or statutory authority on whose behalf the service was performed. In addition, the Bill seeks supplementation of $300 million against the monetary limit authorised for the 2000-01 financial year. Part of the additional funding is required to meet the increasing level of services provided by agencies. This Bill is largely required to accommodate the spending excesses of the previous Government since its last budget. In its last desperate year, the coalition added over $1 billion to the forward estimates of general government expenses in the period since 11 May 2000. The pre-election estimates confirm that these decisions have plunged the sector into deficits in 2002-03 and 2003-04 and eroded any benefit from the sales of AlintaGas and Westrail freight. In addition to additional program spending, new capital spending was authorised further compounding the structural weakness. This irresponsible financial management has put the State’s credit rating at risk and leaves the new Government with a significant financial challenge that it is committed to addressing in the forthcoming budget. However, for the current financial year, the Opposition’s cavalier approach to expenditure management has resulted in massive appropriation overspending relative to budget. Accordingly, a significant burden is placed upon the Treasurer’s Advance. Failure to make adequate budget provision has required the Government to extend spending of $99 million to address base funding issues in public hospitals and $26 million to the Department of Transport to meet cost and demand pressures associated with providing the existing level of train and bus services. In addition, $59 million is required for the Perth urban rail development. A further $70 million is required to fund the Department of Conservation and Land

254 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 22 May 2001]

Management due to the delayed creation of the Forest Products Commission and the non-creation of the Department of Conservation. This amount will be offset by corresponding budget savings against the latter department. The new Labor Government is committed to a stricter program of expenditure management. The Expenditure Review Committee will ensure that the systematic abuse of the Treasurer’s Advance will not occur in future. It has been our long-held belief that a substantially lower limit on the Treasurer’s Advance is desirable and we shall work to achieve this outcome in 2002-03. However, for the forthcoming year, significant structural change to the machinery of government and the introduction of accrual appropriations and the capital user charge mean that it is prudent that for 2001-02 the limit be set at the existing $300 million level. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate adjourned, on motion by Hon B.K. Donaldson. ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE Ordinary HON KIM CHANCE (Agricultural - Leader of the House) [9.24 pm]: I move - That the House do now adjourn. I advise members, particularly members of smaller parties, that I intend to convene a meeting of the House Management Committee at 5.30 pm on Thursday afternoon. The committee has an important role in the conduct of the business of the House and should be represented by one member from each party. I am happy to discuss this with members outside the Chamber. Question put and passed. House adjourned at 9.25 pm ______