Legislative Assembly

Thursday, 21 June 2007

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs D.J. Guise) took the chair at 9.00 am, and read prayers. PAPER TABLED A paper was tabled and ordered to lie upon the table of the house. PARLIAMENTARY STANDARDS COMMISSIONER Removal of Notice - Statement by Deputy Speaker THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: I inform members that private members’ business notice of motion 9, notice of which was given on 21 November 2006, will be removed from the next notice paper unless written notification is provided to the Clerk requesting that the notice be continued. CHINA TRADE AND INVESTMENT MISSION Statement by Premier MR A.J. CARPENTER (Willagee - Premier) [9.02 am]: It was my recent privilege as Premier and Minister for Trade to undertake an eight-day trade and investment mission to China. The main purpose of the trip was to reinforce the strong and growing relationship between Western Australia and China, explore new trade and cultural opportunities and commemorate the twentieth anniversary of WA’s sister-state relationship with Zhejiang province. Our relationship with China is underscored by the fact that it has now overtaken Japan as WA’s number one export destination, and our two-way trade has exceeded $13 billion. While in Beijing, I had productive meetings with a number of senior government officials, including Chinese Vice-Premier Zeng Peiyan. I also opened a Western Australian trade and investment seminar, which attracted keen interest from a large number of potential investors. There appeared to be continued interest in our natural resources, especially iron ore. At Ningbo in Zhejiang province I attended the official opening of China’s International Consumer Goods Fair, which featured the very best of Western Australia. I also had the honour of speaking at the formal opening of the new Ningbo steel mill, which will process large amounts of iron ore from Western Australia. I take this opportunity to thank Zhejiang governor, Lu Zushan, and Ningbo mayor, Mao Guanglie, for their cooperation at both these events. In Hangzhou, I met the Zhejiang party secretary, Zhao Hongzhu; attended the opening of the Australia-China biotherapeutic summit, featuring our own Dr Fiona Wood; visited the Zhejiang University, which has a joint genomics and nutrigenomics study arrangement with the University of Western Australia; and had the extreme pleasure of presenting the English language competition awards to 25 local students. These students will be visiting Western Australia later this year. In Shanghai, I had a very fruitful meeting with the city’s party secretary, Xi Jinping, who is very keen to see WA’s relationship with Shanghai expand. The fundamental conclusion I drew from this trip is that China’s interest in WA is showing no signs of diminishing. Our relationship is still solid and there is a strong desire to broaden the trade relationship beyond natural resources. Opportunities are beginning to open in education, medical research, innovation and tourism. I also actively encouraged China’s pursuit of investing in Western Australian infrastructure projects, from rail to hotels. I also made it clear to those people whom I met that the introduction of direct flights between Shanghai and Perth will provide an important boost to our business, social and cultural interaction. I take this opportunity to thank the staff of the Department of Industry and Resources for helping to organise the trip; the regional director of China’s WA Trade Office, Mr B.J. Zhuang, and his staff for their invaluable local knowledge and logistical advice; and the Chinese, especially our good friends in Zhejiang province, for their hospitality and friendship. A report on the trip is being finalised and will be tabled at the earliest convenience. ZHEJIANG PROVINCE - SISTER-STATE RELATIONSHIP Statement by Premier MR A.J. CARPENTER (Willagee - Premier) [9.05 am]: China is one of Western Australia’s most valuable trading partners. It is our number one export market, with bilateral trade in 2006 valued at more than $13 billion. It is vital to Western Australia’s economy that we maintain and grow our alliance with China, so the state government will be investing $770 000 in the next financial year to further develop this important relationship. On top of this, we will be allocating a total of $2.7 million over the next four years to expand Western Australia’s alliance with China.

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] 3501

This year marks the twentieth anniversary of our sister-state relationship with Zhejiang province. This relationship has formed the foundation of the state’s interaction with China. To mark the anniversary, I am pleased to advise that we intend to fund a number of trade, economic and cultural activities. Furthermore, we will increase our representation within our government trade offices and will provide ongoing funding for education, cultural and technological exchanges. Since Western Australia formed its sister-state relationship with Zhejiang province in 1987, the economic, trade and cultural linkages between Western Australia and China have developed strongly. In 1994, Western Australia opened a representative trade office in Hong Kong to assist with the development of this relationship. The office relocated to Shanghai in 1996, which was the same year in which we opened another office in Hangzhou, the capital of our sister state. These offices have successfully supported the development of our ongoing relationship on many levels. Two-way trade has increased dramatically, from $246 million in 1988 to $13 billion in 2006. This phenomenal growth in trade with China has directly impacted on our economy. Chinese investment in the state’s resources industry has come a long way in recent years since the first joint venture in 1987, which established the Channar iron ore mine in the Pilbara. There has also been a significant increase in tourism and in exchanges between students and academics from our respective universities. Western Australia has been privileged to receive visits from senior Chinese leaders over the past two decades, and there have been many visits to China by leaders from Western Australia. I recently returned from a trade mission to China, which I mentioned before. The sister-state relationship provides Western Australian companies with a great strategic advantage. It helps to identify trade and economic cooperation opportunities through the assistance of the provincial government. By taking advantage of these opportunities, Western Australian companies can establish a foothold in the market and can use this to grow their business throughout China. The twentieth anniversary of the sister-state relationship offers us an opportunity to further expand our relationship with Zhejiang province and, more broadly, China, with the dual objectives of developing a mutual understanding between people and growing our economic and commercial connections. I encourage all members to travel to Zhejiang and China if possible. JUSTICE REFORM IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE - REFORM PROGRAM Statement by Minister for Corrective Services MS M.M. QUIRK (Girrawheen - Minister for Corrective Services) [9.09 am]: The “Inquiry into the Management of Offenders in Custody and in the Community” undertaken by Justice Mahoney and his subsequent report tabled in November 2005 identified the need for major reform to rebuild community confidence in our corrections system and to better manage the welfare of staff and offenders. It provided a blueprint for a much better corrections system - one that is more sharply focused on ensuring community safety and reducing re-offending. The government established a Justice Reform Implementation Committee, consisting of senior representatives of the Department of Corrective Services, the Department of the Attorney General, the Department of Treasury and Finance and the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, chaired by Mr Greg Joyce and supported by a small secretariat. Over the past 18 months, JRIC, as it became known, has provided oversight and coordination of the reform program. The role of JRIC has now come to an end and continued implementation will be the responsibility of the Department of Corrective Services and the Department of the Attorney General. The key recommendations centred on the creation of a new Department of Corrective Services to provide: enhanced departmental performance and accountability; greater safety for the community and corrective services staff; improved offender assessment, including risk, classification and case management; upgraded infrastructure; benchmarked workloads for staff; an emphasis on training and development; and reform of outdated legislation. The reform agenda is a significant and long-term undertaking, the scale and complexity of which has presented a considerable challenge. It is important to have a structured implementation that is monitored and regularly reviewed to ensure diversions from the path of sustainable reform and organisational change are minimised. Justice reform is one of the largest recurrent-funded change programs of the Carpenter government. It combines major structural and cultural change with important new initiatives and expansion of existing initiatives, at a time when the justice system is experiencing record numbers of adults and juveniles in custody. I am pleased to report that the momentum is building and significant progress has been made, particularly over the past six months. The reform is taking place in three phases. The completed first phase required the creation of the new department and the stabilisation of a range of offender management, leadership and management issues. The second phase - the foundation phase - has focused on core issues such as better leadership, professionalism and continuous improvement. It has addressed basic safety and security issues; prison infrastructure; the establishment of appropriate prison and community justice officer staffing levels; the implementation of training and development; the creation of intelligence systems; the review of prisoner classification; case management; standards and procedures for assessment and management of risks posed by offenders; and the creation of mechanisms for professionalism, ethics and integrity.

3502 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007]

On behalf of the government, I would like to thank Greg Joyce and his team - John Lukin, Jane Burn, Stuart Reid and Mitch Sefton - for their dedicated effort on this project.

ART GALLERY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA - THE NORMAN LINDSAY BEQUEST Statement by Minister for Culture and the Arts MS S.M. McHALE (Kenwick - Minister for Culture and the Arts) [9.12 am]: Madam Deputy Speaker, yesterday I had the honour of announcing the largest single gift of art, in value and size, from a private donor to the Art Gallery of Western Australia. The state art collection held by the Art Gallery of Western Australia is now the home of the only complete set of published prints by renowned Australian artist, Norman Lindsay. Norman Lindsay was one of Australia’s most important artists and his work is represented in the collections of the National Gallery of Australia, all state galleries, and numerous other public and private collections. Norman Lindsay worked in many art forms throughout his long and prolific career and he is most highly regarded for his achievements as an etcher - in particular the set of 200 published etchings made between 1917 and 1938. The complete set of Lindsay’s published etchings was originally compiled by his second wife, Rose Lindsay. This private donation of those 200 published etchings is a significant coup for the state, and reflects the respect held for the Art Gallery of Western Australia to be chosen as the home for a collection of such national significance. The donation came about following the success of the Norman Lindsay: Drawn to Women exhibition at the Art Gallery from October 2006 to January 2007. When the collectors, who wish to remain anonymous, saw the complete set of published etchings on display, they felt that the entire set should become the property of the state art collection. One of the etchings in the set, entitled Past the Moon, was issued in an edition of only two impressions. The donors owned both impressions of that etching, and have presented both to the state art collection, so no other collector or collection will be able to compile a complete set of the published etchings. The significance of the donation cannot be understated in its value to the Art Gallery and cultural heritage of the people of Western Australia. The fact that the donors saw the gallery as the rightful home for the collection reinforces the status of the gallery. On behalf of the government, I sincerely thank and acknowledge the generosity of the donors and commend the director and staff the Art Gallery of Western Australia for securing such a valuable collection for the state.

DIRECTOR GENERAL OF HEALTH - BRIAN BURKE EMAILS Statement by Minister for Health MR J.A. McGINTY (Fremantle - Minister for Health) [9.14 am]: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise to correct an answer given to the member for Dawesville on 23 May 2007 in Assembly Estimates Committee A in relation to contact between the Director General of Health and Mr Brian Burke. At the time, I stated - I have just asked the director general and he said that there has been no email communication between him and Brian Burke between 2003, which I think was the date the member gave - . . . Dr Fong became director general in 2004 and the answer in respect of him is no. Dr Fong subsequently advised me that a check of email records revealed that between 21 February 2006 and 2 June 2006, he sent five emails to Brian Burke and received four emails from him. When Dr Fong provided the information in the estimates committee on 23 May 2007, he informed me that he was relying on advice provided to him on 24 April 2007. The advice was that a search of all correspondence tracking systems relating to ministerial correspondence, departmental and director general-specific information systems did not reveal any correspondence with Brian Burke. Dr Fong has advised me that over the past 12 months he has received 24 440 emails and sent 7 904. That is an average of 67 emails received and 22 sent each day. For the record, I initially wanted to table a copy of the emails in their totality, but I was informed that the archival software system used by the Department of Health is not able to retrieve more than the name of the sender, the name of the recipient, and the date, time and subject heading, if the email is more than three months old. In view of the two persons involved in the email exchange, I sought and obtained independent verification from the Director General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet that the content of the relevant emails could not be retrieved from the Department of Health’s email system. The director general confirmed that to be the case. Dr Fong has advised me that in his recollection the emails included an invitation to dinner at Perugino, which is already in the public arena, requests from Brian Burke about medical matters relating to individuals with whom Mr Burke is acquainted, and a request from Brian Burke to meet someone on health department related matters. I have accepted Dr Fong’s apology for this matter. Dr Fong assures me that the error was inadvertent. I am aware of the paramount importance this house places on accurate information, and for this reason I have taken the earliest opportunity to correct this error through a ministerial statement.

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] 3503

DAMPIER ARCHIPELAGO - HERITAGE VALUES Statement by Minister for State Development MR E.S. RIPPER (Belmont - Minister for State Development) [9.17 am]: Madam Deputy Speaker, this government has long supported the significant heritage values of the Dampier Archipelago. These have been recognised in the various planning strategies prepared by the state over the past decade. In January 2003, we signed the landmark Burrup and Maitland Industrial Estates Agreement with the area’s three Aboriginal native title claimant groups. The agreement provides a range of benefits for the Aboriginal people of that area. Indeed, approximately 55 per cent of the land north of the Burrup Road is to be vested in the Aboriginal people. We strongly believe that it is possible for industry and heritage to coexist in the Dampier Archipelago. I am pleased to say that under this agreement, $4 million was transferred to the Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation last July. The agreement will also transfer almost 30 per cent of the Burrup Peninsula to the Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation. I understand that during the next two weeks the federal Minister for Environment and Water Resources, Hon Malcolm Turnbull, will make an announcement regarding national heritage listing for the Dampier Archipelago and Burrup Peninsula. Areas of the Dampier Archipelago and the Burrup Peninsula will be included on the heritage list because of the remarkable engravings and the concentration of standing stones, stone circles and arrangements. The state government welcomes the inclusion of this important heritage area on the list. It demonstrates the unique nature of this site, and offers additional protection available under commonwealth laws. The National Heritage List lists places of outstanding heritage significance to Australia. The places on the list reflect our collective history as a nation. The Sydney Opera House was recently placed on the list and the proposed inclusion of the Dampier Archipelago and the Burrup Peninsula attests to the significance of our unique environment and Indigenous art. The region is also one of Australia’s most important industrial areas. It is rich in natural gas, iron ore and a range of other minerals, and provides a safe harbour and access to deep water and existing infrastructure. We have sought to balance the rights of Indigenous groups and the interests of industry and heritage values in the 2003 agreement. In order to ensure that this balance is maintained, the government has established a task force to address the key legislative, environmental and management regimes, to underpin a bilateral agreement with the commonwealth. I chair a ministerial committee that oversees the development of the bilateral agreement. A bilateral agreement and management arrangement that will protect the important heritage values of the region, while allowing the state to manage the approvals process for major projects, is currently being developed. It will be released for public comment. In addition, an Indigenous heritage management plan is also being developed to protect the heritage values of the entire Dampier Archipelago. It offers a multi-user approach to managing the Indigenous cultural heritage of the Dampier Archipelago, and will provide a way forward to proactively manage the area in accordance with identified national heritage values. Heritage surveys over future industrial land are also being undertaken in conjunction with the local Indigenous groups. The Burrup Rock Art Monitoring Committee and CSIRO continue to monitor the status of the rock art. The government has an outstanding record of maintaining heritage. The state government welcomes the federal government’s National Heritage listing decision for this important region and looks forward to working collaboratively with the commonwealth government, the local Indigenous community and industry to manage an area of great significance to all Australians. MENTAL HEALTH SERVICE IN GOLDFIELDS-ESPERANCE REGION Grievance DR G.G. JACOBS (Roe) [9.20 am]: My grievance is to the Minister for Health regarding the mental health service in the goldfields-Esperance region. There is a 35-year-old man named Steven who is in the public gallery with his mother and auntie. I will recount to the minister how Steven’s recent mental illness was dealt with. I have been his general practitioner for 25 years. It was my previous job to this one. Most of the time, Steven is well. He has family and children; he works and contributes to society. In April 2007, Steven had an exacerbation of his mental illness. He presented to the mental health department on Tuesday, 10 April. He was in a manic state and it was proposed that he be admitted to hospital for treatment on Wednesday. That did not happen; his case was not taken in hand. Two days later, on Thursday, 12 April, he re-presented to the mental health department. He was advised to come back and be reviewed on the following Monday. Friday was a day of crisis. There were phone calls from both mum and dad to the mental health team. Friends of Steven who were worried about his condition sent text messages to his mother. Friends encouraged Steven to go to hospital and his mum asked for future management from the mental health team. Steven’s mum, Margaret, is a community health nurse and has been for many years. She is a long-time resident of Esperance. My involvement was on Friday, 13 April. I was on call for the Easter break and was asked by my colleagues to cover the hospital for that day. Marg, Steven’s mum, rang me as she was very concerned. I rang the mental health team and the plan was that the mental health worker would visit Steven. I heard nothing further that

3504 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] evening into the night. The next thing I knew was that Steven was brought in by ambulance with the police in tow. He had a large laceration of the forehead, having had a seizure a home, and the ambulance had been called by concerned friends. Steven did settle and he stayed in the Esperance District Hospital under form 3 certification. This was later revoked. Steven was seen by the visiting psychiatric specialist on the Tuesday after that weekend. The psychiatrist advised that Steven be escorted by a mental health worker and a patient care assistant, who was the driver, to take him to the mental health unit in Kalgoorlie not only to see a psychiatrist, but also to have a CT scan, given the seizure he had had the previous Friday night. Steven’s mum was surprised at 6.30 that night - Steven had been transferred on Friday at 11.30 am - when Steven rang her on his mobile phone from Piccadilly Street in Kalgoorlie. The psychiatric registrar later saw Steven, as he went back into the hospital. The conversation between Steven’s mum and the psychiatric registrar in Kalgoorlie was to the effect that the registrar said, “This man is okay; all he needs is some depo, a drug which I will order now. He is certainly not able to be scheduled and he is not going to stay.” Mother asked if he could be admitted overnight and perhaps they could renegotiate matters in the morning. When she recounted to the doctor the delusional conversation she had earlier had with Steven on his mobile phone in Piccadilly Street outside the hospital, the psychiatric registrar said, “Of course he is delusional; he has a chronic psychotic condition, which needs depo”. Steven was then discharged, very unwell, in the city of Kalgoorlie with no support. Fortunately, he had enough money to get a hotel room. My concern is about the lack of a timely and appropriate response in Esperance for this acute illness. If the response had been appropriate, a crisis may have been averted. Once the crisis had occurred, and he was transferred, I believe there was a significant abrogation of the duty of care. Having looked at the structure of the regional referral centre - with no resident psychiatrist, and a psychiatric registrar system that cannot or will not be able to admit patients for their care after they have been transferred almost 450 kilometres from Esperance, hospital to hospital - I believe that this man, and perhaps many others, has been left in the lurch. He was a man left at risk. What is the point of the referral centre and this referral process to Kalgoorlie if they do not deliver care for patients? What is the role of staff in the Esperance mental health team in the management of acute illness? Do they respond appropriately? Do they provide good cover around the clock? Is there the possibility of a partnership between the mental health team and the GPs in the emergency department working together to deliver appropriate care? How ridiculous it is! During my 25 years of medical practice in that town, I have seen patients with an acute illness be overly sedated, put on an aeroplane by the Royal Flying Doctor Service and sent 720 kilometres to Perth to Graylands Hospital. Surely we can do better than that. There is the potential to do better than that under this system. The minister keeps talking about the hub and spoke model, which has Kalgoorlie as the hub and Esperance as the spoke, under which patients are referred for secondary care. However, it let Steven down very severely. There are serious systemic deficiencies in this system. There was no duty of care, which is very sad. Steven’s mother said it all when she expressed her concerns to me as the representative and doctor. She said that if, as a parent, she cannot advocate for her son, who can and who will, when his self-responsibility is diminished because of his illness? That is a duty of care and is very well reflected in her concern. I implore the minister to make this system work to help people, like Steven, with both further treatment and further management of their condition into the future. MR J.A. McGINTY (Fremantle - Minister for Health) [9.27 am]: Notwithstanding a request I made yesterday to the member for Roe for some advance notice of the particular case he wished to raise so that I could deal with the particulars of it, I will do my best to answer his grievance. The member for Roe gave me no idea that the case involved Mrs Margaret Greaves and her son Steven. That is what the grievance is about, but I will do my best to answer it anyway. The Mental Health Act always requires the clinician to balance the best care and treatment for a client with the least restriction on the client’s freedom, rights and dignity. Therefore, individuals are able to make their own decisions in that respect, except in the case of involuntary status, which Steven did not meet the criteria for. I am told that Geraldine Ennis, the regional director of the Western Australia Country Health Service Goldfields, contacted and met with the member for Roe on 4 May. Mr David Bowdidge, regional manager, goldfields mental health service, met with the member on 8 May, so the member was able to express his concerns directly. Also, the Director General of Health, Dr Neale Fong, wrote directly to Mrs Greaves about this matter in response to a letter she had sent to him. Steven was seen by an experienced senior mental health nurse on 12 April 2007, who concluded that although he was unwell, Steven did not meet the criteria for involuntary treatment under the Mental Health Act. As Steven was known to the service, it was appreciated that he was typically resistant to treatment and that improving his long-term engagement would be strengthened by a less restrictive approach to his presenting needs. Steven agreed to see his case manager on the following Monday and that was arranged. As a result of his mother’s telephone call on 13 April, two mental health clinicians visited Steven at his home and found him settled and agreeable to go to Esperance District Hospital. They had no cause to believe that he would not attend the hospital and no lawful grounds to force him to attend. Steven did in fact attend the Esperance hospital as agreed and was scheduled by the member for Roe in his capacity as a general practitioner, Dr Graham Jacobs.

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] 3505

Arrangements were made to transfer Steven to Graylands Hospital via the Royal Flying Doctor Service. However, these arrangements were unable to be implemented because of matters beyond the control of the Country Health Service, being the scheduling of the Royal Flying Doctor Service, over which we have no control. The Country Health Service is very conscious of the importance of patient transfer processes and noted this to Mrs Greaves. On Monday, 16 April the schedule was reviewed and revoked by Dr Wim Speelman, another Esperance general practitioner, from Genpar Medical Services, who requested Steven see the goldfields mental health service’s visiting psychiatrist, Dr Stuart McCormack, on Tuesday, 17 April. Subsequent arrangements were made for Steven to transfer to Kalgoorlie Regional Hospital on Friday, 20 April for further tests for a seizure he had suffered on 13 April, then for review by the senior medical officer psychiatry, Dr Lily Costello. Steven had agreed to a two-day admission and was therefore not scheduled under the Mental Health Act on transfer to Kalgoorlie by the community mental health team. Steven was assessed in the Kalgoorlie hospital emergency department for the history of seizure and concurrently to review his mental health status. He then expressed a desire to leave the hospital. Steven was offered a bed in the Kalgoorlie hospital mental health unit but declined. It was also offered to arrange funding for overnight hostel accommodation and return travel to Esperance the following day. However, Steven also declined this. He demonstrated that he had sufficient funds to provide for himself, stating he would make his own arrangements to get home. Steven was subsequently overheard making a phone call from the ambulance bay at the Piccadilly Street entrance of Kalgoorlie hospital, talking to a person about these arrangements. Although not the preferred outcome from the perspective of the mental health service and Dr Costello, as Steven was not refusing treatment, had taken the medication offered and there were no overriding concerns for his clinical risk, he could not be held involuntarily against his expressed desire to leave. Steven has subsequently been followed up by his GP and the goldfields mental health service in Esperance and remains under their care and continues to receive medication as prescribed. It is interesting that the treating doctor is the person raising this particular grievance without giving me any notice of it. I have done my best to answer the questions that have been raised, perhaps casting a different perspective on the matters raised by the member for Roe. Dr G.G. Jacobs interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: It might highlight a conflict of interest on the part of the member for Roe as well. Dr G.G. Jacobs: I have no conflict of interest. Mr J.A. McGINTY: If the member wants to raise the mental health concerns of his patients directly by name in this house, maybe he should reflect on the propriety of his action. Given that the member for Roe has raised this person’s mental health condition, I am more than happy to answer it. Dr G.G. Jacobs interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, there are protocols in this house when we deal with grievances, and they are certainly to hear each other in silence. Firstly, we consider grievances to be very important, so the minister concerned needs to listen to what is being said. Equally, the member raising the grievance should listen in silence to the response, otherwise why bother? I call the minister. Mr J.A. McGINTY: The goldfields mental health service is based in Kalgoorlie and Esperance. The service operates with 43 full-time equivalent staff, of which 35 primarily provide direct clinical services to people with mental health conditions in the goldfields-Esperance region. A full range of services are provided during business hours, with an after-hours on-call and hospital in-reach service well established in Kalgoorlie. The service is undertaking consultation with community members, key agencies, district health advisory committees and GPs to continue to shape and improve future services in the region, particularly for increasing clinical availability of services to people in the region. This consultation has already led to the development of an after- hours on-call service for Esperance. It will commence on 16 July with the arrival of two clinicians from the United Kingdom and will operate after hours on Monday to Friday, 4.30 pm to 9.00 pm and Saturday and Sunday from 2.00 pm to 9.00 pm. We are also looking at other parts of the goldfields region, establishing partnerships with other agencies, general practitioners and NGO providers. We are also seeking to approve a consultant psychiatrist to the area because that will be one of the key service providers that matters. WESTERN POWER - DISTRIBUTION HEADWORKS CHARGE POLICY Grievance MR D.T. REDMAN (Stirling) [9.35 am]: My grievance relates to power issues in a couple of the communities that I represent, specifically Denmark and Walpole. Therefore, it is appropriate for the Minister for Energy to respond. I want to separate a couple of issues and highlight the specifics of the grievance. My grievance relates to the distribution headworks charge policy, which the government has said it will be releasing. The issue is the timeline for the release of that document as we need to move forward and get new connections happening. I do

3506 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] not agree with the policy but that is a debate for another day. I have a motion on the notice paper that I will pick up at a later time in regard to taking up that challenge. This debate is specifically about the government’s lack of action in releasing this policy and therefore holding up new connections in the areas that I represent. I want to go over the chain of events concerning power issues in these communities. Capacity issues were first identified in about September last year through people applying for connections and Western Power subsequently saying that it could not make the connection because of lack of capacity. Large developers were developing a huge amount of lots and therefore requiring a lot of capacity. Western Power was saying that it could not connect because it would put too much of a burden on the system. About mid-December last year that concern was extended to what I call the mum and dad developers, the owners of one and two-lot subdivisions who were applying for power connections but were being refused. That refusal surprised a number of people. It has been the subject of debate in the media and in this house a number of times. The response that the government came up with at the time was to develop a new policy. The minister announced a distribution headworks charge policy that would be developed over the ensuing two or three months. A number of issues arose over Easter - they are well and truly on the parliamentary record and the public record - relating to reliability in those areas, and there were a number of responses to those issues. During those discussions, it was found that a number of other areas in Western Australia were also having issues with capacity. I believe that Western Power has identified about five hot spots across Western Australia - Ravensthorpe, Bremer Bay, Denmark, Walpole and Jurien Bay - that have reached the capacity limits of the infrastructure that is there at present and there needs to be substantial works to get new connections. The grievance that I am raising today also extends to Ravensthorpe. Not too long ago I was listening to a radio program that was broadcasting an interview with the person who runs the Goldfields Esperance Development Commission. I cannot remember his title. He was talking about Ravensthorpe and the issues in that community. He said that there has not been a connection for some time. He talked about the likely contribution charge that people who bought new lots would have to pay and the burden that placed on them. He also talked about the fact that no policy position has been put out, hence a substantial hold-up in those communities. We know that the potential burden on Ravensthorpe is substantial because of the mine. The holding up of this policy has a potential flow-on effect to the economic development of the state. I wish to specifically refer to a couple of the issues in my area. I mentioned the mum and dad developers. A number of people have subdivisions in the area. They are hoping to subdivide small lots and sell one as a contribution towards their retirement. We are not just talking about the big multinationals; we are talking about mums and dads who, in the normal process of events, invest in property, sell one off and use those funds to support their retirement. It concerned me that the minister had a strong focus on the big developers and how much money they were making. I think we need to be very cognisant that a substantial number of the people who are affected by this are mums and dads, people who purchase one and two-lot subdivisions and businesses in those communities. One fellow has built a car wash business in the town of Denmark. He has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on that facility. He was told recently - obviously he was not aware of some of the things that have been happening over the past six months - that his business premises cannot be connected to power. He has made a substantial investment in that business, on which he is paying interest, yet he is not able to get power connected to his business premises so that he can get his car wash business up and going. That is a substantial concern. Another constituent is building a highly energy-efficient house; in fact, it has solar panels on the roof. He hopes to not only draw power from the system, but also make a contribution back into it. It is interesting that even though he is doing all the right things, he cannot get power connected to his home. It is interesting to read the policy time lines that were suggested by Western Power in its “Edge of Grid - draft policy completed” statement, which is dated 5 April 2007 and which outlines the key dates. The government was to publish its draft headworks policy on 11 April, which is two months ago. On 1 May, a working group was to meet to consider the policy. On 2 May, the issue was to be open for public comment. On 3 May, letters were to be sent to stakeholders and applicants to confirm the headworks policy details. There were to be two public consultation days. On 14 May, quotes were to be sent by Western Power. That time line is now two months overdue. There have been no new connections in Denmark and Walpole since December last year, which is some six months ago. We cannot have that situation in growing regional communities. Those centres and the growing centres of Ravensthorpe and Hopetoun are making substantial contributions to the economic wealth of the state. The policy is now two months overdue. The minister outlined the policy in December last year and since then there have been no new connections in the two communities I represent. MR F.M. LOGAN (Cockburn - Minister for Energy) [9.43 am]: I certainly acknowledge the issue that has been raised by the member for Stirling about delays in new connections. When I visited Ravensthorpe, I was told similar stories, particularly with regards to small businesses. I have not been made aware that the same problem exists for mum and dad investors and normal house connections. It seems that small businesses in particular are experiencing delays in having power connected. There is a range of reasons for that delay. Some

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] 3507 are technical and relate to the capacity of the lines themselves and the willingness of Western Power to increase load on those lines. Denmark and Walpole are the primary areas the member is concerned about. As the member knows, I have said on numerous occasions, both in this house and in personal conversations, that $2 million will be spent in the first instance to address the technical issues on that line to cope with the demand that is being caused by development in Denmark and Walpole. Over the next 18 months, a further $2 million will be spent on the feeder line that goes all the way from Albany to Denmark to Walpole. That feeder line will be reinforced to an even greater extent to deal with the capacity issues on that line. Over a two-year period, $4 million will be spent on that line. In acknowledgement of the current and estimated growth in that area, including Walpole, the member is aware that Western Power has indicated that it will spend up to $10 million on the line to expand the entire capacity of the line. It will probably build a new, additional transmission line to service those areas. By now I hope that the member for Stirling is satisfied with the commitments that have been made by Western Power to deal with current growth and future capacity demand. It comes down to the issue of the cost of connections. The member highlighted this as an issue in his area and in other areas, such as Ravensthorpe. I refer to the cost of connections in areas in which it is subeconomic for Western Power to make an investment. The easiest way to understand it is that the further away a business or a home is from a substation, the more expensive it is to connect, the reason being that Western Power has to roll out more copper cable over a greater distance. As the member knows, copper and electrical cabling is very expensive. The further away homes and businesses are from substations, the greater the need to back up that power with other forms of technical apparatus so that the power is kept at its peak at the end of the line. It is expensive. The pieces of equipment that are used to support the systems when a line becomes longer are very expensive, and there are fewer customers to pay for it and fewer customers to use the system. Therefore, the return on investment goes through the floor. That is the economics of this matter, which is why they are called fringe-of-grid problems. In the city and regional towns such as Albany and Mt Barker, which has a substation, homes and businesses are close to substations so connections are closer to the source of power and the number of customers is far greater. Therefore, the cost of the investment is shared and the return on the investment is achieved quicker because of the number of users of that power. The overall cost of investment and the return on capital is greater for Western Power. The headworks charge that we are introducing is simply a different way of applying a current capital contribution charge. Once an area on the fringe of the grid reaches capacity - I think the Albany-Walpole line is a classic example - it must be upgraded and a substantial investment must be made. Somebody has to pay for that investment because it is subeconomic for Western Power - Mr D.T. Redman: What is the time line for the release of the policy? Mr F.M. LOGAN: The policy on the headworks charge has been before cabinet on two occasions. On both occasions, it has been decided to make changes to it, changes that ultimately will benefit the local people. The member for Stirling suggested using community service obligations as a way of supporting that headworks charge; however, other issues are at hand. The reason that it is taking the time it is taking is simply that debate. How do we manage the CSO? How do we apply it in a fair and equitable way? What size should the CSO be? Mr D.T. Redman: Is there likely to be a CSO component? Mr F.M. LOGAN: The debate we have been having is about the size of the CSO, the type of CSO and the management of the CSO. The reason that it has taken longer than we expected is that we hope to apply that CSO through the local government headworks charge. That has not been possible. It will probably be managed by the Office of Energy - if this is approved - for a couple of years before we hand it back to the local government headworks fund. I think the member will be very pleased with the outcome. It has taken longer than we expected, but we have looked at how much it should be and how it should be managed so that it is applied fairly and equitably. PILKINGTON FAMILY - SINKHOLE FORMATION Grievance MRS J. HUGHES (Kingsley) [9.49 am]: My grievance is addressed the Minister for Energy; Resources; Industry and Enterprise. As the minister is aware, almost four months ago the Pilkington family of Woodvale were unfortunate enough to suffer a sinkhole formation in their backyard. This occurred on the night of 6 March and the family became aware of it on the morning of 7 March. The Pilkington family literally lost their swimming pool overnight. There was no sound to indicate the collapse, which caused thousands of litres of pool water to be lost within the earth. An extraordinary amount of damage occurred in the backyard, ruining not only the pool, but the water feature, gardens and fence. At the time, the family was unaware of the future impacts of such an occurrence. The family immediately contacted its insurance company, CGU Insurance, which was a catalyst for a series of activities and disturbances in the family’s life that they are continuing to endure. Unfortunately, to date there has been an undertaking by CGU Insurance that no claim will be met by it. An appeal was made but no change to

3508 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] the decision was forthcoming. The issue has also gained media attention, with reports on Channel Nine, Channel Seven and Today Tonight, and articles in the Sunday Times and Joondalup Times, and on the Internet, with a local online forum discussing the issue. Despite this widespread coverage, it has not encouraged any party or agency to assist in resolving this potentially dangerous situation sooner rather than later. In my grievance to the minister today I will raise a number of issues. The first is the imminent threat the sinkhole poses to the family and their property as well as to the three adjoining residential properties. I thank the minister for commissioning the original report on this. The inquiry looked at the danger the family was in. It also looked at how the onset of winter rains will impact on the sinkhole. Through my initial inquiries to ascertain where one might go for some clarity on such an occurrence, it became acutely clear that no emergency response was available. It is my understanding that FESA has procedures only for landslides and earthquakes. It did not indicate that it could or would respond to this type of hazard or that it had ever contemplated such an occurrence. I thank God that the sinkhole, if it had to occur, occurred at the time it did, when Mike and Sonja’s children were sleeping instead of swimming in the pool. What if the hole had collapsed under the house? I shudder to think what the response would have been and whether any agency is equipped to handle this type of emergency. This is just one of the issues that was uncovered during consideration of this matter. The inadequate and slow processes in the response of agencies to find a solution to this problem is generating plenty of interest but nothing that will stop or prevent any further damage. The Water Corporation is another agency involved. A sewer line runs directly in the path of the sinkhole. Should the sinkhole collapse further and the sewer line dislodge, it will create huge environmental damage. The added burden of damaged infrastructure will further complicate the issue. Visits have been made by the Water Corporation to look at the problem but no works have been undertaken. I am sure that there is no real comprehension of the type of damage that could occur at any given moment should the sinkhole collapse further. Another important issue concerns the understanding that no insurance is available to homes under threat of damage if the sinkhole collapses further. There are future impacts on the Pilkington family and their home if no restoration is made in the form of investigation and back engineering to secure and remove the threat. They and other homeowners own assets of significant value that are, and could well be in the future, uninsurable. This is not an acceptable or desirable outcome for those families. This is not the first sinkhole to appear in the northern corridor. Several have appeared over the years, some of which were seven to eight metres in depth. However, the land affected was primarily rural and no home - until now - was affected. The occurrence of sinkholes developing in the corridor is very real, due to the geology of the area. To my knowledge there is limited documentation of hazards in Perth. To date, some work has been done in the Wanneroo area in a report published in 2003 titled “Review of Karst Hazards in the Wanneroo Area, Perth, Western Australia”. I am running out of time very quickly and I have a lot to say. Unfortunately, I cannot get an extension of time. I will pass on the rest of this information to the minister. We must remember that Woodvale was part of the local government of Wanneroo. It is fair to say that the owners of the property would not have been aware of the associated risks when they purchased their home or that karsts even existed in the area. There has been very little community awareness about karsts in the region. This point moves me to the delicate question of who is responsible for recovering the damage and covering the costs. Was there a responsibility on the local council and the land developers, the State Planning Commission or the insurance company to act? Surely property owners who do not have any prior knowledge when purchasing their homes cannot and should not be held responsible for this type of natural hazard. Obviously, when the original urban zoning occurred, people may not have known that the area had karstic formations. Local governments lacked a process to provide karst reports. I am not aware that, at the time, there were any such requirements imposed on local government or land developers. Since the collapse in early March preliminary measures were taken to assess the damage and place a temporary reinforcement on the site by the insurance company. There was also some discussion held on possible ways to rectify the damage. There was mention of sandfill. That implied that there was some accountability to assess and manage the claim. Of course, in the general fashion, it got too hard and the company reneged and the claim was rejected. Why discuss the options of engineering a solution if it was not a straightforward claim between the owners and the holders of insurance policy? I thank the minister for commissioning the safety assessment soon after I notified his office. However, that is as far as we have got. My complaint today rests on the lack of support and the slow process in which no progress is made or solution achieved. There is a need to identify responsibility and to confirm who is responsible and how the problem will be resolved. What does this mean for the current landowners, who had no part in the planning or building of the home or the original subdivision that was passed by the local government and, ultimately, by

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] 3509 the Western Australian Planning Commission or the State Planning Commission at the time in the early 1980s? I am disturbed, to say the least, that the sinkhole has not been reinforced properly. It poses a very real risk and threat to the Pilkington family and their neighbours. Not only is there a cause for concern for their personal safety, but also for further damage to infrastructure, including the sewer pipes and the environment; that possibility cannot be disregarded. I request on behalf of the Pilkingtons some direction from the minister of a process for resolving this matter as it has continued for far too long. I look forward to the minister’s response and I hope he will shed some light on this matter for the Pilkingtons, who are here today. MR F.M. LOGAN (Cockburn - Minister for Resources) [9.56 am]: First of all, I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of the Pilkington family. I express my concerns, along with those of the member for Kingsley, about their plight. I feel for them. Certainly, none of us would like to be in the situation they are in. As the member for Kingsley has pointed out, this is quite an unusual event. I know there has been movement by karsts before. There have been examples in national parks and parkland along the coast of holes appearing occasionally on top of limestone formations. When a swimming pool in someone’s backyard falls into one, that is highly unusual. When it was brought to my attention and the government’s attention by the member for Kingsley very soon after it occurred, the member for Kingsley felt, as now, extremely frustrated. She clearly did not know - it has not been resolved yet - who takes responsibility for such an occurrence. Because of the dangers posed to the Pilkington family and their residence something needed to be done immediately. As a result of that and the member’s appeals to me as the Minister for Resources - effectively the minister for mines - and given that it was a hole that required geotechnical work, I used my offices and the geotechnical people who are employed by the Department of Industry and Resources to assist. Through the work of DOIR, Coffey Geotechnical was contracted to undertake a geotechnical assessment of the site to assess the immediate safety risks to the family and people in the immediate area. The report was issued on 26 March. It mapped three risk zones based on the geotechnical characteristics of the sinkhole and the immediate surrounds. It did not go to the point of stating what improvements needed to be done to address the problem because it was outside the brief that was given to Coffey Geotechnical, which was basically to assess the dangers and immediate changes. Cabinet recently made a decision that the Department of Industry and Resources would coordinate a response on behalf of the state government and its various agencies to work in liaison with the City of Joondalup. The department itself will not be responsible for the total work, but it will certainly take a leading role in coordinating the response by the state government to work with the City of Joondalup and help it address this problem. The department has advised me that the City of Joondalup has informed DOIR that action is underway to remedy the situation. I am aware of this because the member for Kingsley has told me this. The city has contracted an excavation firm to clean up the site and make it safe prior to doing the remediation work. Again, Coffey Geotechnics has been contracted by the City of Joondalup to investigate the site and manage the remedial work. The department has also assigned an officer from the Geological Survey of Western Australia to liaise with the City of Joondalup and Coffey Geotechnics on geotechnical issues. GSWA will liaise with officers of the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection, the Department for Planning and Infrastructure and the Department of Housing and Works to ensure that the City of Joondalup has access to the best available advice and expertise relevant to the problem. Based on the investigations that will be undertaken by Coffey and company, DOIR will assist the City of Joondalup to progress the remedial work. This will include clearing the site and working with the geotechnical contractor to assess the site and prepare specifications for appropriate ground-improvement works to be carried out to stabilise and repair the damage; preparing tender documents using the specifications that I have just referred to for the City of Joondalup to request quotes from the companies to carry out the ground-improvement works; assisting the City of Joondalup to review the received quotes and award a contract for the ground-improvement works; and assisting the City of Joondalup to supervise the ground-improvement works and review, from a geotechnical perspective, an end-of-contract report detailing all work done during the life of the contract. I also understand that the City of Joondalup will incur the actual costs of repairs and has already set aside $56 000 for the initial clearance work. That is basically what the department will do. Mrs J. Hughes: Basically, what you are telling me is that the Pilkington family will not be sent a bill at the end of all this. Mr F.M. LOGAN: What I am saying is that the work to assist and coordinate what the member has asked us to do will be undertaken. The City of Joondalup has set aside $56 000 for the remedial work. Mrs J. Hughes: That will not be enough. Mr F.M. LOGAN: I do not know how the City of Joondalup will deal with any further costs that are incurred. I cannot answer for the City of Joondalup. However, of course the costs of the work that will be undertaken by the state government will not be forwarded to the Pilkington family. Those costs will be picked up by the state government. The cost of coordinating the various agencies and the remedial work will be incurred by the state government. I do not know whether the City of Joondalup will absorb the costs of the work undertaken by the

3510 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] city or whether it will present a bill; I cannot answer that on behalf of the City of Joondalup. However, it is certainly an issue that I ask the member to take up with the City of Joondalup. I hope that she also works with the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection on any insurance issues that may still be outstanding. Mrs J. Hughes: I have written to the Insurance Council and, to date, it has given me no reply. Mr F.M. LOGAN: That is unfortunate. I certainly hope that the Insurance Council of Australia Ltd responds to the member’s efforts. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF HEALTH - RELATIONSHIP WITH MR BRIAN BURKE Standing Orders Suspension - Motion DR K.D. HAMES (Dawesville) [10.04 am] - without notice: I move - That so much of standing orders be suspended as would allow the following motion to be moved forthwith - That this house calls on the Minister for Health to immediately initiate an investigation into the full extent of the relationship and communication between the Director General of Health, Neale Fong, and Brian Burke and whether the Minister for Health was aware of or involved in that relationship. Earlier today we saw an extraordinary event when the Minister for Health made a statement in this house in which he apologised for misleading the house in response to an answer given to me during the estimates committee hearings and apologised on behalf of the Director General of the Department of Health, Dr Neale Fong, for that answer. First, I will read out my question. I asked - I think the minister would agree that healthy leadership does not go hand in hand with Mr Brian Burke. Can the minister advise whether there has been any email correspondence between Brian Burke and any health department employee since 2003; and, if so, will the minister table the relevant correspondence? In response to that question, the minister said that he did not think there had been any correspondence. He then turned to Dr Fong and asked him whether he had had communication with Mr Burke and the answer, in effect, was no. Today the minister has provided a list of emails that revealed that there was communication between Dr Fong and Mr Burke. In the minister’s statement, he said that Dr Fong had advised him that his recollection of the emails was that they included an invitation to dinner at Perugino Restaurant, which is already in the public arena; requests by Brian Burke on medical matters relating to individuals with whom Mr Burke is acquainted; and a request to meet someone on health department-related matters. Those responses to a freedom of information request were between 21 February 2006 and 6 June 2006. Mr J.A. McGinty: They weren’t FOI responses. That was as a result of a check. Dr K.D. HAMES: That was the minister’s check. The opposition initiated an FOI request - Mr J.A. McGinty: I didn’t know that. Dr K.D. HAMES: I am telling the minister. We initiated an FOI request for emails between Mr Brian Burke and Dr Fong. The response was that there was none. We then made another FOI request seeking information, because we know that there have been some email communications. If this is not the FOI response, which I thought it was, perhaps we do not have it. However, the initial inquiry was that there were no communications. The SPEAKER: The member has reached the point at which he should be debating the reason that standing orders should be suspended. The member has outlined his concerns, and he now needs to debate the reasons to suspend standing orders. Mr J.A. McGinty: We will agree to the suspension of standing orders, and then you can put the substantive motion. Dr K.D. HAMES: I will leave my comments there. The SPEAKER: The question before the house is that standing orders be suspended. If I hear a dissentient voice, I will have to divide the house. I have satisfied myself that there is an absolute majority present. Question put and passed with an absolute majority. Motion DR K.D. HAMES (Dawesville) [10.08 am]: I move - That this house calls on the Minister for Health to immediately initiate an investigation into the full extent of the relationship and communication between the Director General of Health, Neale Fong, and Brian Burke and whether the Minister for Health was aware of or involved in that relationship.

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] 3511

I will briefly give a recap of the issue, but it needs to be recorded in Hansard. I will go right back to the very start. The opposition became aware of an email communication between Mr Brian Burke and Dr Neale Fong. However, the email was of a relatively sensitive nature. It was not, and is not, our intention to release that email publicly. However, knowing that the email existed, we then made an FOI request for any emails between Mr Brian Burke and Dr Neale Fong. Mr J.A. McGinty: Was that about a patient or someone requiring medical treatment? Dr K.D. HAMES: No. The response came back that there were no emails. Knowing there was an email, we went back to FOI and said, “Look, we know there is an email; can you go back and have another look?” Subsequent to that we had the estimates committee hearing and I wanted the minister and Neale Fong on the record saying there was no communication. That is exactly what occurred. I asked the minister, and the minister said there were not, to his knowledge. He turned to Dr Fong and asked whether there were any emails and Dr Fong said no, not to his knowledge. The minister has come in here today and apologised to the house for inadvertently misleading the house on the advice of Dr Fong. He went on to say Dr Fong had advised him that his recollection of the emails is: an invitation to dinner at Perugino, which is already in the public arena - I will get to that later - and a request by Mr Brian Burke on medical matters related to individuals with whom Mr Burke is acquainted. Again we see the pervasive influence of Mr Burke, who is able to ring up the Director General of Health to ask for health- related management of his mates. Everyone in this house knows how difficult it is to get onto a director general of anything to ask for information, let alone private medical information for his mates. Mr J.A. McGinty: Your leader did that in the shooting incident. Dr K.D. HAMES: That is true. I accept that. I guess there is a little bit of difference between the Leader of the Opposition calling Dr Fong and Mr Brian Burke having direct access about what would seem to be a number of patients for whom he was seeking medical advice. Perhaps he did not have a GP. There was also a request to meet someone on health-related matters. I interjected earlier to ask the minister whether he knew what that was and the minister said he would find out, so perhaps he will be able to tell us later. We got from the minister today a copy of the emails that are allegedly all of the communication between Dr Fong and Mr Burke. The first is dated 21 February 2006 and the other is dated 6 June 2006. I can tell the minister that that is not the email of which we have a copy. The dates for the email we have are outside that six-month period, so it is obvious that there are a number of other emails relating to communication between Mr Burke and Dr Fong that the minister has not tabled here today and that are definitely within the time period. The email that related to Perugino is listed as an email on 25 May 2006. I have a report here from news.com.au headed “Burke scandal leaves Rudd bruised”. Members will recall that the whole issue was about Mr Rudd coming over for a dinner, a large number of people being invited to that dinner at Perugino and it being revealed that Mr Neale Fong was one of the invitees. That dinner was on 1 August 2005, a year before the dinner at Perugino that the minister is talking about. So there was an invitation to go with Brian Burke and a bunch of his cronies to a lunch or dinner at Perugino in May 2005 attended by Dr Fong, and another one in 2006. He attended one a year before, on 1 August 2005, with the current federal leader of the Labor Party. I have to say that it gives me absolutely no pleasure to bring this issue before the house. Mr J.A. McGinty: We should get to the bottom of it. I agree with you. Dr K.D. HAMES: I have a great deal of respect for Neale Fong and I find it extremely disappointing. I refer to some comments that were aired in the Sunday Times by the Australian Nursing Federation secretary Mark Olsen, talking about links between Brian Burke and Neale Fong. As I recall it, and perhaps the minister will correct me if my memory is faulty, Neale Fong was a director of a company in which Brian Burke at least, and I think either Julian Grill or his wife and one of the two larger union representatives in this state, I forget which one - Mr T. Buswell: Big Kev! Dr K.D. HAMES: Kevin Reynolds, was it? Those three were major shareholders. The negotiations over the contract with Neale Fong were, as I understand it, undertaken by one of the senior representatives from the minister’s office, with the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, I presume. That was to discuss the development of that contract with Neale Fong. During the time the contract was being negotiated, Dr Fong stood down as chairman of the company, which was obviously the appropriate thing to do. However, questions were raised about his links through that company with Brian Burke. At the same time, the month Neale Fong was appointed as the head of the health department, Paradigm Resources, a company “linked to Brian Burke and Julian Grill” - those are the words here - won a multimillion dollar WA government contract at the height of a ban on ministers and their staff meeting lobbyists. I am not suggesting, minister, that Neale Fong had a hand in that. He was appointed in the same month that Paradigm was given the contract. I am trying to highlight the all- pervasive connection - which we will deal with later today when we consider the report that was tabled last night - with Brian Burke and Julian Grill and how they are able to get their tentacles into all levels of government and government staff. In fact, I will talk about that when we discuss the report later. I will refer to

3512 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] the list of government staff who are listed on an email inviting people to a $275-a-head function for the member for Riverton. Large numbers of current government staff were invited to that function. Those two have their tentacles everywhere and it is of extreme concern to me that the highest paid public servant in Australia has such connections, which were initially denied, and which still have not been brought out through the FOI system, which is supposed to reveal issues like that. Subsequent to all that, after all that time had passed, there was communication between Dr Fong and Mr Burke about a further meal at Perugino - this was a year after he was appointed - and about private contacts of Mr Burke, discussing medical details with Dr Fong. It is just not appropriate for that sort of communication and contact to take place, particularly when we have had the former Premier of the state banning everybody from having contact with Burke and Grill. However, through the whole time dating right back to when Dr Fong was first appointed as chief of the health department, it would appear there has been communication. We have an email, and I cannot say when it is dated because I do not want to give away where it came from, but it is certainly dated outside the time frame to which I have referred. It was certainly not provided to us through FOI or by the minister, so we have to wonder what else there is and how much there is. It is imperative that the minister have that fully investigated. We have referred in the motion to whether the minister had any knowledge of this matter. We have done that for this reason. The minister’s chief of staff was involved in the negotiations on the contract for Neale Fong. The minister’s chief of staff helped to set the conditions for that contract and helped to negotiate the salary. Presumably, the minister had some input on that matter. It would be impossible for the minister’s chief of staff and the minister not to have been aware of the company of which Neale Fong was a director, which involved Brian Burke, and also Julian Grill or his wife. I believe Neale Fong has sufficient integrity that he would have made sure that he told the selection committee that that was the case. Mr J.A. McGinty: My recollection of the events at the time is that he told me that he would be resigning his directorship if he were appointed. My recollection is that he did exactly that. Dr K.D. HAMES: That is exactly true. I am saying that, at that stage, the minister knew. The minister also knew that Hon Geoff Gallop had placed a ban on contact - Mr J.A. McGinty: On ministers. Dr K.D. HAMES: Sure, on ministers. The minister makes that point as though it is important. To me, it is not important. Geoff Gallop banned ministers from contacting Burke and Grill. Therein lies the failure of that ban, because, from what the minister has just said, any chief executive officer, or any member of a government department, was free to contact Brian Burke and Julian Grill as lobbyists. That ban did not deter Brian Burke and Julian Grill one iota. They would just work with the chief of staff of whatever department it was, and that chief of staff would work with the minister to sort out whatever the problem was. It was just a convenient ploy to try to take public attention away from the fact that Burke and Grill were up to their armpits in manipulating government decisions time and again. The point I am making is that the minister knew that that arrangement was in place. Did the minister say to Dr Fong, “Look, I know you have had a bit of an association with Burke, but he is persona non grata. He is not someone you should be in communication with. He is not someone you should be dealing with”? The opposition has evidence of a series of direct communications between those two gentlemen, some to do with medical issues, some to do with health issues, and some to do with the issues that are raised in the email that we have a copy of. I cannot talk about that email at this time, but it deals with an extremely important subject. The minister needs to give a full and detailed explanation, and, not only that, hold a full and detailed investigation. MR T. BUSWELL (Vasse - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [10.22 am]: I want to make a couple of comments in support of the arguments articulated by the member for Dawesville. It is important that the Parliament and the public of this state understand the full extent of the relationship and the contacts between Brian Burke and Neale Fong. We know thus far that Neale Fong attended a dinner at Perugino Restaurant in West Perth on 1 August 2005. That was the now infamous Kevin Rudd fundraising dinner, at which Kevin Rudd met certain people of influence around Western Australia. My recollection is that when Dr Fong was pressed on why he had attended that dinner, he said that he had a genuine interest in China, and he wanted to understand Mr Rudd’s perspective on China and Australia’s relationship with China. When Dr Fong was asked questions about his relationship with Brian Burke, he basically batted those questions away. These are serious issues. I am sure the minister will agree, when he responds to this motion, that this matter needs to be fully explained to the Parliament. I want to step the minister through a process that the opposition entered into earlier this year. Earlier this year, the opposition came into possession - as the member for Dawesville has pointed out - of an email that had been sent from Mr Brian Burke to Neale Fong in about August 2005, give or take. It was at around that time - the middle of 2005. We thought it would be interesting to obtain a copy of that email from the Department of

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] 3513

Health. Therefore, we made a freedom of information application to the health department. That FOI application was sent to the health department on 28 March 2007. That FOI application sought any correspondence from Julian Grill to Neale Fong, any correspondence from Neale Fong to Julian Grill, any correspondence from Brian Burke to Neale Fong, and any correspondence from Neale Fong to Brian Burke. It was an all-encompassing FOI request. We received a response to that FOI application from the health department on 4 May. That response was headed “Notice of decision; documents not found.” Therefore, on 4 May, we received advice from the Department of Health that it had no documents that would be covered under the gamut of that FOI request; that is, correspondence or emails between Neale Fong, and Brian Burke and Julian Grill. We immediately lodged an internal appeal. In other words, we asked the health department to review its internal process, following the procedures of the Freedom of Information Act. The health department contacted us a couple of weeks ago and sought an extension of time for that internal review, which we granted, because we in the Leader of the Opposition’s office are quite generous! Funnily enough, minister - this is the point that has caused me some interest - we received the response to the review of that decision at about five o’clock last night, when it was hand-delivered to the Parliament. At five o’clock last night, we received the result of our FOI request; that is, we received the very emails that the minister referred to in his ministerial statement this morning. Of course, in the interim, the member for Dawesville had asked the minister during the estimates about the nature of any contact between Neale Fong and Mr Burke, and the minister had denied that there had been any contact. I know that that FOI information came from the health department and not the minister’s office. I am not suggesting at all that the minister - Mr J.A. McGinty: I had no knowledge of that. What did the reply that you received last night say? Mr T. BUSWELL: The reply that we received last night referred exactly to the emails that the minister referred to this morning. It may well be a lucky coincidence that the minister, in his statement to the house this morning, referred to the very emails that we have received as a result of that FOI process and that were hand-delivered to the Parliament at the close of business last night. However, it may be that a bit of political spin has come into the way in which that information was provided. I do not know. I have my suspicions, but I will let the minister explain that. I want to make sure that the minister is absolutely clear about the process. We know that there were emails between Fong and Burke in 2005. We know that through the FOI process that we initiated in March this year to seek those documents. On 4 May, the health department told us that there were no documents. We then requested an internal review, and, lo and behold, last night, at the close of business, those documents turned up! That is our FOI process so far. Funnily enough, today the minister made a statement on that matter. A couple of matters need to be followed up. The first is that it is abundantly clear that the health department has not provided details of all the emails between Brian Burke and Neale Fong, and vice versa. That is an established fact. I think the minister needs to say to the health department, “What on earth is going on here? Why are you failing to disclose the true nature of your contact, and the frequency of your contact, with Mr Burke?” That needs to be clearly established. I am sure the minister will attempt to do that; or perhaps not, and we will deal with that in due course. That is fact number one. The FOI process yielded emails that are only a subset of the true picture. Why was this attempt to mislead, or deceive, entered into? Dr Fong has provided emails for the period 21 February 2006 to 5 June 2006. Why was that period arbitrarily chosen out of the totality of the time that Dr Fong has been in that position, which I think goes back to 2004? This is a very serious allegation. We know that there were emails between Dr Fong and Mr Burke in 2005. That is the first issue. The second issue is why the health department computer system, or IT system, cannot retrieve emails that are more than three months old. It strikes me as unbelievable in this modern day and age that a major government department cannot retrieve emails that are more than three months old. I know that the minister sought advice from the Director General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, but I suggest that he may wish to engage some of those forensic information technology staff, and let them go to the Department of Health and have a good look. One of the things we discovered last night in the debate on the Procedure and Privileges Committee report was that forensic analysis can yield things that we can only imagine. To be honest, it beggars belief that the Department of Health cannot provide copies of emails outside of a three-month period. That serious issue needs to be followed up. The member for Dawesville raised another very interesting question. In his ministerial statement this morning the minister said that Dr Fong had advised him that his recollection of emails was “as follows”. Why has he only just had that recollection when just six or seven weeks ago in estimates he could not recall at all? How can he have this sudden flash of memory in suddenly remembering emails from Brian Burke? I suggest that the Director General of the Department of Health would remember correspondence he had with Brian Burke. I suspect that any senior public servant or anyone in public life in this state would remember if they got into the lift next to Brian Burke, even if they did not speak to him. He is not the sort of person, given his reputation, that one would forget receiving emails from. It defies logic to suggest that Neale Fong, during the estimates hearings, could not recall emails from Brian Burke, and yet today the minister tells us that he has suddenly been

3514 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] able to recollect the nature of them. Coincidentally, that recollection happened at about the time the freedom of information process provided the opposition with details of nine specific emails either sent or received. There is no logic to that flow of events, and I suspect that Dr Fong may at least have had a suspicion during estimates that he had received emails from Brian Burke. One would not forget receiving emails from that individual, given the events that exploded around him late last year and early this year. The final point is that the minister talked about an invitation to dinner at Perugino. In his statement the minister spoke of “an invitation to dinner at Perugino, which is already in the public arena”. Let us not forget that the dinner at Perugino took place on 5 August 2005. This was the famous Rudd dinner. Emails between Brian Burke and Neale Fong with “Perugino” in the subject area were sent on 29 May 2006. Why would they be sending emails about a dinner that happened almost a year before? That statement does not stand up to proper scrutiny. I suggest that Dr Fong and Mr Burke had had subsequent meetings at Perugino. Why was he sending an email almost a year later? Was he sending the bill so that Mr Burke could pay it? I doubt it. Maybe Dr Fong was sending Mr Burke some photographs he took on the evening, that he had suddenly found on his digital camera. Maybe he said, “Brian, thanks for a good night.” I do not know. What is the logical explanation for Neale Fong sending emails to Brian Burke with “Perugino” in the subject line? It certainly could not be in relation to the dinner that was held almost 12 months earlier. I put it to the minister that Dr Fong and Mr Burke had had at least one more meeting at Perugino, and probably more. In conclusion, the minister’s statement this morning raises as many, if not more questions than it answers. It certainly establishes that Neale Fong has suddenly had a memory recharge, or has in some way improved his memory between estimates and now. That has been established, but the statement also indicates, firstly, that Dr Fong is not giving us the full picture of his relationship with Brian Burke, because we know that there are other emails. Secondly it is more than likely that there were other meetings at Perugino. The onus is on the minister to take this further. He must go back to Dr Fong and say that the minister, the Parliament and the people of Western Australia want to understand the full nature of his relationship with Brian Burke. It is all just a little bit cosy that this has tied in very nicely with the hand delivery last night from the Department of Health to Parliament of the very same information that we obtained under freedom of information. MR J.A. McGINTY (Fremantle - Minister for Health) [10.35 am]: I am inclined to support this motion, because the issues raised are of significant public interest and importance, and we need to get to the bottom of them. I thank the member for Dawesville for raising the issues in the way in which he has. I will go back to the beginning of this matter, which was the estimates committee. The member for Dawesville will no doubt have as clear a recollection of this matter as I do. It is set out in the Hansard of Estimates Committee A of Wednesday, 23 May 2007, at page E219. It reads - Dr K.D. HAMES: I have a question to which I am sure the answer will be brief, but I want to get it on the record. I refer to the first dot point under “Healthy Leadership” on page 585. I think the minister would agree that healthy leadership does not go hand in hand with Mr Brian Burke. Can the minister advise whether there has been any email correspondence between Brian Burke and any health department employee since 2003; and, if so, will the minister table the relevant correspondence? The CHAIRMAN: That was a rather long bow, member, but we will see what the minister wants to do with that question. Dr K.D. HAMES: It was not a long bow, Madam Chair; it was a simple question that has a simple answer. The CHAIRMAN: I do not think it relates to a specific budget line, but we will see. Dr K.D. HAMES: It is healthy leadership. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have just asked the director general and he said that there has been no email communication between him and Brian Burke between 2003, which I think was the date the member gave - Dr K.D. HAMES: Yes, since 2003. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Dr Fong became director general in 2004 and the answer in respect of him is no. There are 35 000 or 37 000 employees in the health sector. I cannot vouch for every one of those employees. Dr K.D. HAMES: That is not necessary, minister. I am satisfied. Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, I did not think it was. That is the answer from Dr Fong. However, can I say that I spoke with Brian Burke once and it was very brief! However, there was no email. The rest of my answer is not relevant for today’s purposes. Dr K.D. Hames: It was obviously designed without our knowledge of that email in mind.

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] 3515

Mr J.A. McGINTY: The member is more cunning than I gave him credit for. He will recall that when he asked the question, I leaned over to Dr Fong, who was sitting next to me. I asked him for the answer, he said no and I related that information back to the member, in good faith. When I became aware that the information I conveyed to the member on that occasion was not correct, I did what I thought was the right thing as soon as I was able to get the information together. I have only been made aware of it in the past few days. Mr T. Buswell: Funny, that! Mr J.A. McGINTY: For whatever reason, that was quite honestly when I became aware of it. Dr K.D. Hames: You got a copy of our FOI material. Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, I did not. I might have obtained the information, but I did not know that there was an FOI response last night. Many FOI responses come in, but I do not think I was aware that there was an FOI request from the opposition. Dr K.D. Hames: I accept that, but it does raise questions about how an FOI response should suddenly, without the minister knowing it, appear on his desk. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Nonetheless, Dr Fong gave me the answer that there was no email communication. As I stated in the brief ministerial statement this morning, the reason for that - this may be related to the opposition’s freedom of information request - was that information was given to him by the department in April. I mentioned in the ministerial statement that there was no email record. He was relying on advice provided to him on 24 April 2007 that there had been a search of all tracking systems that did not reveal any correspondence with Brian Burke, which is consistent with what the member has told me was the first response to the opposition’s FOI request. I did not know that until this morning. What concerns me about this series of events is that, firstly, the member for Dawesville has told me he has another earlier email that falls outside this time frame. That concerns me, as I relied initially on what Dr Fong told me; that is, there were no emails. I then relied, in my statement this morning, on what he subsequently told me; that is, there were nine emails, five outgoing and four incoming, between Dr Fong and Brian Burke. Now the member for Dawesville tells me there are more. Dr K.D. Hames: I am aware specifically of only one. I suspect more. Mr J.A. McGINTY: That is fine. If there is one other, that is too many, if I am to rely on information I am provided with, as I need to be provided with accurate information. I do not impute to anyone in this matter any dishonest motive, but I am concerned if the information that I relay to Parliament, by whatever means, is not accurate. That is a matter that must be properly investigated. Similarly, I say to the member for Vasse that I find it hard to believe that emails of more than three months old are not retrievable. That was the reason that when - Dr K.D. Hames: We have seen that in the other report tabled last night, haven’t we? The report went back through the emails of the member for Riverton - well beyond three months. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Yes. I delete emails off my system from time to time. Whether they have been deleted and therefore cannot be retrieved after three months, I do not know. I do not know the technical answer to that. Mr R.F. Johnson: Yes, they can. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Nonetheless, because I was concerned about that issue, I requested the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, which is responsible generally for IT through ministerial offices and departments and is certainly capable of providing that advice, to confirm what I had been told by the Department of Health - that is, these particular emails could not be retrieved - and the Department of the Premier and Cabinet confirmed that it was correct. However, like the disbelief of the member for Vasse, my concern led to that action being taken to ascertain why we could not get access to those emails. It was my intention to come into this place and say, “Sorry, we have made a mistake in the information we have conveyed to you. I did it, relying on the advice given by the director general, who tells me it was inadvertence on his part. Nonetheless, we have found them and here they are”, so that members would have had the text of those emails. If there are other emails, we may need to do a more rigorous search. I presume that if information has been provided to the member for Dawesville through freedom of information legislation last night that there were nine emails, people would not be saying nine if they knew there were more. As I said, I do not impute any dishonesty to anyone, but it seems that there is at least a systems issue involved here that needs to be corrected. I am aware of the Perugino Restaurant dinner or lunch, I think it was. In fact, I am not sure whether it was lunch or dinner. Dr K.D. Hames: I suspect one may have been a lunch and one may have been a dinner. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I do not know. Mr T. Buswell: They probably had a little table in the corner!

3516 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007]

Mr J.A. McGINTY: Not for me, I assure the member for Vasse. Nonetheless, we need to get to the bottom of this matter. I do not wish the influence of Brian Burke to hang over any department that I am associated with in any way, shape, or form. As far as I am involved, in the time that I have been a minister I recollect one conversation with Brian Burke, which was as we passed. It was not a meeting as such; we simply happened to pass and we exchanged pleasantries. Mr M.J. Birney: What did he say to you? Mr R.F. Johnson: Tell us. Mr T. Buswell: “Did you forget my Christmas card?” Mr J.A. McGINTY: We were very civil, let me put it that way. I assure members that of all members of this place I am, for historical reasons, the least likely to have any relationship with Brian Burke. Ms S.E. Walker: I don’t think that’s true at all. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Over the decades I think I can hold my hand up on that count. That is the only issue that really concerns me about the closing part of the motion put forward by the member for Dawesville in relation to my involvement with Brian Burke. I am happy to look into that but, frankly, I think it is drawing an exceedingly unlikely bow. Dr K.D. Hames: Do you think the involvement of your chief of staff and the knowledge of contact warrants that? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Sure. I just sound a note of caution about the drafting of the final few words of the motion. My view is, in the light of the matters that have been raised today, that this matter needs to be investigated. It is about the integrity of the health department, its director general and other senior staff. It appears that the information I have been provided with, and I therefore provided to this Parliament, has not been comprehensive. I hope that the member for Dawesville will provide me with more information about his particular email, as that might well provide the key. Dr K.D. Hames: I really can’t without - Mr J.A. McGINTY: Even on a strictly confidential basis. Dr K.D. Hames: Unless you can tell me who it’s from. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I think I have told the member for Dawesville all I know about emails between two other people, not me. Dr K.D. Hames: Yes, I know. Mr J.A. McGINTY: All I am saying is that to properly get to the bottom of this, if the member for Dawesville can be of some assistance in enabling me to properly track through the vast bulk of emails, I would be appreciative of that. Dr K.D. Hames: It depends on how you set up the inquiry. If you set up the inquiry that has a closed component that allows me to reveal information confidentially, then - Mr J.A. McGINTY: I would not ask the member for Dawesville to breach any confidence. I would simply say, “Can you assist me by providing me details?” Dr K.D. Hames: What sort of inquiry would you set up? Mr J.A. McGINTY: The member for Dawesville has just moved the motion and he has asked me to conduct an inquiry. I will do it, but I have not given any thought to how it might be done as yet. My inclination would be to properly go through all of these issues that have been raised during the course of debate today so that this Parliament can be satisfied that it has all the knowledge of everything that has transpired between Neale Fong and Brian Burke, and whether there are any incidental or related matters. Mr E.S. Ripper: Attorney General, my reading of the motion reveals the confidence and respect that the opposition has in you, because it is asking you to investigate yourself. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Indeed, and that is why I said that the motion was rather strangely worded, but I am happy to look into myself. Mr M.J. Cowper: Who is going to fall on the sword? That is the question. Dr K.D. Hames: The issue with that really is that we discussed that we would obviously prefer an independent inquiry, but the motion was left blank to give you the opportunity of putting forward what you thought would be

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] 3517 the most credible inquiry. If you put forward a lame duck inquiry that is totally in-house and is - what is the phrase - Nero investigating Nero, that would not have credibility and the matter won’t end there. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Sure. Dr K.D. Hames: It needs to be an inquiry that seems to be at arm’s length and seems to be credible. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I think we have the same objective here; that is, to deal with this matter comprehensively and conclusively; to have a full public understanding of everything that has occurred; the nature of the relationships; if any, more detail on the emails; and all those sorts of matters. That is the reason I have indicated that I am happy to agree to the motion that the member for Dawesville moved, because I certainly want that in respect of the health department, and I think the Parliament needs it. That is putting it in a nutshell. For those reasons, with the qualification about the wording of the tail of the motion, I understand exactly what the member for Dawesville means - Dr K.D. Hames: There is always a sting in the tail. Mr J.A. McGINTY: We will be able to take this motion away and make sure that we conclusively get to the bottom of all these matters. MS S.E. WALKER (Nedlands) [10.47 am]: I rise to support this motion, which reads - That this house calls on the Minister for Health to immediately initiate an investigation into the full extent of the relationship and communication between the Director General of Health, Neale Fong, and Brian Burke and whether the Minister for Health was aware of or involved in that relationship. I support the motion because this casts a new light on the QEII meeting the other night. If the Minister for Health has a relationship with Brian Burke and if people can arrange meetings or Mr Burke can arrange meetings with the Minister for Health, one would have to have a look at all the developments that are going on in relation to hospitals in this state. Mr J.A. McGinty: You must be the only person in this house who thinks that Brian Burke would do that. Ms S.E. WALKER: No. It is well known from Corruption and Crime Commission transcripts that Brian Burke and Julian Grill work in conjunction, and often with Noel Crichton-Browne. Several members interjected. Ms S.E. WALKER: I came under attack at the QEII meeting from members and public officials of the Nedlands charter group, some of whom are very closely connected with Noel Crichton-Browne. I want to know whether, the Minister for Health has arranged - or Mr Burke has arranged - any meeting between him and the Nedlands charter group and the City of Nedlands in relation to the development of QEII. Mr J.A. McGinty: Categorically no. Anything else? Ms S.E. WALKER: That is what I want to know, because it is quite clear to me from looking at the emails that Mr Burke has influence over the Attorney General. He may laugh but I have seen the email. Maybe he is oblivious to it; I do not know. Maybe he keeps people at arm’s length. The fact is that the Nedlands charter group has connections to Noel Crichton-Browne, who has direct connections to Brian Burke. The Attorney General has been the subject of a meeting that Mr Burke organised. The Attorney General is connected to Brian Burke. Question put and passed. PROCEDURE AND PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE - SECOND REPORT Standing Orders Suspension - Motion MR J.C. KOBELKE (Balcatta - Leader of the House) [10.50 am] - without notice: I move - That standing orders be suspended as is necessary to allow the following motion to be considered forthwith - That this house accepts report No. 2 “Inquiry into the Member for Murchison-Eyre’s Unauthorised Release of Committee Documents and Related Matters” of the Procedure and Privileges Committee, thanks the members for their work and in keeping with the report’s recommendations - (1) finds the member for Murchison-Eyre guilty of contempt of the Legislative Assembly in that he deliberately disclosed confidential proceedings of the Economics and Industry Standing Committee by releasing a chair’s draft report without authorisation; (2) notes that the contempt is aggravated because the member for Murchison-Eyre knew - (a) that the premature release would directly advantage a personal friend, Hon Julian Grill; and

3518 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007]

(b) would significantly affect the commercial interests of two companies operating in Western Australia, namely Precious Metals Australia and Xstrata; (3) strongly censures the member for Murchison-Eyre for his actions which have diminished public trust in parliamentary institutions and processes; (4) disqualifies the member for Murchison-Eyre from membership of any parliamentary committee for the remainder of the thirty-seventh Parliament; (5) suspends the member for Murchison-Eyre from the service of the house for a period of seven sitting weeks or 21 sitting days, whichever is the longer; (6) directs the member for Murchison-Eyre not to enter the parliamentary precincts until the suspension period of paragraph (5) has expired; (7) finds that Hon Julian Grill is in contempt of Parliament by reason of his actions of forwarding the chair’s draft report to Mr Roderick Smith; and (8) recognises that, on the tabling of the report, the member for Riverton unreservedly apologise to the house for potentially diminishing public trust in parliamentary institutions and processes through his failure as chairman and member of the Economics and Industry Standing Committee to ensure that Mr Roderick Smith did not attend the ALP Riverton election campaign fundraising event as a paying participant during that committee’s inquiry. I think there is agreement to the suspension of standing orders. I will not speak to it. I will wait until we deal with the motion, which will come on once we suspend standing orders. DR S.C. THOMAS (Capel) [10.53 am]: This is a serious matter. The opposition agrees with the suspension of standing orders and supports it. The SPEAKER: The question before the house relates to the suspension of standing orders. If I hear a dissenting voice, I will need to divide the house. I have satisfied myself that there is an absolute majority present. Question put and passed with an absolute majority. Adoption of Recommendations by House - Motion MR J.C. KOBELKE (Balcatta - Leader of the House) [10.54 am]: I move - That this house accepts report No. 2 “Inquiry into the Member for Murchison-Eyre’s Unauthorised Release of Committee Documents and Related Matters” of the Procedure and Privileges Committee, thanks the members for their work and in keeping with the report’s recommendations - (1) finds the member for Murchison-Eyre guilty of contempt of the Legislative Assembly in that he deliberately disclosed confidential proceedings of the Economics and Industry Standing Committee by releasing a chair’s draft report without authorisation; (2) notes that the contempt is aggravated because the member for Murchison-Eyre knew - (a) that the premature release would directly advantage a personal friend, Hon Julian Grill; and (b) would significantly affect the commercial interests of two companies operating in Western Australia, namely Precious Metals Australia and Xstrata; (3) strongly censures the member for Murchison-Eyre for his actions which have diminished public trust in parliamentary institutions and processes; (4) disqualifies the member for Murchison-Eyre from membership of any parliamentary committee for the remainder of the thirty-seventh Parliament; (5) suspends the member for Murchison-Eyre from the service of the house for a period of seven sitting weeks or 21 sitting days, whichever is the longer; (6) directs the member for Murchison-Eyre not to enter the parliamentary precincts until the suspension period of paragraph (5) has expired; (7) finds that Hon Julian Grill is in contempt of Parliament by reason of his actions of forwarding the chair’s draft report to Mr Roderick Smith; and

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] 3519

(8) recognises that, on the tabling of the report, the member for Riverton unreservedly apologise to the house for potentially diminishing public trust in parliamentary institutions and processes through his failure as chairman and member of the Economics and Industry Standing Committee to ensure that Mr Roderick Smith did not attend the ALP Riverton election campaign fundraising event as a paying participant during that committee’s inquiry. It is stating the obvious that this is a very serious matter. All members of the house will be treating it as a most serious issue. The committee members who spoke last night have already reflected on that. The work of the committee was obviously difficult. I commend the committee for the work it undertook and its subsequent report. The committee met on 20 occasions, which included 19 deliberative meetings. It heard evidence from a number of people and it brought forward a report with findings and recommendations. It is clearly difficult for a committee to pass judgement on a fellow member. That is certainly something that the committee took on in light of the importance of the matter. It had to go through the evidence. I accept, as the report says, that substantial evidence was available not only from those who came before the committee but also from the Corruption and Crime Commission. The sifting of that information through the assistance of a senior counsel to make sure that the processes were proper, the evidence was presented to the committee and the committee’s deliberations would appropriately weigh the evidence before it reflects on the committee in a very positive way. It also reflects on the house in making sure that we uphold its reputation which is under threat because of the actions that the committee was clearly given the job of inquiring into. In terms of the processes - this may reflect on the debate that follows later - if we want to get something done and decisions need to be taken, we need a smaller group of people to do it. If we were to ask the 57 members of this chamber to consider that weight of evidence, that volume of evidence, the seriousness of the matter and the emotion that goes with a serious issue, it would have taken a lot more than 20 meetings and we would not have got anywhere near the quality of the report that we have. Given the nature of how things work, a small number of people need to concentrate their intellect, attention and energy to the problem at hand and come forward with solutions as to how it can be resolved or produce an outcome. This report clearly reflects a group that has done that to the best of its ability and, on all the evidence available, done it well. We thank the committee for its work. We accept the 19 findings. Paragraphs (1) to (8) of the motion reflect almost verbatim the recommendations in the committee’s report. Clearly, there are a few changes in the tense or the way the grammar is expressed. Also, recommendation 3 becomes paragraph (8) of the motion. Given that the member for Riverton has already apologised unreservedly, it acknowledges that rather than calling on him to do it. The wording is verbatim, as was in the recommendation of the report of the Procedure and Privileges Committee. I have been speaking to an Independent and a spokesperson from the Liberal opposition about the fact that Julian Grill has been found to be in contempt of Parliament but there is no penalty. The Procedure and Privileges Committee recommended a penalty with respect to the member for Murchison-Eyre but not with respect to Hon Julian Grill. It may be open to the house that we should look at doing that. I have given an undertaking to opposition members that we will certainly talk to them and that this will be taken up in a subsequent motion if we can reach agreement about what that penalty should be. It is certainly open to the house to refer the matter of the penalty on a finding of contempt against Julian Grill to the Procedure and Privileges Committee. In my discussion with members it may be that members can come to some consensus on that. The house can determine that today. That is a matter that will unfold as we go into the debate. It is certainly a serious matter. It gives me no pleasure to move this motion. As Leader of the House I accept some responsibility to try to make sure that the house runs in a proper and effective way. Part of that is to uphold the standards and the respect the public has for this place. On that basis I have no choice but to move the motion, which would take up and implement the recommendations that the Procedure and Privileges Committee have presented in its report to the house. MR A.J. CARPENTER (Willagee - Premier) [11.00 am]: I support this motion. I support the findings and recommendations of the Procedure and Privileges Committee. I believe that the inquiry by the committee has been very thorough and very rigorous. I would like to congratulate the members of the committee, including Mr Speaker, for the work they have done and the report they have produced. I listened intently to the speeches of each individual member of the committee last night and took careful note of what was being said and the sentiment behind what was being said. Once again, I acknowledge the very difficult task and good work that has been done by each member of the committee. I am glad to say that, considering the gravity of the circumstance, the findings were agreed to unanimously by the members. That is testament to the good functioning of the committee. Members from the government party - that is, the Labor Party - the Liberal Party and the National Party have found unanimously on a matter like this, which I think is something worth acknowledging. It is a positive outcome.

3520 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007]

It is incumbent upon the Parliament to endorse the report, its findings and its recommendations. I doubt very much whether there would be a single member who would not wish to endorse the findings and recommendations. Like many people in the house, I believe that the member for Murchison-Eyre is a very good man. He is a decent human being. It is most unfortunate that he has found himself, by his own actions, in this position. He has done something that is wrong. He has done something that he should not have done. He has done something that was unwise and stupid but, profoundly and importantly, it was something that he should not have done as a member of Parliament. Therefore, he must suffer the consequences. In essence, the member for Murchison-Eyre allowed a personal friendship to override his responsibility as a parliamentarian, his responsibility to the Parliament, and his responsibility to the electorate. His actions seriously compromised the processes of the Parliament. That is the bottom line. His actions need to be condemned and need to be punished. As I understand, the penalty recommended is the most severe ever handed down by the Parliament of Western Australia. It is thoroughly deserved. It is unfortunate that the penalty has to apply to a person of good character, who I think is a high-calibre human being. So be it. I welcome the committee’s findings that Mr Julian Grill is in contempt of Parliament. I believe that great responsibility lies with Mr Grill in this matter. He is a former member of Parliament of very long standing. He was one of the longest-serving members of Parliament when I first entered Parliament. Not only should he have known, but also he did know better. Not only was he a former member of long standing, but also he was a cabinet minister of high standing for many years in the Parliament. Mr Grill was in contempt of Parliament. He should accept that finding. He should receive at least the same punishment as the member for Murchison-Eyre; that is to say that, at least, he should be denied the privileges of, and access to, the Parliament for a period equal to that that has been applied to the member for Murchison-Eyre. The period of seven weeks denied access to the Parliament should be applied. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! I call the member for Roe to order for the first time. I mention at this point that this is a serious matter. Members’ contributions should be through standing in their place and speaking and not by yelling abuse across the chamber. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: As the Leader of the House has said, we could refer the matter back to the committee for its deliberations or we could deal with the matter today. I think it would be preferable if we dealt with the matter today. I point out that the committee made no recommendation of punishment other than Mr Grill be held in contempt of Parliament. I also welcome the apology provided last night by the member for Riverton, and his acknowledgement that his actions, as reported by the committee, had the potential to diminish public trust in the institution of Parliament and its procedures. He did the right thing to apologise last night in accordance with the findings and recommendations of the committee. I conclude on this point. We are living in an era of new accountability in political life in Western Australia. The level of accountability and scrutiny that applies to members of Parliament in Western Australia today is far above anything that has ever applied before in this state. Anybody who knows anything about the history of politics - recent or more distant - in Western Australia knows that to be a fact. There has never been a level of scrutiny over politics and politicians in Western Australia such as there is today. I do not believe there is anything like it anywhere else in Australia, certainly not at the federal level where it appears to me that ministers get away with blue murder. They would never get away with those sorts of activities if they were under the same sort of scrutiny as we in the Western Australian Parliament are. We are in a new era of accountability. This state government, through the creation of the Corruption and Crime Commission, has set new standards. People have to abide by those standards or face the consequences and pay the price. We have seen a succession of these occurrences in the past 12 months. People who fail to meet the standards now required of them will be penalised and they will pay a price. That is happening today. I endorse the findings and recommendations of the committee. I congratulate the members for their work. MR P.D. OMODEI (Warren-Blackwood - Leader of the Opposition) [11.08 am]: I indicate to the house the deep concern I have about the events that have unfolded in the past few days. As has been said, the unauthorised release of standing committee documents represents a serious breach of process and trust, specifically the processes that support the proper workings of the Parliament and the trust required between members as they go about their parliamentary business. There is no doubt - as Mr Speaker mentioned yesterday - that damage has been done to the integrity of the committee system of this Parliament. There is also no doubt that the member for Murchison-Eyre should have known the damage that the unauthorised release of information would do to the committee system of the Parliament. The other matter that concerns me is the fact that there was a report to the Clerk of the Parliament and that the Clerk did not report it to Mr Speaker as the Presiding Officer. That is also a very serious matter.

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] 3521

I note with interest that the members of the committee were in total agreement about the report to Parliament. I also understand that the committee deems that the penalties recommended in the report are very severe and most severe when compared with penalties delivered by the House of Commons. I must say that I beg to differ. I believe that the report may have recommended penalties in that the member for Murchison-Eyre is not able to sit in the Parliament; that a contempt be recorded against former member Julian Grill; and, of course, that an apology be demanded from the member for Riverton. However, I must ask: what kind of action would constitute an expulsion of a member of Parliament from this house? I would like somebody to answer that question. Like other members, I have known the member for Murchison-Eyre for a number of years. I like him as a person. The member for Murchison-Eyre made a mistake and he has to face the penalty. However, although the penalty that has been given to him may appear to be a serious penalty to members of Parliament and people who understand the Westminster system, to many others it would basically constitute paid long service leave. The member for Murchison-Eyre will go back to his electorate. People mentioned yesterday that his electorate would suffer. However, he will go back to Kalgoorlie, sit in his office there and give his constituents better service than he would if he was sitting here in Parliament. What is the penalty to the member for Murchison-Eyre? It is a very small penalty. The report finds that former member and minister Julian Grill is in contempt of Parliament. There is no recommendation of a penalty. I signal to members that the opposition intends to move to suspend standing orders to deal with the Julian Grill issue. I think that the report is deficient in that it has not recommended stronger penalties. We know that the penalty for contempt is $100. Contempt of this kind and the actions by the member for Murchison-Eyre deserve serious sanctions. A financial penalty is the only penalty that people in the community in Western Australia understand. I have not been listening to talkback radio, but I can predict what the reaction is. The reaction will be that this is a joke and a whitewash; that members of Parliament who breach their privilege are not being penalised at all. It is a paid holiday and it is not good enough. That brings me to the next person on the agenda. I want to talk about the influence of the chairman of the committee. I intend to move an amendment to the motion relating to this. I just do not believe that the member for Riverton did his job as chairman of that committee. I believe that he knew exactly what was going on from day one. Amendment to Motion Mr P.D. OMODEI: On that basis, I move - To delete all words after “(8)” and substitute the following - (a) finds the member for Riverton guilty of contempt of the Legislative Assembly in that - (i) he allowed the alteration of a committee report for the pecuniary interest of a party who would substantially benefit from the Economics and Industry Standing Committee report; (ii) failed to take proper steps as the chairman of a committee to prevent undue external influence on that EISC report; and (iii) sought financial support from a party who would substantially benefit from that EISC report; (b) censures the member for Riverton for his actions which have diminished public trust in parliamentary institutions and processes; (c) disqualifies the member for Riverton from membership of any parliamentary committee for the remainder of the thirty-seventh Parliament; (d) suspends the member for Riverton from the service of the house for a period of two sitting weeks or six sitting days, whichever is the longer; and (e) directs the member for Riverton not to enter the parliamentary precinct until the suspension period in paragraph (d) has expired. I deal with the influence of the Chairman of the Economics and Industry Standing Committee. I refer to some of the evidence that came out in the report. On 5 August 2004, an email was sent from Julian Grill to the member for Riverton and the member for Murchison-Eyre. It sets out the concerns of Precious Metals Australia that Xstrata might get a free kick in terms of evidence by conducting a Windimurra tour. I will refer to that later. On 6 August, there was an email from Julian Grill to Roderick Smith in which Mr Grill says that the member for Riverton rang him. The email also states - It would be counterproductive to try to micro-manage the proceedings of the enquiry

3522 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007]

It seems like it is okay to manage the rest of the inquiry, but this is the influence of the member for Riverton. On 23 September 2004, in an email from Roderick Smith to Brian Burke and Julian Grill, Mr Smith says that the member for Riverton asked him for further evidence that may help on areas of the ore body, plant and vanadium price. On 27 October, in a further email from Roderick Smith to the member for Riverton, Mr Smith asks when - . . . the Committee is able to make an announcement as to the timetable for release of the Committee’s report? Again on 27 October, in an email from the member for Riverton to Roderick Smith, the member tells Mr Smith that he expects the report to be handed down, and on it goes. On 7 January 2005, in an email from the member for Riverton to Julian Grill, the member writes - I will also be contacting Roderick Smith asking him for a direct contribution to the ALP Riverton Campaign. On 26 April, there is another email from Roderick Smith to both Grill and Burke in which he gives them copies of thankyou letters advising the settlement agreement with Xstrata. The letters went to the member for Murchison-Eyre, the member for Riverton and the former member for Peel. Why did the member for Peel get one? Was he involved in it as well? The Procedure and Privileges Committee recommendation relating to the member for Riverton is totally inappropriate and amounts really to a slap on the wrist. Both the member for Murchison-Eyre and the member for Riverton are in positions of trust. As chairman of the committee, the member for Riverton’s responsibilities in regard to the inquiry process were greater than that of Mr Bowler, and the member for Riverton’s actions have undermined the integrity of the Parliament. When chairing a committee, as the member for Riverton was, politicians should act without fear or favour. Favour was seemingly the paramount concern for the member for Riverton because he was more interested in getting donations from Brian Burke, Julian Grill and Roderick Smith than in performing his job as the Chairman with integrity. The back-and-forth correspondence, which appears in the report, and the sharing of information between the member for Riverton and Roderick Smith, Julian Grill and Brian Burke was totally inappropriate. Both the member for Riverton and the member for Murchison-Eyre provided preferential treatment and access to Julian Grill and Roderick Smith. The member for Riverton actively solicited money from Roderick Smith after handing down a report that was clearly favourable and beneficial for Mr Smith’s company Precious Metals Australia. We get back to the old system of cash for favours; that is how the Australian Labor Party works. I will give members some more information on that in a minute. Given the close relationship and, in my view, inappropriate sharing of confidential information by the member for Riverton, it is inconceivable that he was not complicit in changes being made to the report and that he had no knowledge of what was going on. I think that there was a nod and a wink between the member for Riverton and the member for Murchison-Eyre, Julian Grill, Brian Burke and Roderick Smith. A nod and a wink that was worth a lot of money to a lot of people. This is just one example; we do not know how many more there are and what other inquiries of this Parliament have been tainted by the corrupt activities of the Labor Party. I will quote some of the evidence from the report that shows, firstly, the member for Riverton knew right from the start. The member for Hillarys asked - The point of my question was - I will put it in a different way. Was Tony McRae aware fully of the involvement of Julian Grill and, consequently, Roderick Smith of PMA in the workings and decisions and areas of concern within the committee? That question was to John Bowler. The member for Murchison-Eyre responded - He knew that right at the start that Julian had raised it with me right at the start. I think he knew then. I did not really hide it. After that I do not know. The member for Riverton knew what he was doing. I refer now to an email from Julian Grill to Roderick Smith, which stated - Dear Roderick, Tony McRae rang today. He knows what he is doing. It would be counterproductive to try to micro- manage the proceedings of the inquiry There is another series of emails from Julian Grill - Dear John and Tony PMA is most concerned if Xstrata gets a free kick in terms of evidence by conducting a tour of Windimurra. The relevant standing committee orders are set out below. I am sure that you will see that justice is done.

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] 3523

Then there is an email from Roderick Smith to Julian Grill as follows - Dear Julian I have accessed the Legislative Assembly Standing Orders. Relevant provisions . . . It goes on to talk about the relevant provisions. I refer now to a question from the member for Hillarys in the committee as follows - The reason I am suggesting that to you is that you sent that to Tony McRae, the chairman - “as discussed”. You had already had some discussion. Why did you not send it to Simon Kennedy, the clerk of the committee, who would be dealing with any amendments to the draft report? This was only two days before the tabling of the report, remember. The member for Murchison-Eyre responded - As I say, whether I sent it to the staff or to the chair I think is neither here nor there. It is very important. I cannot believe, having read the transcripts in this report, that we would have a situation where a chairman of a standing committee was soliciting advice from the proponents involved in the dispute and also soliciting donations for political purposes; he was also made an offer by those people as well. Mr E.S. Ripper: Which page are you on? Mr P.D. OMODEI: The last one I mentioned was on page 6 of the proceedings on Friday, 18 May 2007. The other matter I want to raise relates to soliciting donations. It is an email from Julian Grill to Tony McRae, which says - Dear Tony, I have spoken to Brian and we feel that we could find $3000 to contribute to your campaign account. Brian shall arrange for the cheque to be sent shortly. Regards Julian Grill I think Julian Grill got about $133 000 out of this deal, so he could afford to give the member for Riverton $3 000. There are dozens of these emails, but this last one is very serious. It is an email to Roderick Smith from Julian Grill. It states - It would be very much in your interest to support this function. I shall attend, but it would be good if you could help fill a table. I think that there are tables of seven. This is the fundraiser for the member for Riverton. It is interesting that the email was sent on by Hon Sheila Mills to a whole range of people. It would be interesting if the Premier could have a look at this because a lot of people in the email are public servants in the Department of the Premier and Cabinet who obviously paid their $275 to go to the fundraiser for the member for Riverton. I would be interested to know whether they actually paid to go out of their own pockets rather than the government’s pocket. A number of members of Parliament attended that function as well, many of whom are here today. The other interesting thing is that when the email was sent to Tony McRae from Julian Grill regarding the $3 000 - all of these emails are CCd to Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich, which is also instructive. We have a scenario in which there is no doubt that the member for Riverton was integrally involved in the goings-on of the committee and worked in tandem with the member for Murchison-Eyre to alter the report for the benefit of PMA, which was making donations to the Labor Party. For the member for Riverton to suggest that he was not integrally involved is unbelievable. Whose computer was used to change the advice? The member for Riverton’s computer was being used to change recommendations in the report at the eleventh hour - at midnight - and information was sent to the chairman of the committee rather than to the parliamentary officer responsible for drafting the report. That action was totally inappropriate and I believe the member for Riverton deserves the strongest censure. I recommend members support this amendment. Could I just make a slight alteration to my amendment in paragraph (e) so that it reads “direct the member for Riverton not to enter the parliamentary precincts until the suspension period in paragraph (d)”, rather than paragraph (e), as it currently reads? The SPEAKER: That will be amended as a clerical error. MR T. BUSWELL (Vasse - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [11.26 am]: Mr Speaker - Mr A.J. Carpenter: Is this your farewell performance? Mr E.S. Ripper: Bit of a gift to bring this speaker on!

3524 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007]

The SPEAKER: Members! Mr T. BUSWELL: I will give the Treasurer and the Premier a tip. I have said this before in this house. I went down to the Corruption and Crime Commission. The Treasurer and the Premier can bring that up if they like. I gave my evidence honestly. Members did not hear the CCC play any tape after I spoke, and expose things I said as being untrue, did they? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! When I rose last time I indicated that because of the nature of this particular debate, we should hear it in as much silence as is possible. That was directed not only to the people on my left; it was also directed to the people on my right. Mr T. BUSWELL: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I am aware of the severity of the punishment the committee recommended and which the government has endorsed for the member for Murchison-Eyre. The Leader of the Opposition raised the point about talkback radio and the like and I think it is important for us to remember that in the context of the parliamentary processes, the punishment handed out to the member for Murchison-Eyre is a significant, far-reaching punishment. Sure, members of the public may not view it in that way, but it is. The issue the Leader of the Opposition has raised is that we feel that the committee, based on the evidence presented to it, has not effectively dealt with the member for Riverton. It is our view, based on the evidence as we have reviewed it, that the member for Riverton clearly played a role in the processes by which the chairman’s draft report was initially leaked to PMA and the report was then doctored and eventually tabled in that form. I want to outline some of the reasons we have formed that view. Our view is simply this: the committee has erred in dealing only with the matter of support for the election campaign of the member for Riverton by Mr Smith from Precious Metals Australia. More focus needed to be given to the role played by the member for Riverton in the period that commenced on or near 23 June 2004, leading up to the ultimate tabling of this report in November 2004. I was interested in some comments made by the member for Riverton in the house last night when he offered his unreserved apology. He went on to say that the committee did very good work in coming to the conclusions and making the findings it did on behalf of the people of Western Australia. That is the old defence that the end justifies the means. That does not hold water in this case. The member for Riverton said that the committee did very good work. How can the member for Riverton say that the member for Murchison-Eyre, in leaking the draft chairman’s report to Mr Grill, did very good work? How can the member for Riverton say that Mr Grill’s actions, in consorting with Mr Smith from Precious Metals Australia to doctor the draft chairman’s report, shows that the committee did very good work? How can the member for Riverton say that sitting into the small hours of the morning to adjust the doctored-up version of the report, and then sending that report to the committee clerk, shows that the committee did very good work? The member for Riverton cannot endorse those actions and suggest the committee did very good work. Last night, the member for Riverton said also that the committee came to the conclusions and made the findings that it did on behalf of the people of Western Australia. I put it to the member for Riverton that he is ignoring the fact that the committee made recommendations on behalf of only a couple of people in Western Australia. The committee came up with a report that was very beneficial to Precious Metals Australia and people associated with that company. Those people would get a tick as being people in Western Australia who gained a benefit from the committee report. I think PMA got a $17.5 million payout from Xstrata. Mr Grill certainly gained a benefit from the committee report. We know now that he gained the benefit of a $133 000 success fee, and who knows how much else he was paid as part of that process. There is some conjecture that the member for Riverton and the member for Murchison-Eyre also benefited, either directly or indirectly, through campaign donations. The member for Riverton cannot use the ends to justify the means. The member for Riverton cannot say that this report represents very good work of a committee, because aspects of that report clearly do not. The member for Riverton also cannot say that the committee reached a good outcome on behalf of the people of Western Australia, because it reached a good outcome on behalf of only a couple of people in Western Australia. That outcome added considerably to their fiscal balance. Therefore, I do not know how the member for Riverton can make those statements and stand by them. We contend that, on a review of the evidence that has been presented to the committee, the member for Riverton was clearly aware of the role that was being played by Mr Grill and the member for Murchison-Eyre in this process that began on 23 June. I want to go through the chronology of events as they relate to the member for Riverton from 23 June onwards. On 23 June, evidence presented to the committee, in particular by Mr Grill, but also by the member for Murchison-Eyre, suggests that a conversation took place somewhere in Parliament involving the member for Riverton, the member for Murchison-Eyre, Julian Grill and Clive Brown. It was at that time that a plan was hatched. In Mr Grill’s evidence to the committee on Friday, 11 May, Mr Grill referred to the fact that he had had discussions with the member for Murchison-Eyre about using the parliamentary

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] 3525 committee as a vehicle to advance the interests of Precious Metals Australia in its dispute with Xstrata. I suggest that the member for Murchison-Eyre was aware of this, because, prior to that, he had been talking about making changes to legislation. However, that path became too difficult, so it was decided by the brains trust, headed by Julian Grill, that the best course of action would be to get the committee involved. On 17 June, the member for Murchison-Eyre and the member for Riverton became actively involved in the campaign to use the Economics and Industry Standing Committee as a vehicle to advance the best interests of Precious Metals Australia. That view is supported by the evidence given to the committee by Mr Grill on 11 May, when Mr Grill said, “I think that may have been the first time I spoke to Tony McRae about this matter.” It is clear that from at least 17 June 2004, the member for Riverton was aware of Mr Grill’s involvement in this matter and of the plan to use his committee as a vehicle to advance the interests of Precious Metals Australia. It is interesting to continue through the process, because we know from evidence given to the committee that on 28 June 2004, Mr Smith sent an email to Mr McRae. That email effectively congratulated the member for Riverton for his decision to conduct an inquiry using this committee. In those early days in June 2004, the member for Riverton agreed to become involved in a process, along with the member for Murchison Eyre, which would be directed by Mr Grill. That was confirmed by Mr Smith’s email of 28 June, in which he said words to the effect, “Good on you. Thanks for offering to help out. Let’s move forward.” I turn now to some of the other evidence that was tendered to the committee. It is very interesting. On 5 August, it became apparent that the committee would be visiting the Windimurra site to gain a more thorough understanding of the matter. On 5 August, Mr Smith contacted Mr Grill and said words to the effect, “I have concerns about the committee going to Windimurra. I think that may well not be in the best interests of PMA and may be of advantage to Xstrata.” On that same day, Mr Grill then wrote to both the member for Murchison Eyre and the member for Riverton and said - Dear John and Tony, PMA is most concerned if Xstrata gets a free kick in terms of evidence by conducting a tour of Windimurra. The relevant standing committee orders are set out below. Those standing committee orders are contained in an email from Mr Smith to Mr Grill on 5 August. There is clear evidence that the member for Riverton knew that Mr Grill was involved with Precious Metals Australia in advancing its cause in relation to a dispute, or a potential dispute, with Xstrata about Windimurra. That evidence is clear and unambiguous. The next day, Friday, 6 August, Julian Grill emailed Roderick Smith and said - Tony McRae rang today. He knows what he is doing. It would be counterproductive to try to micro- manage the proceedings of the enquiry. The point I am making is that the plot was hatched in June. We now know that by August, the member for Riverton and the member for Murchison-Eyre were in it up to their necks; they were working with Mr Grill and Mr Smith to advance the best interests of PMA. I now jump forward to 23 September, when suggestions were made in evidence given to the committee that the member for Riverton had sought additional advice from Mr Smith in relation to certain aspects of this case. Mr Smith said that Mr McRae had contacted him and was seeking further evidence in relation to the ore body, the plant and the fluctuating vanadium price. In other words, there was ongoing communication between the member for Riverton and Mr Smith from PMA. In the member for Riverton’s evidence to the committee on Friday, 18 May, he suggested that he could not remember ever asking Mr Smith for additional information in relation to anything. Clear evidence has been presented that that is not the case. An email from Mr Roderick Smith to Richard Payne and Associates, Brian Burke and Julian Grill states that McRae had asked him to give any further evidence that might help on the areas of the ore body, the plant and the fluctuating vanadium price. Why would that information not have come through the normal processes of the committee? Why did the chairman of the committee engage in direct personal contact with the chairman of a company that he knows Julian Grill is representing, and that he knows is concerned about matters in relation to Xstrata? That is another clear example of a well-established pattern and a well-established link between the member for Riverton and Roderick Smith of PPA, and/or Mr Grill. Another interesting matter is raised on or near 27 October, when conjecture was doing the rounds that there might be an early election. Of course, that caused Mr Smith some concern. Obviously, if there had been an early election, perhaps in November, after the committee had handed down its report, there would be significant issues, and the report could well have been lost. Again Mr Smith contacted his good friend the member for Riverton. He wrote - I wonder if the Committee is able to make an announcement as to the timetable for release of the committee’s report? I am concerned by the report on the front page of The West Australian today that an election may be called early.

3526 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007]

The member for Riverton responded - Hello Roderick - we’re on track to report on the 19th November and unlikely to be ready before then Two questions must be asked - firstly, is that appropriate, and secondly, what does this say about the nature of the growing relationship between the member for Riverton and Mr Roderick Smith of PMA? There is a clear, well-established link and a clear, well-established pattern. I will not go into all the ins and outs of what happened in early November 2004. As we know, the report was sent out via the committee process and, by his own admission, the member for Murchison-Eyre passed it on to Mr Grill. We know that Mr Grill passed it on to Mr Smith, who made changes. It worked back through the process, and on 9 or 10 November it ended up on the computer of the member for Riverton. We know that the member for Riverton made changes to that document as provided to him by the member for Murchison-Eyre. A serious question must be asked: at that time on 9 or 10 November, when the member for Riverton made changes to that document, which had been referred to him by the member for Murchison-Eyre, was he working with or taking advice from Julian Grill? I suggest that it is impossible not to conclude that the member for Riverton knew that Julian Grill had been involved in the process. He must have suspected that the provision of information from the member for Murchison-Eyre would in some way have been influenced by Mr Grill, a process that is completely and absolutely inappropriate. On page 14 of the committee’s report, the member for Riverton confirmed that as fact, when he was asked whether he was aware at the time that the report was being finalised that the draft had been provided to Mr Grill. He said that he was not aware that the report had been provided to Julian Grill, but he was aware, either through a phone conversation or email from the member for Murchison-Eyre or his electorate office, that the member for Murchison-Eyre had discussed the committee report with Julian Grill. We have here a situation in which the member for Riverton, at his own computer, changes and doctors a report, using in part information that he had received from the member for Murchison-Eyre, knowing full well, by his own admission, that the member for Murchison-Eyre had at least discussed that report with Mr Grill. We now know that the member had given Mr Grill a copy and received the changes made by Roderick Smith. The member for Riverton knew at the time he was using information provided by the member for Murchison-Eyre that the member for Murchison-Eyre had acted inappropriately. What did he do, as chairman of the committee? Did he recognise that he was not supposed to talk to people like Mr Grill about the report? He already knew that Mr Grill was working for PMA. At least since June of that year the member for Riverton himself had a growing relationship with PMA, yet he still willingly incorporated the changes into the final chairman’s report. That gets to the nub of the issue now before the Parliament. I will make a couple of other points. I was referring to the member for Riverton’s now-famous report that he called his “slightly strangulated” revision, containing the changes recommended by Mr Smith and received by the member for Murchison-Eyre, and his interpretation of those changes. I will also refer to evidence given by the committee clerk about that committee. He or she - I am not sure who it was - said in evidence of events on the morning of 10 November - I opened up the document. I looked at some of the amendments that were proposed. I was concerned for two reasons . . . [Leave denied for the member’s time to be extended.] Mr T. BUSWELL: The clerk was also concerned about the process and knew quite clearly that other parties had been involved. That is basically the position as we see it. I will not touch on issues associated with funding; my colleagues will rise shortly to talk about those issues. I have tried to lay out a very sound argument that, based on the evidence presented to the Procedure and Privileges Committee, it is impossible not to draw the conclusion that the member for Riverton was knowingly involved in the doctoring of the final chairman’s report in a way that he knew reflected attempts by Precious Metals Australia and its agent Mr Julian Grill to secure an advantage for that company. If we accept that, the opposition’s amendment should be supported by the government. The issues surrounding the member for Riverton are not as severe as those confronting the member for Murchison-Eyre, but they are far more severe than indicated by the penalties and the findings included in the report. DR K.D. HAMES (Dawesville) [11.46 am]: I will develop further the issue of the relationship between Mr Smith and the member for Riverton, but I will also speak to some extent in my capacity as acting chair of a parliamentary committee convened on the direction of this house to investigate a certain issue, which even involves its own mining company. I will compare and contrast the relationship between the chairman of that committee, the member for Riverton, and what I consider is expected of me as acting chair of the inquiry into the lead pollution in Esperance. I will begin with the relationships and the timing. I will try to compare the time of the functions held by the member for Riverton and the timing of the issues as they developed in the progressing of that report. As we

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] 3527 know, the inquiry started in late June or early July of 2004. An email between Mr Smith and Mr Grill asked who the chairman was, using the name “McBride”. The response from Julian Grill was that Mr McRae was “one of us”. The committee then proceeded to hold its meetings and to get to know the people who were participating in the inquiry. On 1 September, a function was held, for which the first invitations went out on 25 August from Hon Sheila Mills. It was sent from her government computer to large numbers of people. In my view, we have a list of plants in government departments - people to whom the email was sent inviting them to a $275-a-head dinner to raise money for the member for Riverton. That invitation went out on 25 August, during the course of the inquiry. On 1 September, the function was held. We have heard the stories about Mr Smith forming a table. We have heard about the email from Julian Grill advising Mr Smith that it would be in his interest to form a group. Why would it be in his best interest? Obviously it was because money was being raised for the chairman of the committee, and to have an influence on him it was necessary to be there and to be seen at the function. Julian Grill, a smart man, knew it was in the best interests of Mr Smith to be present at the function for the member for Riverton. As it turned out, that is what happened - he was there on the same table as the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. On 24 September, just three weeks after that function, the member for Riverton asked Mr Smith for more information about the mining process. That email has already been read out by the shadow Treasurer. As Chair of the Education and Health Standing Committee, if I wanted information from Magellan Metals, for example, do members think I would approach someone from that group in the corridor and say, “Hey mate, I need a bit of info on this stuff”? The member for Riverton gave a list of things to Mr Smith on areas about which he needed information and asked Mr Smith to provide them. In his response, Mr Smith said that he was not sure but he thought what he was sending was what the member for Riverton wanted when he had asked him for information outside the committee meeting. When my committee has meetings I sit at the head of that committee as the chair with the committee members beside me. I do not approach people who have made presentations to the committee and say, “Hey mate, I need a bit more information.” I ask or another member asks for extra information in the course of the committee meeting, and we agree on the extra information we require. That did not happen with the member for Riverton’s committee. We have heard already that a dinner was held on 1 September, and three weeks later the member for Riverton privately asked Mr Smith for information outside the committee process. Again on 28 October an email referred to by the shadow Treasurer said that everything was on track. Emails were passed stating that there was concern about what was happening. However, straight back from the chairman of the committee to one of the people making submissions to the committee was an email that said, “Don’t worry, mate, everything’s on track.” There was also a comment in the email about picking a horse in the Melbourne Cup. Can members imagine me sending that sort of email to the chief executive of Magellan Metals? Absolutely no way would a chair be involved in that sort of personal contact with someone from a participating group. I will move on to what then happened. Now we come to the crux of information. The Economics and Industry Standing Committee members have conducted their hearings and have a draft report. What happens with our draft report and what happened with draft reports when the member for Central Kimberley-Pilbara was a member of the committee? Our draft reports, initially compiled by the research officer, go to the chair; members do not get to see them. I do not know whether that is always the case with committees. However, the members of our committee do not get to see any draft report until the final draft report comes before the committee for debate. First, the chair checks the draft report and makes sure he or she is happy with it. That might not always happen in committees. The Economics and Industry Standing Committee’s first draft report went out to all its members for their comments. What happened straightaway? By 9.25 am on 1 November, as soon as that draft report was out, a copy went from Mr Bowler to Julian Grill; then from Julian Grill to Roderick Smith. On 5 November Julian Grill sent an email to John Bowler saying that it was a pretty ordinary report, that it did not do what he wanted it to do and that it was not a satisfactory outcome. On that same day some amendments were made to the report and were on their way back from Roderick Smith to Julian Grill. On the very same day that Julian Grill got the report back, he sent a letter to Mr Bowler. He therefore had the report for four days, sent an email to John Bowler saying that it was rubbish and on the same day amendments were sent back to Julian Grill. At 5.00 pm on 8 November further amendments were sent from Roderick Smith to Julian Grill. Those amendments therefore were on the computer on that same day. About an hour later, at 5.54 pm, all of those amendments were sent from Julian Grill to John Bowler so that he would have them ready to go. On the same day that John Bowler got those emails from Julian Grill he sent a note - I am not sure whether it was an email - that went to the member for Riverton. The title on that note referred to “some changes”. They were some changes indeed. The note also used the phrase “as discussed” - it did not say what was discussed, it did not say when something was discussed and it did not say that the person had a large pile of amendments - and asked John Bowler what he wanted to do. At 10.14 pm - that is, in the evening - John Bowler sent those amendments to the chairman of the committee. If we take further the example of my committee that I mentioned, what would the chairman of the committee do with proposed recommendations from one member of the committee? In the case of the

3528 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007]

Economics and Industry Standing Committee the chairman immediately transferred across those amendments into the report. The member for Roe obviously has a deep interest in what happens in Esperance and is on my side of the house. What would happen if the member for Roe came to me after I released a draft report on what the committee believed should be done in an inquiry - I have to say that the committee is working extremely well - and said that he wanted to change some of the recommendations in the chairman’s draft report? What would I say to him? I would tell him to get real and that I would not change the recommendations in our report just because he thought they should be different. I would ask him to bring the changes along to the next committee meeting, we would table them at the meeting and we would work through them one by one and see whether we as a committee agreed with them. Did anybody else on the member for Riverton’s committee know that these changes had come in, from whom they had come or how they had been compiled? Nobody knew. No other member was told about them. That is the key failure in this story from the member for Riverton as chairman. He did not act as a chairman should have acted in managing a parliamentary committee. He took the views of one person; and we know now where they came from. What would I have done if the member for Roe had come to me and said he had all these great amendments? As the shadow Treasurer said, the member for Riverton was already aware of the relationship between John Bowler and Julian Grill. He was also aware of the relationship between Julian Grill and Roderick Smith. Suppose that there is such a relationship between the member for Roe and Magellan Metals - there is not - and suppose that he had come to me with amendments: do members think I would be a bit suspicious? Do members think I would have said, “Come on, Graham, where did you get these from? Are these all yours? This is pretty potent stuff you’ve got here.” They knew that this would make a very strong case for Roderick Smith in a court case that was going on in Sydney. I think the chairman would have said, “Hang on a minute, there’s something a bit fishy here.” What did the chairman do instead? He inserted the amendments in the report. There he was at midnight adding into the report amendments that John Bowler had provided. That just beggars belief. A question was raised about whether the member for Riverton had inserted these changes. The Standing Committee on Procedure and Privileges has proved that it was on his computer. This stuff was being done between 10.00 pm and midnight. What is suggested happened? Was Mr Bowler over at Mt Lawley at the member for Riverton’s house sitting in his little office typing on his computer? Is that how it happened to be on the member for Riverton’s computer? Some of those recommendations that came from Roderick Smith were inserted holus-bolus and some were modified to a degree. However, essentially they were the same recommendations that came from Roderick Smith to Julian Grill, from Julian Grill to John Bowler and from John Bowler to the chairman of an independent parliamentary committee that has a responsibility to ensure that fairness must not only be done but also be seen to be done. On 8 November some changes “as discussed” were made. On 10 November, just two days later, an email was sent from Julian to Brian Burke at 9.00 pm - these guys like doing things late at night - that said words to the effect, “Don’t worry, mate, John Bowler and Tony McRae are working to make a decent job of the report.” Brian Burke knows about this matter as he had been sent copies of all the correspondence. He kept a close watch on his mate Julian, and Julian made sure that John Bowler and Tony McRae were working to make a decent job of the report. On 10 November at 10 minutes past midnight Tony McRae sent his scrambled version of the report. On 11 November, the next day, Julian Grill sent Roderick Smith an email asking if he was happy with the report. What was the response from Roderick Smith? It was along the lines of, “What a great last-minute save. Whew! We did it; we got them to change that report. It wasn’t going anywhere. It wasn’t going to do us any good because it was not strong enough for our court case but what a great last-minute save.” He said that he saw Tony McRae outside Parliament. Tony McRae, as chairman doing his report, said that he made some strong statements in the house, obviously against Xstrata, but he cannot take them outside or he will get sued. It beggars belief that the chairman of the committee should behave this way while doing his work. The last time we heard about the function was 28 August, just before the function took place in September. Then everything about the function went quiet. The function was held and all those people turned up. Nothing was said. The member for Riverton said, “Do not talk to me. Keep away.” Getting towards the election, suddenly the member for Riverton found that he was a bit short of money. He thought he should chase up some money. He could not do it before the report because it was a bit close. He gets on to Julian Grill about the function. There is an invoice relating to the Riverton campaign for $1 650 dated 7 January for the table for Mr Roderick Smith and Julian Grill. On 8 January, Tony McRae wrote to Julian Grill thanking him for his support. There was an invoice for Julian and six for Roderick Smith. He said that he would be asking Roderick Smith for more money for the election campaign. He had been through that process and done the job required of him. There is a bit of money owing. The member for Riverton told Julian that he would put up his hand for more money. Why would he tell Julian that? One would presume it would be to make it easier so that when he goes to Roderick Smith, Julian has already had a word in his ear. He would say, “Listen, Roderick, you’re going to get asked for a bit more money; just get prepared. He’s going to ring you.” That was on 8 January. There is a separate email that bears no real connection to any of this or that function or to Roderick Smith.

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] 3529

On 16 February, just five weeks later, an email was sent from Julian Grill to Tony McRae, saying “Dear Tony. Spoken to Brian. We’re going to contribute $3 000 towards your campaign.” It was copied to Ljiljanna Ravlich of all people. I wonder why she got a copy of an email about Brian Burke and Julian Grill giving $3 000 to the member for Riverton. That is very interesting. I want to turn quickly to the Corruption and Crime Commission report. It talks about Mr McRae and the fundraising. A year later, has Mr McRae learnt his lesson about the difficulties of fundraising? Did he realise that it might not be a good thing to do? No, he did not. After the decision was made, he was back to Julian Grill again. We find Mr Lyall’s name copied into the request to go to that fundraising event back in September 2005 - [email protected]. Mr McRae approached Grill for potential sponsors. Grill and Burke later offered sponsorship of $5 000, which McRae refused. Again, in making his decision then as an acting minister, in the middle of a conversation about another issue, the member for Riverton again raised the issue of money for his campaign. Mr Speaker, you recommended that the member for Riverton should apologise for his behaviour with regard to the fundraising. That is totally inadequate. When we go through the committee’s interview with the member for Riverton during the hearing, did we see any sign of an apology? Did we see any recognition of it being the wrong thing to do? His method of operation when he appeared before that committee was one of attack, particularly against the member for Hillarys, for questioning this issue of funding. There was no sign of an apology. When this committee report came out, he would have been sweating about the committee’s findings. When it said that all he had to do was apologise, that was manna from heaven, and he leapt to his feet and apologised to this house. It was such an easy way out for a chairman who disgraced his position as a chairman of a committee. It disgraced the independence of chairmen of committees in the eyes of the public and this house. I do not think his behaviour is anywhere near acceptable as a chairman of a committee. It is certainly not acceptable when forming fundraising relationships with people we deal with as members of Parliament. DR S.C. THOMAS (Capel) [12.06 pm]: This is a pivotal moment in the history of the Parliament of Western Australia for a number of reasons. It is probably the first time that a Parliament in the Westminster system has suspended a member along the lines of the suspension to be received by the member for Murchison-Eyre. It is also pivotal to the actions of the government over the actions of the member for Riverton. The reputation of the Parliament of Western Australia, its committee system and, by extension, the Legislative Assembly is now on the line. The government must decide whether it will sacrifice the Parliament of Western Australia or the member for Riverton in the next few hours. It will be interesting to see which direction the government goes. This issue relates to the credibility of the member for Riverton. As has been mentioned before, the member for Riverton as a Chairman of the Economics and Industry Standing Committee went through a process to deliver his draft report. Having read the very good work of the committee through its report and everything that was said in hearings, we can be assured - it is in the committee’s findings - that the last amendments were made to the chair’s draft report at 12.08 am on 10 November 2004. Those amendments have been tracked. They were made by somebody merely referred to as MP. Throughout the various hearings, some effort was made by the committee to determine the identity of MP. The committee made no finding because, quite rightly, it was unable to formally identify that person. That is a fair and reasonable finding, except the member for Riverton could answer that question immediately. We do know that the last change to this draft by MP, whoever MP was - I suspect that we would all agree that MP holds a great deal of culpability in this action - was done at 12.08 am on the personal laptop of the member for Riverton. We know where it was done and when but we do not know by whom. On the day before such an important report was handed down, a report that the member for Riverton was apparently lobbied on on an almost constant basis by a number of people, including Mr Smith, I do not think anybody in the state of Western Australia would believe that the member for Riverton, despite what he said in the committee hearing, does not know who MP is and could not identify that person immediately. This goes, to a great degree, to the credibility of the member for Riverton, because somebody was sitting on his laptop computer after midnight the day before the report was handed down and, for some reason, we are unable to find out who that person was. That is not a failing of the committee; the committee had no options. It is a failing of the member for Riverton, because he obviously has that information. I do not think there is anybody in this state who does not believe that the member for Riverton knows how the process came about. His pleadings of ignorance must fall on deaf ears. Will it be the submission from the member for Riverton that he was in the habit of lending his laptop to the member for Murchison-Eyre and not inspecting what changes might have been made? Was the member for Murchison-Eyre at the member for Riverton’s house typing in the changes that were put to him by Mr Roderick Smith? Did the member for Murchison-Eyre somehow remove the member for Riverton’s laptop without the member for Riverton being aware of it? Does anybody in the state of Western Australia accept that that is a feasible proposition? Nobody would believe that that occurred. It must be blatantly obvious, through the good work done by the Procedure and Privileges Committee, that the member for Riverton was aware of what was happening to the draft chairman’s report as it was being altered at the last possible minute to the benefit of someone with whom he had constant dealings. I will deal with that issue briefly.

3530 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007]

As someone who is on a committee, in fact the deputy chair of a committee, I find it astounding that the member for Riverton should not be, at the very least, highly disturbed about being contacted by a party subject to a committee’s procedures and processes. It should have raised serious doubts and concerns for the member for Riverton. The mere fact that it has not done so is an indictment of his activity. The member for Riverton may try to claim ignorance as the defence in this case, but it cannot be granted. I will go back to the origin of this inquiry. The member for Murchison-Eyre had a discussion with the then minister and made a suggestion. That was made in the presence of the member for Riverton. The member for Riverton must have been aware that the process was occurring and that the member for Murchison-Eyre was a strong supporter. He must have been aware. An email that was part of the evidence presented to the committee was from the member for Murchison-Eyre to Mr Julian Grill. In it he states that he called over the member for Riverton and, in front of “Clive”, he concurred with the proposal. He saw the other members of the committee as well. The committee’s investigation was driven by the activities of the member for Murchison-Eyre. The member for Riverton was fully aware of where the drive was coming from. Following that, would the member for Riverton be concerned that there was undue influence being exerted by one of the proponents? There is an enormous amount of evidence to suggest that the member for Riverton knew that the people involved in Precious Metals Australia, in particular its paid lobbyist Julian Grill and, to some extent, its paid officer Roderick Smith, were intimately involved in the process of managing - although not micromanaging - the investigation. A number of members have referred to this. I will refer to it again. I refer to an email from Julian Grill to Brian Burke and Roderick Smith. He sent on information from an email that he had sent to the member for Riverton on 5 August 2004 at almost five o’clock in the afternoon. It was also copied to the member for Murchison-Eyre. It starts - IMPORTANT Visit to Windimurra Dear John and Tony, PMA is most concerned if Xstrata gets a free kick in terms of evidence by conducting a tour of Windimurra. The relevant standing committee orders are set out below. I am sure that you will see that justice is done. That is a damning piece of evidence in its own right. That was on 5 August, which was well before the time line. The report was tabled on 11 November 2004. On 5 August 2004 the paid lobbyist for the company, Julian Grill, sent information to the member for Riverton and the member for Murchison-Eyre and said he was concerned about the proceedings. He gave them advice on how to - I suggest, if necessary - manipulate those proceedings. What would a moral and upstanding chairman of a committee do when confronted with that piece of information - the evidence that there was untoward influence being exerted or attempting to be exerted over a committee? What were the actions of the member for Riverton in response to this email? Nothing. Where was the referral to the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly or to Mr Speaker or to any person to notify that this untoward action was going on? How can the member for Riverton claim ignorance of what was occurring, of the influence of the company over the committee, when he was fully aware on 5 August 2004 that Julian Grill, lobbying on behalf of the company, was concerned about the proceedings of the committee and was, it can be seen in the sentence “I am sure that you will see that justice is done”, trying to influence that committee? Referring to that sentence, we can see that justice was not done. Justice would involve the chairman of the committee, the member for Riverton, notifying various authorities that some person or persons were trying to influence the committee and its outcomes. That would have been justice and that would have been acceptable. What was the action of the member for Riverton? The amendment put forward by the Leader of the Opposition states that the member for Riverton did nothing to prevent the interference with, and corruption of, the committee system and the report with which he was involved. There is irrefutable evidence that the member for Riverton did very little about PMA’s activities and its lobbyist, Julian Grill. Any committee chairperson or any member of a committee given that sort of information in a moral and incorrupt manner would have passed the information on. I am sure that other members of that committee will be able to stand and say whether either the member for Riverton or the member for Murchison-Eyre raised a concern about the influence of other persons and parties. I suspect that we will find that they did not. The mere fact that they did not makes both the member for Riverton and the member for Murchison-Eyre culpable. It might be that the government is prepared to sacrifice the member for Murchison- Eyre. It would appear that the member for Murchison-Eyre will be the sacrificial lamb to the wolf that is the member for Riverton. It will be to the utter and eternal shame of this Parliament if the people involved with these actions are not held to account. That needs to be done by the Legislative Assembly. Is there any other evidence that external forces were attempting to influence the actions and outcomes of the Economics and Industry Standing Committee? I refer to an email from Roderick Smith to Julian Grill, which is evidence titled “PPC No. 16”. Should there be any doubt that the member for Riverton understood precisely

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] 3531 what was going on? Should there be any doubt that the member for Riverton might be an innocent bystander in these processes which, of course, he was not? The message sent from Julian Grill to Mr Roderick Smith states - Tony McRae rang today. He knows what he is doing. It would be counterproductive to try to micro- manage the proceedings of the enquiry Regards Julian Grill A communication was sent - it originated from the member for Riverton. This is not an issue in which the member for Riverton needed additional information from somebody with whom the committee was dealing. He did not require additional information from Precious Metals Australia. “Tony McRae rang today”. That is the quote. The member for Riverton was well aware on 6 August 2004 that the lobbyist Julian Grill was intimately involved in this process. This relates back to an email from Julian Grill on 5 August 2004. It reads - PMA is most concerned if Xstrata gets a free kick in terms of evidence by conducting a tour of Windimurra. That sentence in itself - a quote from the evidence of the committee - suggests that Julian Grill was concerned that the committee might undertake a full and proper investigation and was providing to the member for Riverton some options about how that may or may not be prevented, if necessary. The response from Julian Grill is of concern. As I said before, the member for Riverton was included in that email and he was therefore aware that influence was being exerted. Let us look at the response from the member for Riverton. He did not contact the appropriate authority to express concern about this undue interest, as any good committee chairman and person of moral fortitude sitting in the Parliament of Western Australia would do. He did not contact the Clerk or the Speaker; he contacted Julian Grill. I suspect that people of his faction might do the same thing on a regular basis. I am occasionally surprised that they do not go directly to Mr Brian Burke for advice from the outset. I suspect that as he is involved in so many things, Brian Burke was well aware of what was going on and played an overseeing role. Mr R.F. Johnson: He was a bit busy. Dr S.C. THOMAS: Yes, he was probably very busy at the time and could not micromanage all the small bits and pieces. The response from the member for Riverton was not to contact the appropriate authority, despite the fact that there is no possibility that he could have failed to recognise an attempt to exert undue pressure and influence; eventually the influence was successfully exerted by Julian Grill. The member for Riverton rang Julian Grill and, I presume, calmed him down. He must have said, “Don’t panic; I’m all right. We’ve got it under control. Please don’t try to micromanage.” I suspect that Julian Grill was, unfortunately, managing much of that activity. However, he was being asked to not micromanage; in other words, to not go too far. Perhaps he was being asked to not make it obvious. It beggars belief that any other conclusion can be drawn than that the member for Riverton was aware of the activities of Mr Julian Grill and Mr Roderick Smith. He allowed it to occur. He is therefore, in my opinion, in contempt of Parliament. The government will have to support this motion or be found guilty of complete hypocrisy. We have removed any doubt that the member for Riverton was aware of the processes that were going on and the influences that were exerted over the committee of which he was chairman. He must have been aware of the influence being exerted by Julian Grill who, on the evidence presented to the Procedure and Privileges Committee, instigated and set in motion the investigation, and managed - not micromanaged - much of the process on the way through. That is the unfortunate behaviour of a Labor Party member of Parliament who, if the government decides, shall remain completely unpunished. The second part of the amendment by the Leader of the Opposition deals with the subject of funding. I do not think that there is a person in Western Australia who would consider this appropriate behaviour for the chairman of a committee. This was not done in innocence, because the member for Riverton was aware of the fact that Mr Roderick Smith was intimately involved in this process; he had received direct communications from him on numerous occasions. There were numerous emails sent back and forth and they are all on the record. I wonder if anyone in Western Australia thinks it was appropriate for that person to make political donations a few short months after the report was handed down. There might be a couple of people who could forgive that. I can accept that some people might say, “Look, it’s all over now. The committee’s report is in. Okay; thanks for your support.” A number of emails were sent. It is interesting that six of the tickets for the member for Riverton’s fundraising event were picked up by Roderick Smith. It is intriguing; it makes one wonder why the following email was sent by Roderick Smith to Julian Grill - Dear Julian Your recollection is correct. . . .

3532 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007]

The email related to the fact that Mr Smith was to pay for six of the tickets. I do not know who had the seventh ticket. I think the eighth seat on the table was perhaps taken by the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. The email continues - I will give you a cheque. I think the arrangement was that you would be invoiced rather than me? Why would that occur? Why would it be necessary to invoice Julian Grill rather than the person who is actually donating the money, if there was no grubby plan to hide the source of the funds? Why would it not be obvious to anyone in this process that the money was a hidden donation? Every person in this process knew that what he was doing was wrong. Every person knew about the grubby little plan being hatched. The member for Riverton is no exception. This motion is worthy of support because the community of Western Australia will not have confidence in the Parliament if the actions of the member for Riverton are allowed to go effectively unpunished. MR A.J. CARPENTER (Willagee - Premier) [12.26 pm]: Mr Speaker, I do not support the amendment. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER: This is an attack on the Procedure and Privileges Committee. It is very interesting. We hear a lot about confidence in the Parliament and confidence in the process. The Procedure and Privileges Committee is a very important committee of Parliament. It is made up of members from all three parties represented in this chamber. It is made up of members from the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the National Party. It is expected to deliberate without fear or favour and without partisan issues being brought to bear. That is exactly what is now being brought to bear. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Members, I am very keen for this debate to be handled without interjections from people who, for whatever reason, wish to make a point without rising to their feet. This is a very serious debate. Perhaps the member for Nedlands and the member for Darling Range did not hear me earlier, but I am telling them to not interject. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: The Procedure and Privileges Committee has deliberated. We are now in the chamber of the Legislative Assembly and partisan party politics are being brought to bear to second-guess the work of the committee. If anything was designed to destroy public confidence in the processes of Parliament, it is what is now going on. How can any member of the Western Australian public have any confidence in what happens in this place if, when the privileges committee has done its work and a report has been presented in the Legislative Assembly, attempts are made to undo the committee’s work, for party political reasons? That is what is going on. It is probably amusing, and sad in a way, that this has to happen. It does not have to happen; there is precedent for it not happening. However, with the sorts of characters that are lined up on the opposition benches, it is almost inevitable that it should happen. In effect, the opposition has launched an attack on the member for Hillarys. The member for Hillarys was a member of the committee. He is a senior member of the Liberal Party front bench and members opposite are saying his work is not up to scratch. Dr S.C. Thomas: Rubbish! Mr A.J. CARPENTER: Members have. The member for Capel should not go red in the face. He is sitting next to the member for Hillarys. He should turn to him and tell him. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER: The very fact members opposite are behaving this way while I am on my feet demonstrates exactly what I am talking about. Mr J.E. McGrath: It is a free country. It is a democracy. The SPEAKER: Member for South Perth! Mr A.J. CARPENTER: The opposition has launched an attack on the integrity of the member for Avon; it has launched an attacked on the integrity of the member for Hillarys. There is no dissenting report here. This is a unanimously agreed report. All five members agreed with the findings and the recommendations. There is no dissenting report, but members opposite could not help themselves. Mr R.F. Johnson: I think it is fair to say, Premier, that some of us wanted to go a bit further, and we said that yesterday. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: Now the member is under pressure - Several members interjected.

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] 3533

Mr A.J. CARPENTER: The member is under pressure from his own team, who are unhappy with what he has done. Mr R.F. Johnson: Not at all. I am never under pressure from my own team, I assure you. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members, we are getting to a point where I will be naming people, not calling them to order. If members wish to act in a way that disrupts this debate, I will name them. Do you understand that? I hope so. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: The member for Hillarys was part of a unanimously agreed report. There is no dissenting report, there is no minority report. If the member for Hillarys was unhappy with the recommendations or the findings, he is now attacking himself. He is preparing to launch an attack on himself and his own integrity. Mr R.F. Johnson: Read my speech yesterday. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: I listened to it. I read the report. The member for Hillarys is a signatory to the report without dissent, quite rightly, because the process the committee went through was the correct process and it came up with a unanimously agreed position, which the member’s colleagues are incapable of accepting for party political reasons. Mr Speaker, you are probably familiar with the conduct of the inquiry because you chaired it. We have just had our little Perry Mason effort going on here from people who spend too much time watching Law and Order or other American crime shows. They think they can unpick all the evidence and come up with the reality. We have had our little effort at re-trying the case. The paragraph that describes the conduct of the inquiry in the report says - During the course of this Committee’s inquiry, - There were five members of the Parliament on that inquiry. To continue - members met on 20 occasions, including 19 deliberative meetings and 4 evidence hearings. They did not sit there for two hours; they actually went through 20 meetings. They called the witnesses. The meetings included evidence from eight witnesses. They were called and subjected to questions, examination, cross-examination - question after question - and body language was observed. The determinations were drawn from all the evidence that came from those hearings and from listening to the witnesses and asking them questions. Very interestingly, page 2 of the report says - The crucial facts relevant to the inquiry have not been difficult to discern, due in large measure to the available documentary evidence. The member for Hillarys signed up to that: “not been difficult to discern”. The member for Avon signed up to that. Not difficult to discern. Mr R.F. Johnson: In relation to John Bowler. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: No, “the crucial facts relevant to the inquiry have not been difficult to discern, due in large measure to the available documentary evidence”. It says, “The committee also has the benefit of the statement made to the Legislative Assembly by the Member for Murchison-Eyre on 28 February 2007.” All five members of the committee have said the facts were not difficult to discern. So what is going on here now? What is this process about if the facts were not difficult to discern? That was signed up to by all the members, who then, having heard all the evidence, read all the documentary evidence - we heard from the member for Hillarys that it was unusual to be given so much support from the CCC - came up with the recommendations. The committee had an enormous amount of material available to it. The facts were not difficult to discern. The committee then came up with the recommendations, including recommendation 3 pertaining to the member for Riverton, which says - Your Committee recommends that the Member for Riverton be given the opportunity to apologise to the House for potentially diminishing public trust in Parliamentary institutions and processes through his failure as Chairman and member of the Economics and Industry Standing Committee to ensure that Mr Roderick Smith did not attend the ALP Riverton Election Campaign fundraising event as a paying participant during that Committee’s inquiry. What happened? The committee report was lodged here last night and all of the committee members spoke to it. Not one dissented from the recommendations. Subsequent to that, and in accordance with the recommendations, the member for Riverton got to his feet and apologised unreservedly, as he had been told to do. So was it predictable that this would happen today? Yes, it was predictable because the opposition is so predictable. One of the reasons the opposition is so unsuccessful is that it is so predictable in opposition. Was it inevitable? Does it always have to happen? No. The Standing Committee on Procedure and Privileges does not always have to be second-guessed and attacked in the chamber. I refer to the privileges committee’s report on the activities of the member for Kalgoorlie when he was not a backbencher but the Leader of the Opposition. He was found by the

3534 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] very same committee to have been in contempt of the Parliament. There was no recommendation for any punishment other than that. The member for Kalgoorlie apologised, quite rightly, and that was that. Mr J.E. McGrath: It is hardly a similar offence. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: My friend, if I might describe the member as such, have a look. I do not think the member is actually familiar with the detail of it. He should have a look at the accusations and the findings in relation to the behaviour of the member for Kalgoorlie, and think again about what he just said. Mr J.E. McGrath: He altered his own document. The SPEAKER: Member for South Perth! Mr A.J. CARPENTER: He altered his own documents. Alan Bond did a bit of that, did he not? Is that all right? If a person alters his own documents, it is all right, is it? The member for South Perth has learnt nothing. He has sat there for two and a half years and contributed little to the Parliament and it would appear he has learnt nothing either. He has learnt nothing from what happened to the member for Kalgoorlie. The member for Kalgoorlie was found to be in contempt by the privileges committee. He came in and apologised. We could have easily come here, used our numbers, and demanded that he be expelled from the Parliament for what he had done. We could have pursued that for a party political purpose. What would that have done to the integrity of the political process and the privileges committee’s process? It would have done what the opposition is attempting to do now but, fortunately, I hope, it does not have the numbers to do it. Last night the member for Hillarys said something to this effect: “I think the committee has worked extremely hard. At the end of the day, the findings and the recommendations made by the committee are appropriate. We have made the recommendations. I believe they are the only recommendations that the house should consider.” Actually, I noted with some interest that when I got to my feet, not on the amendment, but on the substance of the motion, and suggested that we should adopt a punishment for former minister Julian Grill, members started shouting at me from the other side! I assumed they were shouting at me because I was saying that the recommendation did not go far enough, but, no, they were shouting at me because they thought I had not gone far enough! The committee could have made that recommendation as well, but it did not. What the opposition is doing now is attacking the integrity of its own members. The first cab off the rank, almost, was none other than the member for Vasse. How could anyone take the member for Vasse seriously in this matter? Either this week or last week, the member for Vasse made his latest shocking indiscretion as a member of Parliament when he launched into an attack on the member for Bassendean and raised completely false allegations about him. However, the member for Vasse sits there, unrepentant and unapologetic! He feels absolutely no contrition whatsoever! Mr P.D. Omodei interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: He is being defended by his leader, who is so blind to proper process that he does not think anything is wrong with that! Mr T. Buswell: How many questions did you ask about that matter? Mr A.J. CARPENTER: The member for Vasse is hopeless! The member for Vasse, who on that occasion was given the opportunity to apologise in the Parliament to the member for Bassendean, declined to take it! The member for Vasse should have been instructed by the Leader of the Opposition to apologise to the member for Bassendean. However, the Leader of the Opposition has, once again, failed the test of character. Actually, the Leader of the Opposition is a man of good character. The problem is that he does not have the wisdom to understand what needs to be done in this place. Mr P.D. Omodei: I did not grow up in Albany! I am not as strong as you! Mr A.J. CARPENTER: The Leader of the Opposition is definitely not as strong as me, irrespective of the fact that he did not grow up in Albany! The member for Vasse raised the issue of proper process. The member for Vasse is the same person who sat in the car park of Parliament House and had a clandestine meeting with Noel Crichton-Browne, the subject of a Corruption and Crime Commission inquiry, to discuss what evidence the member for Vasse would give to that CCC inquiry. Mr T. Buswell: Is that right? Mr A.J. CARPENTER: That is on the member’s own admission! That is what the member for Vasse said! The member for Vasse is incapable of maintaining a consistent position, because he is incapable of telling the truth. The privileges committee has done its work without fear or favour, and reported to the house. Mr P.D. Omodei: Have you read the report?

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] 3535

Mr A.J. CARPENTER: The Leader of the Opposition is attacking his own member again! Every single member of that committee spoke in this chamber last night, and not one of those members resiled from the findings and the recommendations of that committee. Mr B.J. Grylls: You are wrong. I will quote the member for Avon. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: He said it did not go far enough. Mr B.J. Grylls: He said - We in fact have given members the prosecutor’s case. Members need to consider overnight that they are, in fact, the jury. I will repeat that: we have given members the prosecutor’s case; the 57 of us comprise the jury. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: Okay. What a telling attack! So, the opposition is the prosecution, is it? Mr A.D. McRae: That is not what he said. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: So, the privileges committee is the prosecution, and the prosecution has recommended an apology, and the jury has decided that, no, an apology is not good enough? Get real! No wonder people cannot take the processes of this chamber seriously! The privileges committee has held 20 meetings, and gone through innumerable pages of evidence. It has pored over that evidence, asked questions, dealt with all the issues, and produced its report. We now have a process in which, in the space of a couple of hours, the opposition is making an attack on the integrity of its own people! The member for Vasse is amazing. He is so blind to his own deficiencies that he sits there and makes the most inappropriate contributions to party and political life in Western Australia, and that does not seem to faze him at all! Mr T. Buswell: Not when you are the one who is passing judgement on me, my friend! Mr A.J. CARPENTER: One day, the member for Vasse will come to a terrible end! I think he will, really, because he has absolutely no concept of propriety. I trust the work of the committee. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr A.J. CARPENTER: The member for Riverton did what was requested of him. He stood in this chamber last night and apologised unreservedly. To me, in that matter, that is sufficient. I think he has done the right thing. MR J.E. McGRATH (South Perth) [12.45 pm]: I have listened to the Premier. The Premier has been in this place a lot longer than I have. The Premier made the allegation that I have not been in this place for very long and I have not learnt much about the process. I sat here last night, and I heard what the member for Avon said. The member for Avon said clearly that he thought the committee should have a gone a bit further. If he did not say that, I was not here. Mr A.J. Carpenter: Then where is his dissenting report? Mr J.E. McGRATH: He said that he did not put in a dissenting report, because he wanted to respect the process. The Premier can have a go at me as much as he likes, but I sat here, and I listened to what the member for Avon had to say. The Premier is big-mouthing and trying to accuse us of criticising one of our own members, the member for Hillarys. That is not what we are doing. Mr P.B. Watson: You are! Mr J.E. McGRATH: Do not interject, member for Albany! The member for Albany has been here a lot longer than I have, but he has done a lot less! Several members interjected. Mr J.E. McGRATH: We are saying that there is a process. Has the Premier agreed to every committee recommendation that has ever come into this place? The member for Avon said that the process was that members of the committee looked into this matter. We appreciate the hard work that those members did. We heard all the speeches that were made last night about how difficult the process was. The Speaker also said that it was a very difficult inquiry to sit through. These are our colleagues who were involved in this committee hearing. However, the process is that the recommendations of the committee have to come back to this chamber. Some members of this chamber are asking questions about the findings of the committee. If that is not a democratic process, I do not know what is. The Premier is the one who is trying to take the high moral ground in this debate by accusing us of politicising this matter. I ask the Premier: if the boot was on the other foot, and this had happened when we were in government and the government was in opposition, what would the Premier say?

3536 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007]

Would the Premier accept the committee’s findings? We are not saying that we do not accept the committee’s finding. We are saying that we have some questions about those findings. This is the process by which we can ask those questions. MR E.S. RIPPER (Belmont - Deputy Premier) [12.47 pm]: I oppose the amendment that has been moved by the opposition. Before I outline the reasons for my position, I want to comment on the assertion that was made by the Leader of the National Party. The Leader of the National Party referred to the speech by the member for Avon and the comment in that speech that the committee is the prosecutor, and the house is the jury. It is very unusual for a jury or a judge to come down with a harsher penalty than the one that is demanded by the prosecutor. Usually, the prosecutor makes an ambit claim, and the court’s decision is somewhat less than what the prosecutor has asked for. The second point I would make is that a jury is normally the body that has the chance to eyeball or observe the witnesses and make judgements about their credibility. The jury does not normally operate on the basis of transcripts. In the past, Parliaments and parliamentarians have been very good at talking about parliamentary privilege but very weak at defending it, particularly when the breaches of privilege that have occurred have been by parliamentarians themselves. The weakness of Parliaments and of parliamentarians in defending parliamentary privilege against breaches by other members of Parliament has created a circumstance in which we have invited other people and institutions to contemplate the supervision of Parliament. If we do not, as parliamentarians, take seriously breaches of parliamentary privilege by our own, we weaken parliamentary privilege and Parliament as an institution. There is an opportunity to be grasped here, and I commend the Procedure and Privileges Committee for having grasped that opportunity. The Procedure and Privileges Committee took its role seriously. It took legal advice and worked in partnership with the Corruption and Crime Commission, and it worked in a tripartisan and cooperative manner to present a fair report on the merits to this house. The Procedure and Privileges Committee did what I hoped it would do - take the issue seriously and not allow partisanship, political loyalties or minority or majority positions to interfere with the work it was asked to do by the house. Regrettably, the house is in danger of not following the example of the committee in grasping the opportunity that we should all grasp to demonstrate that, as an institution, we can deal with breaches of parliamentary privilege by our own in a proper manner. We are in danger of seeing the house descending into the very point- scoring partisanship that leads the public to doubt that we are capable of dealing with these sorts of issues properly. We should be trying to demonstrate that majority or minority positions, or political advantage, defensiveness and exploitation will not play a significant role in the Parliament’s handling of an allegation of breach of parliamentary privilege by a member of Parliament. I see that the committee has done its job. It has grasped that opportunity well, but the house is in danger of not grasping that opportunity and sending exactly the wrong message to the community about the capacity of Parliament as an institution to deal with these matters. I now come to the principal argument I want to raise; that is, that a tripartisan committee has examined this issue in a cooperative manner. The Premier has already pointed out that the committee met on 20 occasions, and that there were 19 deliberative meetings and four evidence hearings. That is a pretty substantial volume of work. Mr R.F. Johnson: You are wrong in saying that it was a tripartite committee. The committee had the benefit of a very good Senior Counsel - or Queen’s Counsel, as such an office was referred to in the old days - and we had information from the Corruption and Crime Commission, but it never took part in any of our deliberations. You are wrong in saying that it was a tripartite committee. It was not. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I meant that the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Labor Party were all involved. On a political basis, it was a tripartisan committee. The important point about that fact is that the committee made a consensus report, despite the fact that there were people from three different political parties on the committee. There was no minority report from the committee. In fact, the Liberal member of that committee, the member for Hillarys, said to the house last night that he thought that the findings and recommendations were appropriate, or words to that effect. He further went on to say that he thought the findings and recommendations were very hard. That, to me, is evidence of the consensus that was reached by the committee. Mr R.F. Johnson: I was referring to the member for Murchison-Eyre more than anything else because he was the main part of the committee’s deliberations. I also went on and said - Mr E.S. RIPPER: The sections of the member’s speech that I have read - I cannot quote them directly - gave me the impression that the member was referring to the overall work of the committee. The first point to be made is that it was a consensus report and there was no minority report. The second point is that the committee received legal advice that is not available to the house, sitting as it is in this type of session. The third point is that the committee had the assistance of the Corruption and Crime Commission, including its available documentary and public evidence. Given that we have had that sort of rigorous inquiry by the committee, which was assisted by legal advice and by the CCC, we should not seek to overturn the committee’s recommendations. The committee members had not only the assistance of legal advice and the work of the CCC, but also the opportunity to observe the witnesses. Therefore, they could make a judgement on the

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] 3537 credibility of the witnesses. It is one thing to read a transcript or a document but it is another to observe the body language of a witness, to look a witness in the eye and to listen to the tone of a witness’s voice. All those things are important. Sometimes a witness will make a direct statement and the observers can determine whether the statement is credible or not. A judgement can be made about how a written statement fits in with the rest of the evidence, but an important part of making a judgement is to be able to look at a witness to see whether he seems credible in the way he carries himself and by listening to the tone of his voice. We cannot do that in this house. We would not be taking evidence directly from the witnesses; we would be reading the transcripts only. However, the Procedure and Privileges Committee had the chance to observe the witnesses because its members sat there and watched. Not all the members of that committee were friends or political allies of the people who gave evidence; sitting on that committee were political opponents of the people who gave evidence, yet it produced a consensus report. I do not think that the house should give this sort of job to the house as a whole and seek to overturn the recommendations that the Procedure and Privileges Committee made, when the committee had the benefit of all those advantages that the house as a whole would not. The opposition has said that in one case it did not think that the committee’s recommendations were strong enough. I do not have the exact quote to hand, but there is an oft-repeated statement about a politician’s only asset being his credibility. It certainly is the case that a politician’s reputation and credibility are a very important part of being able to continue to work as a politician. I have been a member of this house since 1988 and I have never seen a member suspended from the service of the house for reasons other than rowdy behaviour during a debate inside this chamber. I have never seen anything like this. I have never seen a situation - except regarding the former Leader of the Opposition, Mr M.J. Birney - whereby a committee has asked a member to apologise on a serious matter and that member has apologised to the house. Given that a politician’s reputation and credibility are of such importance, I do not think we should underestimate the impact of the committee’s recommendations and the impact of what has happened. Anyone who thinks about continuing life as a politician, and who thinks about the damage that can be caused to a politician’s reputation and credibility from these types of events, would know that the committee’s recommendations are strong and should be endorsed. I repeat: I have been a member of Parliament since 1988. These are highly unusual events. We should not underestimate the impact that these events will have on the members who have been involved and on their subsequent political careers. There was only one area for which the committee could have given us a recommendation but did not. The committee has found that Julian Grill was in contempt of Parliament, but the committee remained silent on whether Mr Grill should be punished. I think it would be appropriate for the house to make a decision on that matter because we have not been given a recommendation from the committee. It has not recommended that he should not be punished; we are just lacking a recommendation on what sort of punishment should be applied. I think there is a gap there. Mr J.C. Kobelke: The Procedure and Privileges Committee, when finding contempt in past cases, such as the case involving the member for Kalgoorlie, did not actually suggest or recommend any punitive penalty because that is the standard practice. In the case of the member for Murchison-Eyre, the terms of reference asked the committee to present potential action that could be taken. That is why I think its members would not have thought that they should go further and, if they did find that there was an issue of contempt, also recommend a penalty for anyone else other than the member for Murchison-Eyre, because in his case they were asked by the terms of reference to do so. Dr S.C. Thomas: You have just proved our case. Thank you. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I am guided by the wise advice of the Leader of the House about why the committee may not have recommended a specific punishment for Mr Julian Grill. Dr S.C. Thomas: You just shot yourself down. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I do not think so. I have said that there is a potential gap for the house to fill. I do not think that there is a gap regarding either the member for Murchison-Eyre or the member for Riverton. The committee has dealt with those issues. I conclude by saying that we established the committee to do a job, and it has done the job better than many other parliamentary committees that have been faced with similar issues have ever done the job. The committee has done it with legal advice and with the assistance of the CCC. Let us not second-guess the committee’s recommendations. Let us get on with it in the proper way and defend the institution of Parliament and endorse the committee’s recommendations. Debate interrupted, pursuant to standing orders. [Continued on page 3547.] Sitting suspended from 1.02 to 2.00 pm

3538 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007]

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE JOE MCDONALD’S BEHAVIOUR - PREMIER’S REACTION 324. Mr P.D. OMODEI to the Premier: Given that Kevin Rudd has called for the expulsion from the Labor Party of Joe McDonald due to trespass and standover tactics, I ask - (1) Why has the Premier done nothing and previously turned a blind eye to this disgraceful behaviour in Western Australia, given the damning evidence at the Cole royal commission? (2) Will the Premier concede that Kevin Rudd has been put in this position because the Premier and his government have been too gutless to stand up to Joe McDonald and militant unions in WA? (3) Will the Premier demand the immediate return of all Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union donations made to the state ALP; and, if not, why not? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the questions. (1)-(3) Let us just clear up one thing. Did the Leader of the Opposition say that Mr McDonald faces charges? Mr P.D. Omodei: No, I didn’t. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: Did the Leader of the Opposition not say trespass? I thought he did. I think he does; I think Mr McDonald faces charges now. Under state legislation, he has had his entry permit for building sites withdrawn, and as a result of that he is facing charges - as a result of state legislation. There we go - our legislation, not the previous government’s. I think the CFMEU and Mr McDonald were operating when the Liberal Party was in government. What did it do? It did nothing. Do members know why? It is because the Liberal Party is always all talk. Mr P.D. Omodei: No, you’re all talk. You’re trying to make Kevin Rudd into a big hero. It’s just a nice little ploy. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: The Leader of the Opposition has asked me questions. If the Leader of the Opposition does not want me to talk, he should not ask questions. He asked me the questions. Secondly - I have said this several times in the past 12 hours or so - Joe McDonald has only himself to blame for the situation he now faces. It is his own completely inappropriate behaviour that has got him into this position. I support Kevin Rudd in doing what he is doing. The ramifications were apparent. I warned that inappropriate behaviour should be a thing of the past for this sort of industrial activity. As a result of not heeding that advice, Joe McDonald is now in the situation that he is in. I do not have any sympathy for Mr McDonald. I listened to the adjectives he used about people being gutless and so on. I could stand here and recount my record against the Leader of the Opposition’s record, and leave it to some objective judge as to who has the guts and who has not. I think the constitution of the opposition’s front bench demonstrates the answer quite clearly. In relation to the return of donations - is that what the Leader of the Opposition said? Mr P.D. Omodei: Yes. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: Joe McDonald is one person inside the CFMEU. I believe he has done considerable damage to the reputation of that union and, therefore, damage to his members. However, he does not represent the entire union, and the relationship between the union and the Labor Party is not dependent upon Joe McDonald. Joe McDonald, as I understand it, is soon to leave the Labor Party, so the relationship between the Labor Party and the CFMEU does not depend on Mr McDonald. Let me ask the Leader of the Opposition this question in return: does the Liberal Party still accept donations from tobacco companies? Mr P.D. Omodei: Which one? Mr A.J. CARPENTER: It still accepts donations from tobacco companies, whose products are killing people slowly all over the world. What does the member for Dawesville think about that? Should the Liberal Party continue to accept donations from tobacco companies, member for Dawesville? Dr K.D. Hames: I have said publicly that it should not. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: And should it return the donations that it has received? Dr K.D. Hames: I have not given thought to the matter. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: Do members know why? It is because to give thought to it might require some action. The opposition should get its own house in order. The products of tobacco companies are killing people all over the world, as opposed to Joe McDonald, unions and building sites. I think I have given the best possible answer

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] 3539 that I can to the Leader of the Opposition’s question. The Leader of the Opposition should really look at his own performance, the performance of his own party and his own standards, and examine them. JOE MCDONALD’S BEHAVIOUR - PREMIER’S REACTION 325. Mr P.D. OMODEI to the Premier: I have a supplementary question. When will the Premier demand that the state ALP sever all ties with Kevin Reynolds and Joe McDonald? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: I think I have answered that question. As I understand it, there may well be some action on Mr McDonald this afternoon. The Leader of the Opposition can let me know when he is going to do something about his deputy. The best that the Leader of the Opposition can do is laugh about it, because he does not have the strength to act. The Leader of the Opposition can let me know when he is going to do something about the state Liberal Party accepting donations from tobacco companies, whose products are killing millions of people all over the world. It is not a question of someone going onto building sites, using bad language, calling people fat and so on; it is a question of tobacco companies’ products killing millions of people all over the world - possibly the biggest single causal factor that impinges on our health system today. Leader of the Opposition, do something! BUDGET SURPLUS 326. Mr P. PAPALIA to the Treasurer: Can the Treasurer please outline the factors contributing to the state’s healthy budget surplus and how the government is using the surplus to benefit the people of Western Australia? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: To listen to the opposition, one would think that a bit more money to spend on schools, hospitals, police stations, roads, ports, teachers and nurses is a bad thing. If we read The West Australian newspaper and listen to the shadow Treasurer, I think they would have us run budget deficits, as the coalition did in five out of eight budgets when it was in power, and then they would have us borrow more than a billion dollars each time for, say, the Fiona Stanley Hospital or the Perth to Mandurah railway. This is the opposition policy: tax cuts for business; let the kids pay for the infrastructure. That is the policy of the opposition. I know that the representatives of big business would like to see tax cuts. That is understandable. Everyone would like to pay less tax. However, they go on to say that that would be an advantage for our economy. We have had $104 billion worth of private sector investment since we were elected, and another $138 billion is in the pipeline. I think that there is another newspaper that got it right - that is, The Australian - because it said that a $150 billion burst of state government investment over the next four years will extend the economic boom and push the unemployment rate lower. It understands what is going on. We are reinvesting every single dollar of the surplus in the future of Western Australia. We are reinvesting it in schools, hospitals, roads, ports, the electricity network, water infrastructure or paying off debt so that we are not passing on that burden to our kids. It is worthwhile noting that we have a debt-free general government sector. I want to comment on a couple of remarks that Mr Robert Taylor, the economist and accountant, made in this morning’s paper. He accused me of seeking to explain away the surplus. Why would I explain it away? It is a good thing for Western Australia. It is a mark of our economic success and it gives us capacity to invest in the future, so I have no desire to explain it away. He then says later on in his article - . . . didn’t he say that the surplus couldn’t be spent because there’s not enough public servants to spend it? That is a fundamental misunderstanding of the surplus. The surplus is the outcome after we have collected revenue and after we have spent on services. We do not spend the surplus on services; we spend it on infrastructure. Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I am tempted to take an interjection. I apologise to the member for Bassendean; I think I am letting him down, because the Deputy Leader of the Opposition still has not apologised to him, and it has been three days now. I seek his permission to take an interjection from the member for Vasse, nevertheless. Mr M.P. Whitely interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Does the member for Vasse have an interjection? He is silent, as he is when he is asked to apologise. He has no interjection. Perhaps I can ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition a question. Can he confirm that Peter Costello had tax cuts in his last federal budget? No answer. Does he think the federal Treasury and the federal Treasurer have a problem with budget forecasting because they underestimate their surpluses?

3540 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007]

Mr T. Buswell: I can confirm that you didn’t have effective tax cuts in the last budget. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Amazingly, the economic, accounting expert on the other side will not confirm that Peter Costello had tax cuts in his last federal budget. One would have thought that he was in a position to make that judgement. He will not comment on the federal Treasurer’s underestimation of budget surpluses from time to time. I know why the opposition has trouble with dealing with the surplus this government has produced. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It gets to a point at which I have had enough of the constant interjections. I call the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I know why opposition members have trouble on the surplus question; that is, they did not have the capacity to produce surpluses in their time in government - five budget deficits out of eight. The only way they could fund an infrastructure program was through privatisation. We have a strategy to invest in the future through the production of a sufficient surplus to provide a fair amount of money for the funding of our infrastructure program. I think the difficulty for Mr Robert Taylor is that he has been taking too much advice from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I advise Mr Taylor that car park meetings with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition are not a reliable source of advice. They do not lead to good outcomes as far as I can see. Mr Robert Taylor would be well advised not to take any further advice from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. This is the last question time and the last sitting day before a long break. Surely, now, having had some time to reflect, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition can apologise to the member for Bassendean. The member has had - Several members interjected The SPEAKER: Order! Mr E.S. RIPPER: The member has had three days now to reflect on his duty and to consider what a decent approach would be when he has made a false allegation. Apologise! Mr M.P. Whitely interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Bassendean! PROCEDURE AND PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE - SECOND REPORT 327. Mr T. BUSWELL to the Premier: I refer to evidence from the Procedure and Privileges Committee inquiry in reacting to the member for Murchison-Eyre and other related matters and, in particular, to item PPC No. 13B. On that page is an email dated 11 November 2004 to Roderick Smith and Julian Grill, with a copy to Brian Burke. The email relates to the FMG State Agreement Act passed by this Parliament. Is the Premier or any member of his government aware of the involvement of Brian Burke or Julian Grill in any aspect of this agreement, including the unusual way in which this was introduced and pushed through Parliament in November 2004? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: I thank the member for the question, although I must say, he is a disgrace. Several members interjected Mr A.J. CARPENTER: He is. Several members interjected The SPEAKER: Order! Mr A.J. CARPENTER: He is an unadulterated disgrace. For three days in a row now he has had the opportunity to repair the damage he sought to inflict upon the member for Bassendean. He does not have the spine or the qualities required to do that. Several members interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: If the member for Vasse has a genuine concern along the lines that he is hinting at - we are familiar with his approach to politics, his inability to deal with the truth and his work on half-truths and misleading statements and trying to create false perceptions and false views about the activities of people - that arises from anything that he has - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order for the second time. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: If he has a genuine concern -

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] 3541

Mr P.D. Omodei interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the second time. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has a genuine concern along the lines he has just intimated, I invite him to go back to the place where he has already been once; that is, the Corruption and Crime Commission. As I recall, the last time he went there, his appearance was preceded by a secret meeting in the car park here - a clandestine meeting with the subject of the CCC investigation that he was called to give evidence on. Mr T. Buswell: Preceded by how long? Mr A.J. CARPENTER: You tell us, my friend. He should tell us. In his own words, the purpose of the meeting that he had in the car park with Noel Crichton-Browne was to discuss the evidence he was about to give when he went to the CCC. That is what he said. How he can sit there in the position he holds in Parliament is, to me, almost incredible. I am used to the fact that he has the unmitigated audacity to raise questions about the integrity of the process and other people in Parliament. He is a disgrace, and that fact is recognised by the many people sitting behind him who say that he is a shocker. Mr T.R. Sprigg interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: I enjoy the member for Murdoch’s interjections because it reminds me that he is still alive, and of how intimidated he is by the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure! The member for Murdoch is the provider of much merriment and mirth and much entertainment. I have never seen a person as intimidated as he is by the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure! The fact that she is so much more intelligent and has so much more capacity than he does is something he finds incredibly intimidating, so he spends much of his time firing denigrating, sexist, insulting remarks at her across the chamber. The imbalance in the member for Murdoch’s struggle with the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure reminds of the imbalance when he played against Austin Robinson, a former Subiaco full forward - a shocking imbalance. Dr K.D. Hames: They’re your side as well. You should hear what they say. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: Did the member for Dawesville, paragon of virtue, receive a campaign donation from the Peel Health Campus? Dr K.D. Hames: No. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: Is the member sure about that? Dr K.D. Hames: I’m 99.99 per cent sure. Several members interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: Did the member for Dawesville stand in this Parliament and attack the government for allowing the Peel Health Campus to cancel elective surgery over Christmas and New Year by not providing sufficient funds? Dr K.D. Hames: Absolutely. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: That privately operated campus donated $10 000 to the Liberal Party and nothing to the government. Point of Order Dr S.C. THOMAS: Standing order 78 still states that an answer must be relevant to the question. The SPEAKER: That is completely true and therein lies the problem with interjections. If a member interjects, the person on his feet is required to answer. Questions Without Notice Resumed Dr K.D. Hames: Did they donate to the Labor Party? Mr A.J. CARPENTER: No, they did not donate to the Labor Party, strangely; they donated to the Liberal Party, though. Was the member for Dawesville a beneficiary of that? Dr K.D. Hames: I have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: If the member for Vasse has those sort of concerns, the state Labor government has established the ideal forum for those concerns to be raised, and it is called the Corruption and Crime Commission. I invite the member to go down there and do it. NORTHERN SUBURBS - GROWTH 328. Mrs D.J. GUISE to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure: My question is to our visionary Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. Several members interjected.

3542 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007]

Mrs D.J. GUISE: Members, I am just shoring up the northern railway, so bear with me! Can the minister please tell the house how the Carpenter government is planning for the continued northward growth of the Perth metropolitan area and how this expansion will impact on the environment? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question and her presence today at the launch of this magnificent project. Alkimos is the next big thing in development in the northern suburbs. It is a development of 2 600 hectares, the majority of which is owned by LandCorp, but there are also some private sector partners. It is interesting that the land currently owned by LandCorp was purchased by the Western Australian state government with funds made available from the visionary Whitlam government. That was when we had federal governments that were actually interested in cities. The Whitlam government gave money to the Western Australian government recognising, even 30 years ago, that this state would grow and this city would grow and we would need land. A fantastic development is planned there. It will become a major regional centre linked by rail. More than that, we are ensuring that this centre becomes the leading light in reducing the carbon footprint. We are at a macro and micro level ensuring that the design of this community takes advantage of the very latest in technology and design to deliver a community that is sustainable. We know that we cannot continue to use resources in the way that we are; we cannot continue to be emitting carbon at the rate we are. This development will be a crucial way for us to demonstrate how urban development can be done into the twenty-first century. It will be a great development and we expect to have the first lots on the land in 2009. PARKINSON’S WA - FUNDING 329. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD to the Minister for Health: I would like to welcome the people from Parkinson’s Western Australia who are in the gallery. (1) Is the minister aware that Parkinson’s WA has asked the government for $192 000 to fund two additional nurses to provide the Parkinson’s nurse specialist service to the community? (2) If yes, why has the government refused to increase the funding over the past seven years despite the need for this service growing by more than 200 people each year? (3) Will the government reconsider its decision or will its refusal to provide funding set a health care precedent and force Parkinson’s WA to write pleading letters to its members asking for donations to provide this vital community service? Dr K.D. Hames: He is aware because I raised it during estimates. Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: Indeed. (1)-(3) The government has provided funding to Parkinson’s WA since 1998 for two nurse specialists. The request for an additional $192 000 a year is to double the nurse specialists employed by that association. The government recognises the need to provide increased services for people with Parkinson’s disease, and for that reason has funded other multidisciplinary services for people with the disease in addition to the Parkinson’s nurse specialist service. In the 2001-02 budget, the Western Australian government provided funds to the Parkinson’s disease centres of excellence to provide multidisciplinary services for inpatient and outreach care for people with Parkinson’s disease. These specialist units operate at the Osborne Park and Fremantle Hospitals. Since 2002, these services have been expanded, and a number of other initiatives for Parkinson’s sufferers have also been funded, including the provision of specialist Parkinson’s clinics in day therapy centres at other public hospitals and three neurological services in the south west, great southern and mid-west to provide nurse specialist services for all patients suffering from a range of degenerative neurological conditions, which includes Parkinson’s disease. This funding is provided through the Neurological Council of Western Australia’s neurological nurse specialist service. It is important, when we look at all these issues, to ensure that we are providing services to all the people with particular health needs who need those services. That is the reason the government has taken it upon itself in recent years to expand the range of services that it offers to people. In answer to the final question about fundraising by Parkinson’s WA, fundraising is commonplace amongst most non-government organisations providing services in the health area. A standard form of fundraising by those organisations is by requests, donations or the use of volunteers. PARKINSON’S WA - FUNDING 330. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD to the Minister for Health: The centres of excellence referred to by the minister do not allow all patients with Parkinson’s to attend them; they are for specific regions. Parkinson’s WA -

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] 3543

The SPEAKER: Is it a question? Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: It is a question. I ask the minister once again to reconsider, because people in the community with Parkinson’s disease are suffering, as they are not getting the services they should be getting. Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: That was answered in my first answer. FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES AUTHORITY - BACK PAY 331. Mr M.J. COWPER to the Premier: We are joined today by the principal, teachers and students from Mandurah Baptist College, which is in my electorate, students from Halls Head Primary School and students from Carmel Adventist College, which is in the member for Darling Range’s electorate. I welcome them today. Mr M.P. Murray: I hope the question you have today is better than the one you had yesterday. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: It makes question time somewhat difficult if we cannot get the question. Mr M.J. COWPER: Given that the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission awarded a wage increase to more than 800 career firefighters on 22 May 2007, backdated to 25 May 2006, and that the Fire and Emergency Services Authority has yet to back-pay entitlements to 38 former firefighters of approximately $1 000, forcing the United FireFighters Union to seek an order from the WAIRC to get their money - (1) Why did the government intervene in the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission proceedings on 15 June? (2) Why will the government not agree to pay the former firefighters their lawful entitlements? (3) Did the government recommend that the former firefighters would have to take action in the Magistrates Court to retrieve their entitlements? (4) Will the subsequent court proceedings in the Magistrates Court serve only to add unnecessary cost to the Western Australian taxpayer? (5) Is it not true that 169 former police officers have similarly been forced to seek an average of $364 in back pay in the Magistrates Court? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: (1)-(5) I thank the member for the question. In relation to at least one part of the question, the member can rest assured that everybody will be paid their lawful entitlements. On the specifics of the five-part question, if the member will forgive me, I would need some notice to be able to provide specific answers to the question. If the member will indulge me - Mr P.D. Omodei: Did you ask it in cabinet? Mr A.J. CARPENTER: Why does the Leader of the Opposition not ask the question? We did not discuss the specifics of these issues. On my feet and without notice I am unable to provide the specific details that the question is seeking. However, I will do my best to provide them as soon as I possibly can. FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES AUTHORITY - BACK PAY 332. Mr M.J. COWPER to the Premier: I have a supplementary question. Will the government apologise to the persons affected by the decision when it is proved by the court to be a vexatious and unnecessary action? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: I do not quite get the question. As I said, everybody will be paid their lawful entitlements. In relation to the other detail that is being sought, I will do my best to get it to the member as soon as I possibly can. BIOTECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY 333. Mr R.C. KUCERA to the Minister for Industry and Enterprise: I acknowledge the presence in the public gallery today of the wind beneath my wings - my wife - on the occasion of our fortieth wedding anniversary this week. I acknowledge her for putting up with me for that long! Members: Hear, hear! Mr R.C. KUCERA: She is very special. Having had the privilege earlier this year to see the enormous technological advances being made by our major trading partner, Japan, will the minister update the house on the Carpenter government’s progress in developing a strong biotechnology industry in Western Australia?

3544 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007]

Mr F.M. LOGAN replied: I thank the member for the question and acknowledge his interest in biotechnology. The state government is committed to diversifying Western Australia’s economy beyond the current resources boom by building a solid biotechnology industry, which is one of four key industries on which it is concentrating. One of the best ways in which to do this is to build common-user infrastructure that will allow biotechnology companies to do their research, testing, development and commercialisation in Western Australia. Common-user infrastructure such as the common-user facility at the Australian Marine Complex has proved to be invaluable in growing local industry. A key element of this infrastructure - a multimillion dollar phase 1-2 clinical trials facility - was announced by the Premier in April. We know that that will prove to be a tremendous boost to the biotechnology and biomedical industries in Western Australia when it becomes operational at the end of next year. Yesterday I had the pleasure of opening another vital piece of infrastructure - WA’s first common-user access research and commercialisation clean-room laboratory at Murdoch University. It is based inside what would seem from the outside to be a shed, but it is the cleanest shed in Western Australia. Inside are two specially built ultra-clean rooms with interlocking air doors, which separate bacteria from the outside world to create the cleanest environment possible. The facility was developed by WA biotechnology company OrthoCell Pty Ltd with the support of the Department of Industry and Resources and the Murdoch Westscheme Enterprise Partnership fund. I am advised that OrthoCell will use one of the clean rooms to produce tendon therapies for clinical trial development and commercialisation. That research will focus on biological therapies for tissue repair and the regeneration of tendons, which will assist with one of the most common forms of musculoskeletal ailments in the body. OrthoCell’s chief executive officer, Paul Anderson, said that this kind of research and technology development could not occur without this new facility. Once again, it is another building block in the creation of a viable, growing biotechnology industry in Western Australia, which is a key platform in our beyond the boom strategy. The SPEAKER: A good and quick answer! Several members interjected. NATURAL HERITAGE TRUST FUNDING 334. Mr D.T. REDMAN to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Agriculture and Food: Given the need for urgency in negotiations with the federal government on phase 3 of Natural Heritage Trust funding arrangements and the strong support from Western Australia’s natural resource management groups for the regional funding model - (1) Has cabinet signed off on the state’s negotiating position for NHT3? (2) Can the minister confirm whether the state government intends to remove funding control from regional natural resource management groups to a more centralist model? (3) Can the minister confirm whether the model being considered reflects 15 per cent of funding direct to regional groups, 35 per cent to state agencies and 50 per cent to certified projects managed by the state natural resource management office? Mr M.P. WHITELY replied: I thank the member for Stirling for some notice of this question. The office of the Minister for Agriculture and Food has provided the following response - (1) The government is in the process of determining the state’s negotiating position on NHT3. (2) The Minister for Agriculture and Food confirms that it is not the state government’s intention to remove funding control from regional natural resource management groups to a more centralist model. (3) There is no basis to the percentage figures quoted by the member. There has not been any indicative allocation of funds by the commonwealth to the state and no decisions on percentage allocations to fund various projects. NATURAL HERITAGE TRUST FUNDING 335. Mr D.T. REDMAN to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Agriculture and Food: I have a supplementary question. Mr J.N. Hyde: You can’t ask supplementary questions of a parliamentary secretary. Mr R.F. Johnson: Yes, you can.

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] 3545

Mr D.T. REDMAN: Does the parliamentary secretary agree that the considerable angst in regional natural resource management groups has been created by a lack of transparency in the government’s management of this issue? Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The parliamentary secretary was given notice of the question and obtained an answer. The supplementary question asks for his opinion. He clearly does not have time to seek that opinion of the minister on behalf of whom he is answering. The SPEAKER: Putting aside what the Leader of the House has said, to have a planned supplementary question for a parliamentary secretary is not part of the rules. That presumes that there are two questions. OLYMPIC GAMES - BEIJING 336. Mr P.B. WATSON to the Minister for Sport and Recreation: With the Beijing Olympics a little over a year away, will the minister please advise the progress of Western Australian athletes in their quest for selection? Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: I thank the member for his question. Clearly, as a former Australian Olympian, he has a real interest in how Australia will do in the Beijing Olympics. We can look at the effort being put in at the Western Australian Institute of Sport. The WAIS athletics program builds on the strength throughout our community in sport. The institute is really very important in helping to get athletes to the peak of their performance so that they can compete at a national and international level. A big part of the program involves working towards the selection process for world championships and a range of other events that will lead to the selection of the Australian team for the Beijing Olympics next year. It is certainly looking very good for Western Australian athletes. Over the past 12 months, representation of Western Australian athletes in major national teams has been at 10.5 per cent. The target for Western Australian representation is 10 per cent, being our percentage of the Australian population, so achieving 10.5 per cent representation in national teams shows that we are meeting that benchmark. Better than that, these athletes have achieved 14 per cent of all Australian world-class performances over that 12-month period. Judged on the top eight positions in the world, WAIS-sponsored athletes have achieved representation of 14 per cent of all Australians in that category. Among those, WAIS has produced eight world champions, six junior world champions and one Paralympics world champion, which bodes well for selection of Western Australians in the national team to compete in Beijing. All members hope that Australia can continue to maintain its very high ranking and standing in Olympic competition due to the quality of our athletes and the training that they get, particularly through the Western Australian Institute of Sport. ORD STAGE 2 - MARSDEN JACOB ASSOCIATES REPORT 337. Dr S.C. THOMAS to the Minister for State Development: I refer to an ABC report in August 2004 on the Marsden Jacob Associates review into Ord stage 2 that stated that expectation was building following the assurance by the minister for agriculture, Hon Kim Chance, that the study would be released by the end of the month. (1) Was the report ever released as per the minister’s assurance; and, if not, why not and will the minister table the report today? (2) Did the 2004 Marsden Jacob Associates report recommend that the state government invest in infrastructure in Ord stage 2; and, if not what were its recommendations? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) The report was not released. The government sought to test the commercial chances of an Ord stage 2 project by going through an expressions of interest process. As I have previously advised the house, the government will be working with the commonwealth government to resolve all the issues that need to be resolved to give Ord stage 2 the best chance of being a truly profitable project. Members should take note of the difficulties that the sugar industry has experienced as a result of the collapse of world sugar prices. It is very important that we knock off all the outstanding issues and give Ord stage 2 the best chance of succeeding. If we rush into this with some of those issues unresolved, we will be setting the Ord scheme up for failure. I do not want to do that. I want Ord stage 2 to be really successful. ORD STAGE 2 - MARSDEN JACOB ASSOCIATES REPORT 338. Dr S.C. THOMAS to the Minister for State Development: I ask a supplementary question. Given that the Minister for State Development engaged Marsden Jacob Associates in April 2004 to review and update the business case for Ord stage 2, will he make the process public in the best interests of open and accountable government; and, if not, why not?

3546 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007]

Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: The report was commissioned to advise the government on the best approach to Ord stage 2. The government is working on all those issues for the extended expressions of interest process. It may be that it would be a good thing as part of an extended EOI process to release further information to the market, including the Marsden Jacob Associates report. However, we must consider that further, and try to set up an expressions of interest process that has the best chance of achieving a successful result. SCHOOLS - PERFORMANCE 339. Mr P.W. ANDREWS to the Minister for Education and Training: Will the minister outline the government’s plan to identify and assist schools that are under performing? Mr M. McGOWAN replied: I thank the member for Southern River for his question. Once again I acknowledge his outstanding and comprehensive knowledge about education. I thank him for his advice on the subject. Mr E.S. Ripper: He’s a nice person too! Mr M. McGOWAN: He is a nice person and he is well respected around the Parliament. A few days ago I announced that the state government will put in place a new school review unit to assist schools that are having difficulty to ensure that we can deal with their issues. At the moment, district directors deal with all schools on a one-size-fits-all basis. They look at a school and how it is performing on an annual basis, without consideration for whether it has been acknowledged that the school has done well or whether it has been acknowledged that it has not been doing well. We have come up with a more specialised process. The new school review unit will be a relatively independent body. It will draw on expertise. It will analyse the schools that are having difficulty. It will consider what can be done to improve literacy, numeracy and academic standards and the performance of staff. It will prepare a report that will go to the Director General of the Department of Education and Training and any recommendations will be treated seriously. There are 800 public schools around the state, and those that are struggling will be able to improve their performance. It will be very supportive of schools. It is not about naming and shaming schools. We are about standards and quality. If a school is not doing well, we have to confront that issue. We want district directors focused on the schools that are not doing well. We want them to get off the backs of schools that are doing well. The review unit may conduct random analysis of schools around the state. It may look at those schools that are doing well and introduce its practices into schools that are struggling. This is all about the Carpenter government’s agenda of standards and quality in education. It follows on from the introduction of new syllabus, which will be reviewed by a national panel; the functional review I announced recently; the appointment of the new director general; the behaviour centres I announced a few days ago; the trialling of Saturday morning counselling for students who are misbehaving; the construction of new schools; and, the $190 million that is being invested in training. Those things are all about standards and quality. We are putting effort and money into public education in Western Australia. FREIGHT NETWORK - SOUTHERN SUBURBS 340. Mr T.R. SPRIGG to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure: In the member for Riverton’s 2005 election brochure, both he and the former Premier promised that trucks would be removed from Leach Highway and South Street and that there would be a fully costed and carefully planned proposal to manage freight traffic in Perth’s southern suburbs. (1) Given that this initiative was to be implemented in December 2006, and it is now June 2007, why has nothing happened? (2) Why has the election promise made to the people in the southern suburbs been broken? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(2) I have spent a great deal of time setting out chapter and verse and providing supporting documentation to the member for Murdoch outlining the reasons for this. We have spent a lot of time going through this issue with him. We realise that some members take longer than others to absorb information. We are very patient. We made it very clear in all the statements that we made at that time that to be able to redirect trucks to Kwinana Freeway, we needed to reduce the amount of passenger traffic on the Kwinana Freeway. The plan was very clearly linked to the completion of the southern suburbs railway. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN: I have provided that documentation to the member for Murdoch, which shows where we made that clear. Indeed, I remember going on radio and having lengthy discussions with various

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] 3547 media commentators to explain that at length. It was also explained in the local newspapers that this was part of a carefully thought through plan that recognised that we would take a lot of traffic off the Kwinana Freeway once the rail line was operational. We regret that the rail contractors have not been able to deliver on their contractual obligations. That is a fact of life. Consequently, we have been unable to put the freight plan into practice, and cannot do so until such time as the rail commences. Main Roads has done an enormous amount of work to ensure that this will be operational. Shortly after the rail line opens, we will ensure that trucks are removed from Leach Highway. PROCEDURE AND PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE - SECOND REPORT Amendment to Motion Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting. MR J.H.D. DAY (Darling Range) [2.48 pm]: This whole episode has been a very unfortunate one in the history of this Parliament. To a significant extent, it has brought the whole of the Parliament into disrepute in the public arena. I was a member of the Economics and Industry Standing Committee that was - Mr A.D. McRae: You were the Deputy Chairman. Mr J.H.D. DAY: I was the Deputy Chairman, as the member for Riverton pointed out, of the Economics and Industry Standing Committee during the last Parliament and in the second half of 2004 when the committee inquired into the Windimurra vanadium issue. I was of the view and the understanding that the inquiry into this matter was established in good faith, and I think that a majority of members of the committee - certainly, three members of the committee - also would have had that view because it is the case that valid issues should have been inquired into, or were certainly worthy of being inquired into. In particular, there were questions about the infrastructure provided by the state to support the establishment of industries and matters relating to the role of governments in resource development and ensuring that Western Australia has a productive mining industry. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, members! There is an awful lot of noise in the chamber, with a number of different conversations going on. If members were cognisant of the job that Hansard has to do, the reporter might be able to hear the member with the call. Mr J.H.D. DAY: There were valid issues into which it was appropriate to inquire, and the inquiry itself was an appropriate one to undertake. However, in establishing an inquiry such as this, it is important that members have some idea of the real motivation for it. Given what has come out in the past few months, initially at the Corruption and Crime Commission and now through the Procedure and Privileges Committee report, it is difficult to escape the view that the whole thing was contrived in an attempt to benefit one particular commercial entity that was in argument with another commercial entity. If that was the motivation, at the very least we should have been told that that was the case. Unfortunately, we now know that the process was corrupted by the provision of the draft report to one of those commercial entities - Roderick Smith of Precious Metals Australia Ltd. Therefore, to some extent, the final report of the committee has been tainted, even though all members of the original committee are of the view that the general outcome of the report is still worthy of support. There were some important recommendations in the report, not all of which - if indeed any - have been taken up by the government, but that is an issue for discussion on another day. Unfortunately, as I said, the whole report has been tainted as a result of the process being corrupted. That calls into question the validity of the report, as regrettable as that may be. As far as the members of this house who were involved in leaking the report are concerned, there has previously been a significant focus on the member for Murchison-Eyre. There is no question that he made a big mistake. At the very best, he was naive in providing a copy of the draft report to Julian Grill, and he certainly should have known better. I would have thought that any person elected to Parliament would have a reasonable, innate - Point of Order Ms S.E. WALKER: I am sorry to interrupt the member for Darling Range, but there are conversations going on and it is quite a loud noise on the floor of the chamber. I wonder whether people who want to discuss issues would go outside. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. However, I urge members to be cognisant of the member on his feet. Debate Resumed Mr J.H.D. DAY: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was saying that I would have thought that anybody elected to this place would have a reasonable, innate understanding of what is right and what is wrong in acting as a member of Parliament. Clearly, that has been shown not to be the case in all circumstances, unfortunately. The member for Murchison-Eyre was, in my view, used in a very big way by Julian Grill. The member has apologised, and I believe he is genuinely remorseful. I share the view of members of the Procedure and

3548 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007]

Privileges Committee and, I think, of all members of this house that, nevertheless, he should be given a second chance with the penalty which has been applied to him and which is supported by members on both sides of the house. The member for Murchison-Eyre certainly made a big mistake, but I think he was sincere in his apology. Hopefully, he has learnt a lesson from his serious misdemeanour. There is no question that Julian Grill, a former member of this place, should have known better. Indeed, I have no doubt that he did know better than to act in the way he did and put the member for Murchison-Eyre in a difficult position; that is, through the early contacts he had with the member, the abuse of their apparently close personal friendship and passing on a copy of the draft report to Roderick Smith of PMA. He has abused his friendship with the member for Murchison-Eyre in a big way and in a way that is inexcusable. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan: Hear, hear! Mr J.H.D. DAY: I am gratified to hear a “hear, hear” from the other side of the house. There will be further debate, with support most likely from both sides of the house, on a stronger penalty of some sort for Mr Grill. The member for Riverton was the Chairman of the Economics and Industry Standing Committee. He certainly had a strong interest in all inquiries that the committee undertook, including this one. It defies logic and commonsense, and indeed, it defies the evidence that has been presented in the PPC report that was tabled last night, that he did not know what was going on with the actions of the member for Murchison-Eyre. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan: That’s just not fair. Mr J.H.D. DAY: It does not give me any pleasure to make these comments, because we were members of the same committee. Mr M. McGowan: Do you support the recommendations of the committee? Mr J.H.D. DAY: I support the amendment that has been moved by the opposition. It is open to this house to make a judgement about what is appropriate action, and that is the debate we are having at the moment. There has been a recommendation from the committee, of which you are a member, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it is a recommendation of this house and it is open to all members to look at the evidence and then make a judgement about what is appropriate action. At the very least, the member for Riverton should have asked questions of the member for Murchison-Eyre about where all the proposed amendments were coming from. If he did not have some suspicion about that, he should have told the member for Murchison-Eyre to bring the proposed amendments to the committee as a whole, as opposed to their being made covertly by himself and the member for Murchison-Eyre on, it seems, the member for Riverton’s computer prior to the amendments being raised in the presence of all five committee members. If that process had been followed and appropriate discussion had occurred, I have little doubt that at the very least alarm bells would have rung about what was going on. Unfortunately, the other three members of the committee - me, the former member for Vasse and the member for Collie-Wellington - did not have the benefit of the knowledge about the process that was being applied by the member for Riverton. The member for Riverton should have done that at the very least to fulfil his obligations appropriately. In addition to that matter, there is plenty of evidence - Mr A.D. McRae interjected. Mr J.H.D. DAY: The member for Riverton makes a valid point; however, he really backs up my point, because the amendments that I and the other two members that I have mentioned would have put forward would have been done with the committee meeting as a whole. Some of those amendments might have been forwarded in writing or by electronic means, but they certainly would not have been forwarded to one member and then passed on to the committee, as opposed to being brought before the committee as a whole. That is the important point. As I said, there is plenty of evidence of contact between Roderick Smith of PMA and the member for Riverton, and other members have spoken about that matter. That evidence is contained in volume 2 of the report that was tabled last night. Mr A.D. McRae: Do you recall those matters being discussed at the committee? Mr J.H.D. DAY: Those matters of contact between the member for Riverton and Roderick Smith? I cannot say that I do recall them being discussed at the committee. It is very difficult to recall every discussion that occurred two and a half or three years after the event. If the member would like to explain further in this debate exactly what happened, I will certainly give him the benefit of a very good hearing. There was an email - as disclosed in evidence under PPC30 - from the member for Riverton to Roderick Smith. There was also an email from Roderick Smith to the member for Riverton on 28 June - about the time that the inquiry was established. The point is that the member for Riverton must have had a strong degree of knowledge that Precious Metals Australia and Roderick Smith had a very strong interest in the outcome of the inquiry. Indeed, I guess that was obvious to all members of the committee. The point is that the member for Riverton’s contact with Roderick Smith went a lot further than the contact that other members of the committee had or would want to have had. Anyone in the

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] 3549 position of chairing one of these committees - I have not chaired a parliamentary committee, but I have certainly chaired a number of other committees - should have a good understanding that he needs to operate at an arms- length manner, particularly for a sensitive matter such as this. Committee Chairs need to behave in a dispassionate way, collect all the evidence, weigh it up and then come to a judgement. In the case of a committee such as this, a collective judgement is arrived at after due process has been followed. It does not give me any pleasure to say that I do not think the member for Riverton, as chairman of the committee, fulfilled his obligations as well as he should have. We are also now aware of evidence that Roderick Smith attended a fundraising function for the Australian Labor Party Riverton campaign while the inquiry was underway. For those reasons, the opposition believes that a stronger penalty should apply to the member for Riverton. I do not believe that the opposition is going over the top. We are certainly not calling for the member’s expulsion from Parliament, and we have resisted any move to call for the expulsion of the member for Murchison-Eyre, notwithstanding the fact that if people in a professional capacity, such as accountants or lawyers, had breached confidentiality in this way, they might well face the loss of their jobs. The opposition believes that people should be given a second chance. I certainly do not suggest that the member for Riverton or the member for Murchison-Eyre should be sent off to a dark dungeon for 12 months or anything of that nature. However, the opposition believes that a stronger message should be sent out to make it known to the public of Western Australia that this Parliament will act very strongly to ensure that proper standards are applied and maintained, and that when a strong breach of due process by individual members has been shown to have occurred, as in this case, the Parliament will take stronger action than is proposed by the government or was proposed in the recommendation from the Procedure and Privileges Committee. The amendment moved by the opposition is not in any way, as the Premier suggested, an attack on the privileges committee. The opposition recognises that the committee had a difficult job to do. In my experience of committee discussion - I think they have all been unanimous recommendations - a consensus is formed. However, it is open to the Parliament as a whole to make a judgement about what is appropriate; to look at the evidence provided and to then make a decision about whether a slightly different course of action should be taken. The opposition accepts most of the recommendations of the privileges committee, but it suggests - indeed, urges - that the house should go a little further in addressing the actions of the member for Riverton. The opposition does not seek to go over the top; it simply seeks to send a stronger message than has been sent so far, on the basis of the evidence presented. I hope that all members - certainly the two members directly affected - have learnt some very strong lessons from the very unfortunate episode that has been revealed to the house and the people of Western Australia. In moving this motion, the opposition believes that it is sending a stronger message than would otherwise be the case. MR B.J. GRYLLS (Merredin - Leader of the National Party) [3.04 pm]: I make some comments on the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition. I begin by responding to comments made by the Premier and the Treasurer, who suggested that it was not the role of members of the opposition to make comment and to debate the findings and recommendations of the Procedure and Privileges Committee. I find that very difficult to understand. The committee has completed its investigation. It has made recommendations that have come back to Parliament for members to debate and to either endorse or disagree with. I thought that was actually the process that every committee goes through. In my experience, there is a parliamentary process for every committee report by which members who agree with the committee’s recommendations say so, and those who disagree make their points well known. That is exactly what we are doing today. I am very happy to speak on the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition. The member for Avon was the National Party representative on the Procedure and Privileges Committee. In his contribution to this debate last night, the member for Avon asked the Parliament to look at the recommendations of the committee and make its judgement. He said it was a very difficult process, that it was a process without precedent and that it was very difficult for the committee, when trying to frame its response to the findings, to refer to a previous event of a similar nature. The member for Avon implored Parliament to examine this matter closely today. He used the analogy of the committee putting a case forward and Parliament acting as a jury on the recommendations. That is exactly what we are doing. The Leader of the Opposition, by moving an amendment to the motion put forward by the Premier, is saying that the opposition believes that there is more scope for a greater penalty to be enacted against the member for Riverton. That is the process we are going through. In his comments last night, the member for Avon stated - The question for members is - Point of Order Mr A.D. McRAE: I ask that the Deputy Speaker check with the Leader of the National Party what document he is quoting from. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the National Party.

3550 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007]

Mr B.J. GRYLLS: I am quoting from the uncorrected Hansard. The member for Riverton is exactly right in his point of order. The member for Avon may want to come in later to correct the point I am making, but I sat here last night and heard what the member for Avon said. He made it very clear that it was now up to members to decide how to pitch the penalty. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is a point of order. I am sure that the member for Merredin is actually paraphrasing from his memory of what the member for Avon said. The point of order is upheld, but with a warning to the member for Merredin, in the spirit of cooperation! Debate Resumed Mr B.J. GRYLLS: I am very glad that the member for Riverton is now the arbiter of parliamentary standards. This is fantastic. I am really glad that he is doing that. This is unbelievable. I am making the point that the member for Avon, in his contribution to the debate last night, was very clear that his role on the committee was to make recommendations and that members should have this debate today and put forward their thoughts on those recommendations. Government members do not believe that to be correct. I look forward to every committee having its recommendations fully endorsed and implemented by the government. I turn to the substance of the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition and make comments about what I have seen of the recommendations, the available transcripts and the comments made over the past few days by those involved. The transcript evidence shows that the member for Riverton was clearly building a relationship with Roderick Smith and Precious Metals Australia, and that this relationship-building was being aided by Julian Grill. The transcript evidence also shows that the member for Murchison-Eyre arranged for the chairman’s draft report to be emailed to Mr Grill. The report was forwarded to Mr Smith, who amended it to the benefit of Precious Metals Australia, and then returned the amended report to the member for Murchison-Eyre. At 10.14 pm on 8 November, the member for Murchison-Eyre emailed the amended report to the member for Riverton. This action has resulted in the member for Murchison-Eyre receiving the harshest penalty in the history of the Western Australian Parliament. Over the 25 hours that followed, further amendments were made by the chairman, the member for Riverton. At 12.10 am on 10 November, he emailed the report to the committee’s principal research officer. The next day, at 7.45 am, the principal research officer opened this email, and within 13 minutes made the assertion that there had been a breach of privilege. It took a principal research officer 13 minutes to work out that this committee process had been corrupted. The member for Riverton would have us believe that he was oblivious to this fact, yet it took the principal research officer only 13 minutes to understand and report. If the member for Riverton does not want me to support this amendment, he has to convince me that he was completely oblivious to these events. The member for Riverton has to convince me that he had not established a relationship with Roderick Smith and Precious Metals Australia while chairing a committee that was directly investigating that company. The member for Riverton has to convince me that he had no idea that the member for Murchison-Eyre had made the report available to Mr Grill, and then to Smith and PMA. The member for Riverton failed to recognise that a committee colleague of his was putting him in such a compromised position. Is the member for Riverton charged with failing to recognise changes in his own chair’s draft report? The member for Murchison-Eyre referred to these changes in his evidence. I will read from page 9 of the transcript now. Mr Bowler stated - . . . but the changes were so detailed and over the top that, looking back now, I think I realised that unless Julian had consulted strongly and closely with PMA, PMA had had a direct hand in it. The member for Murchison-Eyre had realised that the changes were so much over the top that he was embarrassed about the fact. However, the member for Riverton failed to recognise this. I also point out that he failed to recognise track changes, recorded as authored by Mr Smith, that took the principal research officer only 13 minutes to notice. Is the member for Riverton charged with failing to realise that this report would be seen to be corrupted if he sought or accepted fundraising support from Smith, PMA or Grill? The member for Avon in his contribution to the debate last night asked members of Parliament to look at the transcript, to look at the recommendations and the findings made by the committee, and to then stand in this debate today and put forward our views about how to best respond to this very sad, dark and sorry tale in the history of the Western Australian Parliament. The transcript and the circumstantial evidence condemn the member for Riverton, and lead me to support this amendment. The member for Riverton has some very serious questions to answer today, to me and to his colleagues, if he wants this amendment to be voted down. These are difficult times for the Parliament. I have stood in this Parliament several times over the past six months and talked about standards and the way in which we are perceived by the Western Australian public. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that we need to be seen to be acting very strongly in questioning the conduct of the people involved in this circumstance. I believe that when we get to the stage at which individual members of Parliament are calling on their colleagues to be the jury, rather than them acting in the best interests of democracy and representing the Western Australian Parliament, we are being put in a very difficult position. I

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] 3551 challenge the members who are named in this report: are they doing their best to reflect the important position that they hold in the Western Australian Parliament? By believing that a simple apology is enough to make this issue go away, and by believing that a simple apology is the only solution to this problem, I think we are underestimating what has happened in Western Australian politics over the past few months and how it is seen by the wider public. I look forward to hearing the member for Riverton’s contribution to the debate. I think it is important, as we were not all able to attend the committee hearings at which his evidence was given. It is important that the member for Riverton stand today and respond to the amendment to the motion put forward by the Leader of the Opposition so that the member can allay some of my fears that what I have read, and my interpretation of that reading, puts the member in a very dark light. The member for Riverton has the opportunity in this debate today to rectify that, and I welcome his contribution. DR E. CONSTABLE (Churchlands) [3.14 pm]: I have sat and listened to all the contributions to this debate today, as have many members, and I have tried to listen very carefully to members on both sides of the house. I must say that members of the opposition have put forward a very compelling case, as has the Leader of the National Party just now, to support the amendment. It seems to me, after listening to the very good summary that has just been given by the Leader of the National Party, that the weight of evidence supports the amendment. I will not go through, line after line, what others have done, because I think we have already heard that very clearly today. However, I put on the record that I appreciate those contributions from members of the opposition. Mr E.S. Ripper: Member, do you think the committee got it wrong? Is that what you are saying? Dr E. CONSTABLE: No, I am not saying the committee got it wrong. The committee has reported. It has worked hard on this. It has given us the transcript, given us its report and said, as the Leader of the National Party just said and as the member for Avon said last night, “Now look at it and make your judgement.” I was just about to say that I do not agree with the words of the Premier when he said that we have to accept this report without question. We do not. Each one of us is here to analyse it, think about it and draw our own conclusions. The committee did not get it wrong. It presented us with information to make some assessment of. Mr E.S. Ripper: With recommendations. Dr E. CONSTABLE: With recommendations, and that is all they were - recommendations, just as there are in any other report. What interested me about the contributions of both the Premier and the Treasurer was that they did not deal with the substance of this amendment. They avoided the substance of the amendment. They talked about process. They attacked the process, and they attacked people for the way that they were not following just like sheep and saying, “Yes, we accept these recommendations without question.” That is not what we are here for. I was really disappointed that they did not actually defend, if they wanted to, the member for Riverton. I wanted to hear a defence from them. What they really said was that they would not accept the amendment, but they did not really say why. Mr E.S. Ripper: Because we’ve had a committee inquire into it, and it had a much better chance to make a considered judgement than we have, because we did not see the witnesses give evidence. Dr E. CONSTABLE: Is the Treasurer telling me that from now on he will accept every finding and every recommendation in every report that comes from a committee of this house, because the committee has looked at it in more detail? Is the Treasurer going to do that? Come on. Mr E.S. Ripper: No. This was more in the nature of a judicial proceeding. Dr E. CONSTABLE: It was different; right. We have two sets of rules here. Mr E.S. Ripper: You do have a different set of rules for a policy recommendation and a recommendation following what is a de facto trial. Dr E. CONSTABLE: I have given the Treasurer my point of view, and I am not going to repeat it. I think the Treasurer is wrong. This process does not begin and end with the report of the Procedure and Privileges Committee. It begins with the committee and ends in this house with us voting on it. That is what the process is. I thought that the Premier presented us with a rather curious argument that we should accept without question the recommendations of the committee, and I have already said that. However, he also said - I think it was right at the beginning of his comments - that we should add a penalty in the case of Mr Julian Grill, so he defeated his own argument in the first few minutes after he stood up. The report of this committee is not an end in itself. The Procedure and Privileges Committee has presented us with its findings. I add my appreciation of the incredible work that it has done. It presented us with its findings and recommendations for our consideration. That is what the committee did, and that is what we are doing now. We are considering the committee’s report. The expectation of the Premier seems to be that we all just turn into sheep in this case and follow along without discussion and without question, and just agree to the

3552 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] recommendations in that way. I for one am not going to do that. I will repeat again that what worries me more than anything is that the Premier and the Treasurer did not address the substance of this amendment, which is incredibly serious. They just ignored the substance of the amendment. As I said earlier, like other members, I have reservations and questions about the role of the member for Riverton in the events outlined in the report. I agree with and appreciate very much the speech made just now by the Leader of the National Party, because he summarised many of the questions in my mind over which I have been mulling overnight. The member for Riverton played a pivotal role in making the changes to the draft report, based on the amendments given to him by the member for Murchison-Eyre. I have asked myself: was that unusual? Would it be usual for one member of a committee to give changes to the Chairman just before they were going into a meeting to look at the final draft of a report? Was it usual for the chairman to take them and, without question, make changes to his draft report outside a properly constituted meeting? I find that bizarre, having been on a number of committees in the past 16 years. I have never seen anything like it. If we want to make changes to a draft we take them along as members, present them and discuss them in committee. We do not give them to the chairman and have him make changes in the middle of the night. It is quite without precedent, certainly in my experience. What was really stunning about all of this - others have mentioned this - was that it took the principal research officer, who I think this Parliament should be thanking for having his wits about him, only a few minutes to suspect a possible breach of privilege and report that, as he should have, to the clerks. How was it that the principal research officer of the committee suspected a breach of privilege, while the chairman did not have any suspicion at all? How is it that that happened? This was a chairman who had been living through this inquiry, presumably for months. He did not have any suspicion! I cannot accept that. Where was he? It would have been usual, as I see it, for the member for Murchison-Eyre to take any suggestion for change he wanted to present to the committee meeting when it was considering the draft and propose them during that meeting to allow the committee to discuss them. Three members of the committee knew nothing about those major changes to the report that were done outside the committee processes. This is the process we should be talking about. One of the things we need to discuss and really look at in this Parliament is the implications for the committee system that this has brought forward for us. I checked on when the member for Riverton became the chair of the committee. He was placed in the position of chair of a committee as a new member of Parliament. I question whether that was a wise thing to do. It takes quite a lot of time for new members to find their feet in this Parliament and to understand the standing orders and procedures and how committees work. Mr E.S. Ripper: Our caucus comprised new members in 2005 by a majority of one. Dr E. CONSTABLE: I can understand that. However, not only does it put the new member in a very difficult position but also it has the potential, as has happened in this case, to compromise the Parliament. We must look at that, as well as at the whole induction process for new members. Support structures for new members must be looked at. When I was thinking about this matter early this morning, I was reflecting on the circumstances of when I was elected to Parliament after a by-election. I had the good fortune to sit between two people who, at the time, were probably the two longest serving members of Parliament; the member for South Perth, Hon Bill Grayden, and the member for Darling Range, Hon Ian Thompson, who had been the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. Those two men sat with me non-stop for three weeks and did not leave my side while they gave me a very quick introduction to what Parliament was about. I was one of the Independents who had the balance of power. I know how hard it is to come into this place and be dropped in at the deep end. I feel sorry for new members of Parliament when they do not get adequate support. It is one of the things that has clearly come out of this for me. However, I digress. Why did not the chairman of the committee, the member for Riverton, tell the member for Murchison-Eyre to bring his suggestions to the committee meeting? Why did he take them and incorporate them into the report and send them to the principal research officer? He should have said, “Look, just bring them along tomorrow; we are having a meeting tomorrow, so we will look at them then.” Instead, he said, “Okay, they look pretty good”. Whether he knew where they came from I do not know, but I have my suspicions. The business of this standing committee was systematically manipulated by Mr Julian Grill, and I am very angry about that - that a former member of this Parliament can systematically manipulate what is going on in a parliamentary committee. The actions of a now-disgraced lobbyist have permeated and harmed the committee system of this house, and we should all be very angry about this. The member for Murchison-Eyre and the member for Riverton allowed Julian Grill to subvert and control the procedures and work of the Economics and Industry Standing Committee. Why did Mr Roderick Smith formally thank the member for Riverton and the member for Murchison-Eyre after tabling the report? I do not know; I can only guess. I understand that he did not thank other members of the committee in the same way. I support this amendment of the Leader of the Opposition and I urge other members to think very carefully about supporting it as well.

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] 3553

MS S.E. WALKER (Nedlands) [3.25 pm]: I support this amendment, but, frankly, I do not think it goes far enough. I note that the Treasurer and the Premier have said that we should go along like sheep with the recommendations. However, the Premier himself, when he received the written transcripts from the CCC, decided the careers of ministers across the board on that side of the house. He was not at the CCC; he looked at the transcripts and said, “Mate, you are out as a minister; you don’t come up to scratch”. Frankly, the member for Riverton does not come up to scratch on this issue. He showed stunning arrogance last night, after everything that we know about him, to stand in this house and say - I am paraphrasing - that he hoped that the committee’s findings and recommendations would give people some reason to trust that the committee did good work in coming to the conclusions and making the findings it did on behalf of WA. It seems to be forgotten in this debate that $20 million was made out of this, and it involved a mining company. It goes to the very heart of the resources and mining industry. A committee was manipulated by Parliament for the sole purpose, in my view, of ensuring that Mr Burke and Mr Grill, and I think Mr Crichton-Browne, because he was making submissions to the original committee, could make sure that the Xstrata name was blackened for closing that mine. I can show that. For the member for Riverton to stand in this place last night in stunning arrogance to prove his point, shows that, as a member of Parliament, he has learnt nothing. Frankly, I think he should be out and should not be allowed back. I have done an overview, and have concluded that there was an orchestrated campaign, to which some members were oblivious. The fact that Mr Grill was on a retainer of $10 000 a month for three months and a success fee of $250 000, when the mine recommenced, should have been a warning sign. Why would a committee of this Parliament take it upon itself to inquire into the operations or closure of a mine as a result of a private company’s decision, when the company had done nothing wrong within the ambit of legislation in this state? That company had done nothing wrong. I have looked at why this inquiry should have been established in the first place. The member for Churchlands suggested that we should look at the committee system. In light of this situation, we should look at what type of inquiries committees undertake. If a private mining operation is not economic, a company is entitled to close it. I will go to what the member for Murchison- Eyre said in this house on 11 November 2004 - The Western Australian Mining Act operates under the presumption that mines will operate because they are profitable, and mines will be mothballed because if we hang on to them for a while, the economic factors will improve or change and they will be reopened; alternatively, they will be closed because they have run out of ore, and it is just a hopeless case. The theory of the Act is use it or lose it. If the resource is not used, the Act eventually kicks in and people lose their tenements. Xstrata said it was uneconomic. It is crucial for members to consider that what the member for Riverton did, and he knew he did, was to completely reverse the findings in the draft report. When the draft report said black, he said white. It was Dr Gallop who said on 12 May 2004 in this house about the closure of that mine that, “there are no levers available to us”. They found a lever and the lever they found was in the - Point of Order Ms S.E. WALKER: I did raise a point of order and, Madam Deputy Speaker, you said it was not a point of order, but it is. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the member for Nedlands questioning a ruling of the Chair? Ms S.E. WALKER: No, I am pointing something out to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is not a healthy habit to have. Ms S.E. WALKER: Standing order 95 reads - Members will not converse noisily or otherwise disturb the proceedings. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the member questioning a ruling by this Chair? If the member is, there is a process for that and I will sit her down. Ms S.E. WALKER: I am actually referring to a point of order. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the member raising a point of order? Ms S.E. WALKER: Yes, I said it was a point of order. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Fine. Make it. Ms S.E. WALKER: Under standing order 95, members will not converse noisily or otherwise disturb the proceedings. That standing order has a note attached that states - Private conversations during debate are disorderly: The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member, I will rule on that and say, once again, that it is not a point of order at this stage, because I do not hear any unruly conversations in the house. Therefore, my ruling stands.

3554 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007]

Debate Resumed Ms S.E. WALKER: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Procedure and Privileges Committee should be an independent body. Is it appropriate that people who have connections with Mr Burke, Mr Grill or Mr Crichton-Browne should be a member of or deliberating on that committee? It is not appropriate. It would be much better if there were a separate and independent body because of the perception and democratic process in Western Australia. Frankly, I am not sure why some matters are not in the report. Firstly, there is not an overview to the effect that there was a media campaign, probably cranked up by Mr Burke and his connections to the media. The inquiry was commenced with a mantra. The mantra that was chanted was that Xstrata closed the mine to help maintain international metal prices. This mantra was perpetuated by Mr McRae during the inquiry. I am very thankful for some of the information he gave during that time because he goes into how much media coverage there was, or had been cranked up, on Xstrata and why the mine was closed. Let us look at the changes that were made by the member for Riverton to the draft report, because these are the most damning. I go to the Corruption and Crime Commission transcript of the member for Murchison-Eyre on 22 February. This is not mentioned in the report. A fax was received in the member for Murchison-Eyre’s electoral office on 5 November from Julian Grill stating that the report was extremely disappointing and attaching the notes of Roderick Smith. It stated that it reflected a better approach to the matter and gave a better basis for the recommendations. The member for Murchison-Eyre got that fax on 5 November and those changes to the email were not made until 9 November. There was plenty of time for the member for Murchison-Eyre to contact the member for Riverton. As the member for Churchlands said, it is highly unusual to get these amendments through late at night and then not present them to the committee. My next quote goes to the amendment and why the member for Riverton should share the same fate as the member for Murchison-Eyre. At page 827 of the CCC transcript on 27 February Mr Bowler was asked - Mr Smith goes systematically through the draft report in this manner. Now, seeing that does it remind you that you received those? Mr Bowler said that he could not recall. The transcript continues - Can I tell you, Mr Bowler, that not in respect of every suggestion made by Mr Smith but certainly in respect of some of them, a significant number of them, not only were the suggestions adopted but they appeared verbatim in the final report. Do you know how that happened? Mr Bowler said that he could not recall. The transcript continues - Well, can I suggest to you that on the basis that this document was faxed to you, that you must have been instrumental in bringing those amendments to the committee for them to appear in the final report? Mr Bowler replied - Yeah, look I can’t recall whether I handed it on to the other four members for their consideration . . . Mr Bowler did not tell the truth. He did not reveal that he had sent the changes to the member for Riverton. Later in the transcript, at page 829, counsel said - Can I tell you, Mr Bowler, that the Commission has done an analysis of the changes that were suggested by Mr Smith and compared them with the final report and, indeed, the draft report and that analysis is document 12183? The reason I’m showing you this is to show you the significance of the changes that were suggested by PMA because you can see that the draft at the top section . . . The transcript states that the draft stated - The increasing financial pressure to continue operating the mine was considered by Xstrata to be unsustainable. Further on the transcript reads - Now, whilst his words have not been adopted entirely, the final report which is in the bottom box reads: I will not read all of the document, but it supports the recommendations made by Precious Metals Australia. The transcript includes other examples at page 829. The next three paragraphs are very important. The transcript continues - Can we go to page 4 of this document so I can show you another example of these changes? The original finding 9 was:

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] 3555

On the basis of the evidence presented to the committee regarding vanadium prices, it is not possible to state with confidence that the future of the Windimurra mine was assured? . . . That’s how the draft was worded. Further on the transcript reads - The final, however, says this: On the basis of the evidence presented to the committee regarding vanadium prices, it is reasonable to believe that the Windimurra project could have been economically stable in the long term. Counsel said - It’s a complete reversal of the position that was originally advanced in the draft. When the member for Riverton got these changes and recognised that it was a complete reversal of what the member for Murchison-Eyre had said, did he not query where they came from? Did he not query that the wording was not what the member for Murchison-Eyre might use, which is what the principal research officer found quickly. Counsel said - Do you see that? . . . It also happens to be exactly what PMA wanted you to say? Further on the CCC transcript reads - Let’s go to page 7 and I will show you another example. . . . The increasing value of the Australian dollar since 2000 has hampered the Windimurra mine’s viability in the international vanadium market. Mr Smith made a suggestion in regards to that and the final report was precisely the reverse. In the last two lines: This movement in the Australian currency has not hampered Windimurra’s competitiveness when compared with the South African vanadium operations? On one hand, the increasing value of the Australian dollar has hampered the Windimurra mine’s viability on the international market and, on the other hand, the report states the exact reverse. The mantra was that the mine was economically viable but they were closing it so that they could make more money on the international market in other mines. The member for Riverton has not been asked whether he was concerned when he saw this. There is another example of an alteration to page 12 of the report. The transcript from the CCC hearing states - The original draft had no paragraph in these terms at all. Mr Smith suggested one and with very slight changes in the wording that paragraph was adopted verbatim into the text of the final report. Mr Bowler, someone - a cynic perhaps might suggest that PMA was writing this report and not the committee? Counsel also asked Mr Bowler whether he knew whether the report of the committee was instrumental in achieving that settlement. The overall orchestrated campaign was to crank up the media, get the mantra out that Xstrata closed the mine to help maintain international metal prices, even though it was operating entirely legally within the current legislation, and then, during the inquiry, crank up legal proceedings in New South Wales. In giving evidence on 22 February, Mr Bowler said that it was the member for Riverton who did the bulk of the report. The final report was issued on Remembrance Day. The transcript states on page 825 - The final report contained a number of statements that were critical of Xstrata and the suggestion that the mine was uneconomic. . . . Do you know who drafted those particular sections? Mr Bowler said - The committee as a whole. Counsel then asked - Did you have any input in that regard? Mr Bowler replied - It was mainly Tony McRae did the bulk of the report -

3556 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007]

I do not think that anybody has asked the member for Riverton - the Corruption and Crime Commission may have done so - whether the member for Murchison-Eyre discussed with him the faxed copy that he had received. The findings were completely reversed by the member for Riverton in the amendments that were made. I refer to page 840 of the CCC transcript of 27 February, which states - All right, now this is a note that was sent by the directors of PMA to Mr Burke and Mr Grill. You see they achieved a settlement of their action against Xstrata and the first part of that settlement was receipt of $10 million which goes into their pockets of course not into consolidated revenue. The member for Riverton and the member for Murchison-Eyre said that it was in the interests of Western Australians that the committee conduct this inquiry. Bulldust! Western Australians did not get a cent. An amount of $10 million was paid by cheque to Precious Metals Australia. The transcript states - And the first thing they did on the face of this with the money once they had received it was to write a cheque off to Mr Burke and Mr Grill for consultancy fees plus it would seem an uplift which would be a success fee. Did you have any idea how much money they stood to make out of their work for PMA? What I cannot understand is why the member for Murchison-Eyre and the member for Riverton would bother doing this. Some people get off on showing that they have influence. Xstrata had to pay nearly $20 million. Precious Metals Australia made $20 million. The first cheque for $10 million went to Mr Roderick Smith and PMA. What did the member for Murchison-Eyre and the member for Riverton get? They got a couple of thousand dollars for their campaign funds. However, they also got a letter from Mr Smith on a PMA letterhead. The transcript outlines that the letter said - The detailed examination of the development and closure of Windimurra by the Economics and Industry Standing Committee was important to establish the facts and convince the parties that it was sensible to settle their differences and allow the project to be considered for re-opening on its merits. Mr Hall states at page 843 that - The only other letter sent that was attached to Mr Smith’s email is 12614. Which is to Mr McRae which is in almost identical terms to the one sent to you. None of the other committee members got a copy of that letter. Mr Hall asked Mr Bowler - Can you think of any reason why he might do that to you and Mr McRae and not the other members of the committee? Mr Bowler replied - No, I can’t. Well, I can. I do not think that it is at all plausible that the member for Riverton received those emails and draft changes that completely reversed the findings of the draft report and did not question them. The mine was not economic and then it was economic! There were a number of changes. Frankly, I do not think that the member for Murchison-Eyre or the member for Riverton should be in this Parliament at all. We are focusing on the computer, but it is more than that. It is about the mining industry. It is about this Parliament having the power to make a $20 million deal. That is what it is. Frankly, I do not think that the report or its recommendations go far enough. The member for Riverton showed stunning arrogance last night when he said that it was a good report. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan: It wasn’t arrogant. Ms S.E. WALKER: It was arrogant! Those recommendations were the complete reverse of the draft report. Members opposite need to lift their standards. I do not think that the Parliament is capable of doing that. There should be an independent committee inquiry. DR J.M. WOOLLARD (Alfred Cove) [3.46 pm]: It is not with pleasure that I support this amendment. I am actually very sad to have to support such an amendment, because this whole business reflects on every member of this Parliament. The Treasurer said in the house today that we need to think carefully about what we are doing, because we have to consider the credibility of members. The credibility of every member of this house has come into question over this issue. The community does not think that it is only one or two members of Parliament who are fishy; they now think we are all fishy. It is rubbing off on us all. This government has to take stock; it has to lift its standards. We seem to have almost a continuum of levels of dishonesty from this government. Because of that continuum, some people do not know when they are perhaps going too far, because some things are accepted by the Parliament and the government every day. Promises are given to the community and are then broken. It is considered to be okay to make and then break a promise. If it is okay for ministers to break their promises, maybe it is okay for committee chairpeople to do that. They have a role and are not meant to collaborate with people outside the committee, but what is wrong with maybe a little outside contact? Where does the dishonesty stop?

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] 3557

After the past two elections, I have put up my name for the Education and Health Standing Committee and the Public Accounts Committee. Are the committees set up according to expertise or on the basis of who might be thought to be able to contribute well to them? I agree that some committee members have done a very good job and have a good background for their committees. Ms J.A. Radisich: Good examples? Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: I would need to go through them committee by committee, but there is no time for that. Let us look at what happens with committees. Just like this house is a numbers game, the committees are a numbers game. It means that the chair is a Labor member and the committee consists of maybe two other Labor members and two opposition members. Reports that come from those committees amount to nothing. They certainly do not condemn the government in any way, and nor do they go against a certain position. Mr P.B. Watson interjected. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: I have offered to be on committees that have suited my expertise. However, it is all about jobs for the boys and the “yes” people. The government wants “yes” members on committees. It wants members who will rubber stamp things. Ms J.A. Radisich: That is not true. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: Unfortunately, that is true for many of the committees. I have offered to be a member of a committee; however, I am not a “yes” person and that is why I have never been appointed to a committee. The member for Nedlands is not a member of any committee. That is probably because she, too, is not a “yes” person. This amendment to the motion is about what goes on in our committees and refers to the role of the chairman of a committee. Subparagraph (i) of the amendment states that the member for Riverton allowed the alteration of a committee report for the pecuniary interest of a party who would substantially benefit from the Economics and Industry Standing Committee report. From the evidence that has been presented, I do not believe that I can support that notion. From what has been said in this chamber - I have spoken to other people about this matter - the way Microsoft Word works these days and the way one makes changes on his computer is not the same as it was previously. As far as I am concerned, there is not enough evidence to support subparagraph (i). Subparagraph (ii) states that the member for Riverton failed to take proper steps, as the chairman of the committee, to prevent undue external influence over that report. I support that notion. I feel for the member for Riverton. He is copping the flak for the government’s failure to educate its members about ethics and about what is right and what is wrong. Members opposite cannot say that they have been educated in that way, because if that were the case, why have so many ministers lost their positions? It is quite interesting, because Labor Party member indiscretions have not been confined to this house. Madam Deputy Speaker, you were probably in the house when the member for Cottesloe made a speech about this very subject. I think he must have recently watched the film The Graduate. Madam Deputy Speaker, you are probably too young to remember that movie; however, I remember that movie. In The Graduate, Mrs Robinson went to a committee room meeting and socked it to them one after the other. That is what has happened in this house. The other week the member for Cottesloe went through the indiscretions of Labor Party members. He read out the indiscretions one after the other. I am not saying that I do not make mistakes. I accept that we all make mistakes. However, most of us learn from our mistakes. This government has not learnt from its mistakes. One government member after the other has been knocked over because of an indiscretion and, if those members have been ministers, they have lost their ministerial positions. There was a breach of the committee process, because the member for Riverton was aware of communication between the member for Murchison-Eyre and Roderick Smith on behalf of PMA. Paragraph (iii) states that the member for Riverton sought financial support from a party who would substantially benefit from the report. Again, there is not enough evidence to know whether that is the case. However, I refer to an email that the member for Riverton sent. I refer members to the Procedure and Privileges Committee’s second report, volume 2, which reads - Julian, many thanks for your support. please find attached copies of the invoices for you . . . and Roderick Smith . . . Your attention to these and the follow-up as discussed is greatly appreciated. I will also be contacting Roderick Smith asking him for a direct contribution to the ALP Riverton Campaign. It does not finish there. It continues - On an unrelated matter, it may be of interest to you that I have also written to the Federal Treasurer giving him my support for rejecting the Xstrata bid for WMC (copy also attached). Best wishes, Tony On the next page of the report, a letter written to Hon Peter Costello from the member for Riverton reads - Dear Mr Costello, Please find enclosed a copy of the Western Australian Parliament’s Economics and Industry Committee report into the closure . . . I am writing to you to express my concerns about Xstrata’s behaviour in the closure . . .

3558 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007]

It then goes on to sum up the committee’s report. Although there is nothing concrete in what we have before us, it is all a bit whiffy; it smells very strong. The amendments are on the table because the government has not put any resources into educating new members and new ministers. Today the Treasurer said that it was difficult when the government came to office in 2001 because the Labor Party had a lot of new members. The Treasurer acknowledged that a lot of Labor Party members came on board without any political knowledge and expertise. Some members had worked either as electorate officers or in some capacity within the Labor Party. They probably had a lot more political experience than I did when I became a member of Parliament. I again refer to Mrs Robinson in The Graduate. One Labor member after another has been found guilty of an indiscretion. It has been one issue after another. Each time an issue hits the media, if affects every member of this Parliament. I believe that the government should review the parliamentary committee structure. Perhaps committee membership should be based on expertise, rather than on people who will just say yes. Mr P.B. Watson: Have you been on a committee? No; you’ve never sat on one. There’s a good reason for that. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: Some members have questioned why I have not been on a committee of this house. I assure them that I have been involved in various other organisations and have been on several committees, including professional development committees. I could not list the number of committees I have been on. Ms S.E. Walker: You’re too straight! Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: I think that is the problem, member for Nedlands. I try my best to be straight. I try my best not to be dishonest. Some money needs to be spent by the government on education. Were you aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, that today the public gallery was full of people who have Parkinson’s disease? They are pleading with the government to extend the funding for Parkinson’s nurse specialist services. When those people left the public gallery, they said to me that McGinty gets their goat. How much money has been spent on this committee report? How much money is this government wasting on corrupt areas? How much money is being spent by the Corruption and Crime Commission that should be spent on vital services, such as the Parkinson’s nurse specialist program, and on the promises that the government made, such as to build the 1 000-bed Fiona Stanley Hospital? The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Capel! Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: As I said initially, there seems to be a continuum of honesty-dishonesty attached to this house. The Premier is in the chamber now. He has talked about integrity in this place in the past week or so, but where is the government’s integrity when it fails to keep the promises it has made? This sort of thing is going on, but nothing is being done about it. Over the past 12 months there has been one bad news story about members of Parliament after another. That reflects on every one of us. I hope that during the winter recess, the government will have a close look at what has been happening, and that when we return after the recess, the Premier will have put in place some educational sessions for his ministers and backbenchers. Ms J.A. Radisich: For all parliamentary members. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: Yes, for all members. I would like to go to them. I have previously suggested that we have joint education sessions, but they have never happened. Ms J.A. Radisich: There is a flaw in our Parliament. It is parliamentary, not necessarily governmental, in any event. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: The member for Swan Hills has just interjected to say that there is a parliamentary flaw in the system, and I agree with her. I hope the Premier is listening to her. I think she is a very hardworking member of Parliament, and I hope that he will give her more responsibility. This might be a matter that she could help with. Someone needs to put the time and energy into educating members and ministers about integrity, honesty and standards. I hope that the Premier will also have a close look at the various committees of this house. Perhaps someone needs to sit down with the chairpersons and members of all the committees and explain to them what the guidelines and standards are all about. When a chairperson has not taken proper steps to prevent undue external influence on a committee, it reflects not only on that committee, but also on every other committee of this Parliament, every member of the government and every member of Parliament. I support the amendment. DR G.G. JACOBS (Roe) [4.05 pm]: My contribution will be short. There has been much forensic analysis today, but the most powerful account I heard was that of the member for Nedlands. It had a deep impact on my wife, who was sitting in the public gallery. The member’s account was about how much the Parliament and the parliamentary process - because the committee is a parliamentary process - have been corrupted by this event to advantage a particular mining interest. The member for Alfred Cove talked about mistakes. I believe that this whole issue was more than a mistake; it was a wilful act. We have heard the forensic analysis and I am sure that it has had an impact on all members,

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] 3559 including the Premier. It must have had an impact. Any living, breathing, reasonable person would say that it was a significant, wilful act to do wrong. This place has been corrupted by that act. We talk about not playing politics, but the Premier said that the opposition is playing politics by criticising the committee and its members. This issue is above that. This place and every person in it have been defiled by this act. That is most frightening for the people of Western Australia. An outside influence has permeated this place and corrupted it. I have not been in this place for long, but I have had an opportunity to make observations in the two and a half years that I have been here, and this act has had an impact on me and, I am sure, on everybody in this place. I think this amendment is appropriate and the time fits the crime. Up to this point the member for Riverton has been subjected to having to make a simple apology, without any other form of accountability. Today we have heard from many people, including the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and every other member who has spoken, a detailed analysis of how this system had been corrupted. The member for Riverton, we would have to agree, has had a slap on the wrist. I have also heard some comments about “nothing concrete”. It is obvious, one would have to admit, that the member for Riverton has been up to his neck in this. I have got to say that. I have nothing personal against the member for Riverton. However, I have something to say about our reputation and our credibility among the people of Western Australia. What time fits this crime and is perceived that way by the community? The people of Western Australia would expect us to do nothing less than agree to this amendment to have some account paid for this crime that is a wilful act that has defiled us and, most importantly, let down the people of Western Australia. They will not see us in a very good light for that act unless we are accountable. That is why I support this amendment to bring the member for Riverton more to account and to fit the sentence to this crime. MR P.W. ANDREWS (Southern River) [4.12 pm]: The entire scenario that members have put to the chamber today, every single point that I have recognised, was analysed in the committee. From all the evidence that was presented to us, the committee constructed the scenario that members have created today, particularly regarding the member for Riverton. We constructed the scenario of a conspiracy to incorporate into this report the amendments written by Mr Smith. We did that. We went through every single point along the way that would have shown that the member for Riverton was guilty and part of this conspiracy. At every single point along the way we tested each hypothesis. At the end of the day, it simply did not add up. There is nothing that has been raised today that we did not go over and over and over again. We sifted every piece of information that we had and came to the conclusions that are in the report after four months and some two dozen meetings of going through every point that members have raised and tested. Members can see today that it is very easy to put together the scenario that proves, by circumstantial evidence supposedly, that the member for Riverton is guilty. However, the committee did not come to that conclusion. Members can only accept that we genuinely tried to prove that. What we hear today are words like would have, should have, could have, might have - Mr R.F. Johnson: Probably did. Mr P.W. ANDREWS: - probably did - Mr R.F. Johnson: Almost certainly did. Mr P.W. ANDREWS: - almost certainly did, clearly. When we looked at “clearly”, it was not clear at all. When we looked at “would have”, it was not clear at all. The member for Murchison-Eyre had nothing to lose by telling the truth as he saw it. We quizzed him about what the member for Riverton knew about Mr Smith’s amendments: did the member for Riverton know that they were written by Mr Smith? The member for Murchison-Eyre said that he would have known. We asked him again and the member for Murchison-Eyre’s response was yes, no, he would have, yeah; the member for Riverton, he would have known that they were from Smith. Guilty! The committee thought, “We’ve got Tony McRae, the member for Riverton.” By his colleague’s own words, he would have known. We tested it when Mr Bowler was sitting in front of us. We asked the member for Murchison-Eyre what did he see that made him come to the conclusion that Mr McRae would have known. Oh, nothing. We asked Mr Bowler what he received in terms of an email that would have indicated to him that Mr McRae was part of this. Oh, nothing. I almost got to the point of asking him whether he had received a courier pigeon. The member for Murchison-Eyre had come to the conclusion that the member for Riverton would have known, but when we tested him and pushed him on it, he could not give us any evidence. What discussion did they have? Oh, none. The assumption, the would have, the could have, the might have - at the end of the day, there was nothing there. I ask members opposite and my own colleagues: would members like to be convicted in this place on the basis of circumstantial evidence only? I like the member for Merredin and I often respect his opinion. I listened to him very carefully today and some of the things that he said built up a strong case. However, when we actually look at it, it also works the other way. He used words to the effect that this circumstantial evidence condemns the member for Riverton. That is what is happening: the circumstantial evidence condemns him. I will give members the evidence that I put forward yesterday. The member for Merredin also accused the member for Riverton of failing to recognise that a colleague had put him at risk. I agree with the member for Merredin. That is not part of the conspiracy. The

3560 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] member for Riverton made the fatal crime of failing to recognise that a colleague had indeed put him at risk. That does not prove that the member for Riverton knew anything about it. In fact, it proves the opposite. It was the member for Murchison-Eyre who put the member for Riverton at risk. The member for Merredin put forward circumstantial evidence: did he know that it took only 13 minutes for the principal research officer to recognise that Mr Smith had written these amendments? Therefore, he claims, the member for Riverton must have been guilty of putting them through. If it took only took 13 minutes for the principal research officer to recognise that the member for Riverton had put through amendments written by Mr Smith, that shows me either that Mr McRae is not a very good conspirator or that he simply did not know that they were written by Mr Smith. It was so easy to detect with the technology used by the principal research officer that the amendments were written by someone else. Why? The circumstantial evidence is simply not there. Would Mr McRae, with his whole career on the line, really be part of a conspiracy so slack that he would simply send through these amendments written by Mr Smith with his tag on them? No, he would not have done that. It does not make any sense at all. Members have all the documentation in front of them. They should look through it and find something from anyone - Mr Smith, the member for Murchison-Eyre, Mr Grill - that refers to Tony McRae knowing about these amendments written by Mr Smith; that Mr Smith wrote these amendments and Tony McRae knew that. Find it. It is not there. There is far stronger circumstantial evidence that shows that the member for Riverton was not part of this conspiracy. What did he have to gain from it? Absolutely nothing. Again, I put it to members that the biggest mistake that the member for Riverton made was that he failed to recognise that a colleague had indeed put him at risk. MR R.F. JOHNSON (Hillarys) [4.19 pm]: I feel it is incumbent on me to make a contribution to the debate on this amendment today. I say at the outset that, as a committee member, I had only 10 minutes last night to put forward comments. However, I have listened very closely to the comments that have been made by members in this chamber, predominantly on this side of the house. I also listened to the comments that the Premier and the Treasurer made. I say, first of all, that I take no insult whatsoever from any members on this side of the house who may disagree with any recommendations contained in the report of the Procedure and Privileges Committee that was tabled yesterday. It seems that the Premier and the Treasurer believe that every report that comes into the house should be accepted or rejected unanimously inasmuch as we either reject the whole lot or accept the whole lot, and then put the recommendations into policy. That has never been the case. I say at the outset that the Procedure and Privileges Committee, of which the Speaker is Chairman, has worked in a very harmonious way, not just on this issue, but ever since I have been on the committee, and that is some years now. When a committee works in the way in which our committee has worked, it works in harmony. Members compromise on certain matters, and they try at the end of the day to come down with a report that not everyone may be happy with, but one that they are prepared to let go through and be tabled in the house. What the Premier and Treasurer have said is that if I was wrong and if the member for Avon was wrong - because we made some comments yesterday in our 10-minute speeches - we should have brought down a minority report; that is, a minority report by me and/or another one by the member for Avon. We did not want to do that, because that is not the way this committee has worked. However, we were happy for the committee’s recommendations, as they were formed and as they were put in the report, to come into this house. Members of that committee know that I was not particularly happy. I was not satisfied with the recommendation about the member for Riverton. There was no question about the member for Murchison-Eyre. He pleaded guilty. We did not have to do much work at all in relation to the member for Murchison-Eyre - very little - apart from follow the trail to see who else was implicated. Therefore, very little work needed to be done in relation to the member for Murchison-Eyre. I specifically wanted to know what was involved with the member for Riverton, because he was the chairman of that committee; he was the captain of that ship at the time. From the evidence that was given, I accept that there was not hard-and-fast, 100 per cent proof, because the member for Riverton never put his hand up and said, “Yes, fair cop; I did it.” He never did that. He did not satisfactorily answer all my questions in the open hearings, and we had conversations in the open hearings. Nevertheless, I have had some doubts. I said yesterday that I do not believe he was aware at the initial stages that the report had been leaked by the member for Murchison-Eyre. I do not believe he was. That was done by the member for Murchison-Eyre. We know that the member for Riverton knew - he said it in evidence - that Julian Grill was aware of the report, and I honestly believe that the member for Riverton was aware that Roderick Smith would have had some input as well. We know all about the tracking and we know all about that report being altered on the member for Riverton’s computer in the final days. I suggest that he was the one who did it. I do not think there is really much doubt in our minds about that. We have had a lot of debate today about what is appropriate. Why should we not simply accept the recommendations of the Procedure and Privileges Committee? The committee made a recommendation, but it has not actually recommended any form of punishment whatsoever for the member for Riverton; it has not recommended any punishment at all. I will read what we said in the recommendation so that members are aware of it. We said: “that the Member for Riverton be given the opportunity to apologise to the house”. We did not even say that we directed him to apologise to the house. That was what we put forward.

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] 3561

As a member of that committee, and speaking as a member of this house, as I am today - I am not speaking on behalf of the committee - I believe that it is quite appropriate for this house, when it gets a report, even from probably the most important committee that this chamber has, which is the Procedure and Privileges Committee, to be able to reject, uphold or amend that report. For instance, if members in this house felt that the recommendation for the punishment of the member for Murchison-Eyre was not strong enough, somebody could move an amendment, speak on that amendment and vote on that amendment. If the majority of members of this house felt that those areas of punishment which we have outlined and which we believed were appropriate were not strong enough, they could do that, and there would not be any problem with that. That is democracy at work. That is this house doing its job. This house has now had an opportunity to review all the evidence and all the transcripts that were given to the Procedure and Privileges Committee. That was over quite a period, as has already been said. In fact, the Premier, the Treasurer and the Leader of the House have already contradicted their argument, because they were quite happy for an amendment to be moved in relation to Hon Julian Grill. We simply recommended that he be found to be in contempt, and we were going to leave it to members to see whether any further punishment, other than the mere fact of him being found guilty of contempt, was necessary. Certainly, the Premier and the Treasurer have shown a great willingness to go further than simply finding him to be in contempt of this Parliament. They have done that and I accept that. I think that is very responsible on their part. However, what I am saying to the Premier and his colleagues today is that they have the same opportunity to do more than just give the member for Riverton an opportunity to apologise. Apologise for what? That is what some members may be thinking to themselves. Is it because he inappropriately, in my view, and I think probably in the committee’s view, allowed an outside commercial party to go to a fundraising event for his election campaign? It was not just one person; it was a table of seven, which is quite a substantial number of people. Was that appropriate? I do not think that anybody in this house would agree that that was appropriate. He has now apologised for that. I do not blame him. If I had been in that position, I would have jumped up as quickly as he did to apologise. He did not do it in the hearings. Not for one moment did he say, “No, I think I actually did wrong. Perhaps I shouldn’t have done that.” Not once did he show any contrition for his inappropriate behaviour; that is, as the chairman of that committee, he held a fundraiser, and the main proponent from PMA was invited to come along and pay money. That is one part of it. For that alone, members may feel that simply saying that he should be given the opportunity to apologise is enough. It is obvious that many members, particularly on this side of the chamber, do not believe that is enough. I do not in my heart of hearts believe it is enough. I think that the member for Riverton, as the chairman of that committee, had an absolute responsibility, like the captain of a ship, to ensure that that committee was not tainted. He knew that amendments were made by an outside party to the report that he had worked on - that is what I believe - and he allowed those to go through to the principal research officer. As has been said many times, that is not the way that a committee works normally. A committee member would normally send the report with his or her amendments to the principal research officer; he or she would not normally send them to the chairman of the committee by email, fax, or anything else. They would normally go to the principal research officer. That is the way things work, and that is why I have had a big question in my mind about whether the member for Riverton has been completely truthful. I have to say that. I believe that his association with, his comments to and his communications, both socially and in relation to the committee itself, with Julian Grill and Roderick Smith were completely inappropriate. The committee presented all the back-up evidence of all those communications, social occasions, fundraising occasions and, indeed, communications between the chairman of the committee and an outside proponent. I was a chairman of a parliamentary committee in my time in Parliament in the early days, and I would never have dreamt of talking to a proponent outside the committee process. I am on a committee at the moment and I am pretty sure the chairman of that committee, the member for Joondalup, would not dream of having private conversations on items that are before that committee. It is usually done through the principal research officer and the committee clerk, because that is the way the process works. That is the way it works, Premier -it really is - and that did not happen in this case. I do not believe in my heart of hearts that the Premier can sit there and accept that a simple “I apologise” is good enough on both of those areas of action. Firstly, it was the inappropriateness of allowing Roderick Smith and his party, knowing full well that they were the main proponents, to attend that fundraiser and to pay $1 650 to do so. That was more than just an indiscretion; it was stupid. Quite frankly, it was dumb for anyone in that position to allow that to happen. I do not think the Premier would turn up at a meeting for one minute if he were in that position. It was totally inappropriate to even suggest that the member for Riverton should solicit more funds from that proponent. Why would he do that - because he had done a good job? The member for Riverton received a big thank you letter from Roderick Smith, as I believe did the member for Murchison-Eyre. I am pretty sure that the member for Darling Range and even the member for Collie-Wellington, a Labor member of that committee, and the former member for Vasse, did not receive a letter of congratulations - “Fantastic; well done; you did a good job” - straight after the final report came down.

3562 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007]

Mr J.H.D. Day: I received a letter but whether it was the same letter received by the member for Murchison- Eyre, I suspect is another matter. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I suspect it probably was. It is obvious to me that both the member for Riverton and the member for Murchison-Eyre worked in unison. I can understand why they left out the member for Collie- Wellington. The member for Murchison-Eyre, a very good friend of Julian Grill, and the chairman of the committee probably thought that was it. My very good friend and colleague the member for Southern River said in his speech that, at the end of the day, the member for Murchison-Eyre did not say that the member for Riverton would have known anything about what was going on. However, I will indicate once again that that is not quite the case. The report states - . . . Mr Bowler agreed at one point that Mr McRae “must have suspected” that the amendments came from a third party. That was the evidence from the member for Murchison-Eyre. Mr A.D. McRae: That was the opinion of the member. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: They were his comments; that was the evidence from the member for Murchison-Eyre. I do not believe that the member for Riverton is a stupid person. He might be irresponsible sometimes, but he is not a stupid person. I believe the member for Riverton is very au fait with and has a fair amount of expertise in information technology. We know for certain now the trail of the amended report and whose computer the amendments were made on and who made them. The member for Riverton was the last person to deal with them, and he sent them through to the principal research officer at 10 past midnight on 9 November last year. He has not put his hand up to it - I accept that - and we could not get concrete evidence of it, but there has been enough circumstantial evidence - Mr R.C. Kucera interjected. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: This is not a court of law; we can base our opinion on circumstantial evidence. We could be having the same debate about the member for Murchison-Eyre. If he had not been an honest person and admitted guilt in this Parliament for what he did - Mr R.C. Kucera interjected. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: It is true. If he had not admitted guilt, the committee would have had a much harder job of finding him guilty. If we had not had the evidence from the CCC, that would have been a much harder job. Members will not always answer questions truthfully; they divert to a different topic or obfuscate to avoid answering questions. At the end of the day, do members opposite honestly believe the member for Riverton had no clue whatsoever about an outside influence on those recommendations? They should remember that we were told that the member for Murchison-Eyre had tried to pass them off as his amendments. He may well have succeeded in passing them off to the rest of the committee. I am suggesting he may not have done it to the chairman of the committee because the chairman had discussions with Julian Grill, Roderick Smith and the rest of them. If, as chairman of the committee, the member for Riverton genuinely believed those Smith alterations were 100 per cent Bowler alterations, why did he then not question why the member for Murchison-Eyre wanted to water them down a bit? Why did he not question that? Anyone in his right mind would have questioned that within a day or so. Mrs J. Hughes interjected. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: The member for Kingsley can try to defend her colleague; that is her right and what she would do anyway. Mrs J. Hughes: Didn’t you ask those questions in committee? Mr R.F. JOHNSON: What questions? Mrs J. Hughes: Didn’t you ask those questions in committee? Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Yes. What we got was that old Labor mantra, “I can’t recall”. One day I counted the number of times the member for Riverton said, “I can’t recall”. He said it quite often, I promise members. Those questions were not answered. Many of the questions I asked were not answered, my friend, because all I heard was “I can’t recall”, which is a cop-out. Unfortunately, those words are a tag attached to the Labor Party from the dirty old WA Inc days. That was the problem. I ask members opposite to sincerely look into what has been presented. They should read all the paperwork and decide whether the member for Riverton was so naive that he could not possibly have noticed that those alterations might have come from an outside body. If so, they are living in cloud cuckoo land and trying to protect another member. Members on this side are asking for his actions to be judged, even if it is only on the monetary side of things; forget the rest of it. If members opposite really think he acted inappropriately - I hope they do - are they satisfied with simply saying, “Well, we should give him the opportunity to apologise; we are not directing him to apologise”? We are not doing anything; we are just saying that we should give him the opportunity. Anyone has the opportunity to apologise in this place

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] 3563 any time they want. If members opposite think that is strong enough, that is fine; they can live with that. At the end of the day, I can understand why members on this side of the house particularly feel that justice is not being done in relation to the member for Riverton. What is being asked by members on this side of the house is simple justice; that is all. They have outlined very good reasons so far why that should be the case. It gives me no pleasure to support this amendment. I was not going to speak today, but my colleague the member for Southern River spoke, and the member for Avon is going to speak. I wanted to debunk some of the comments the Premier and Treasurer have made about being a member of that committee. Should I feel insulted over people attacking me? I do not feel insulted. At the end of the day, any committee report can be amended; it can be supported or rejected. That is the way this Parliament works. MR J.B. D’ORAZIO (Ballajura) [4.40 pm]: In the seven years that I have been in this Parliament, I do not think I have sat in the house all day listening to a debate. Several members interjected. Mr J.B. D’ORAZIO: This is an important matter and members should not joke about it. This is the most important debate that has come before this house in the seven years that I have been in this place. I have sat here all day listening intently to this debate. I appeal to every member of Parliament to take off their political hat today. This debate is not about politics. What we have before us is fundamentally abhorrent. We are talking about taking from a member of Parliament his fundamental right to represent his electorate. When we are elected we come into this place and we should defend the right to be here. I have a great problem with the Parliament, by a simple majority, taking that right from a member, especially when they have not been convicted of anything. It is a real problem. The Procedure and Privileges Committee has gone through a process and recommended action. I have trouble with this house suspending the member for Murchison-Eyre for three months. Members should understand what that means. It does not affect that member in the pocket. It means that the people in the electorate of Murchison-Eyre will not have a representative in this Parliament for three months. Members should ask: who will be affected? Members must protect the democratic right of each member to be in this place to represent his or her electorate. I have a real problem with the amendment. I do not have any problems with the political stunts that occur in this place - moving dissent motions and no confidence motions. That happens every now and again, and this is the place in which it happens. As someone said, it is the theatre of the Parliament. When the Parliament takes away the right of a member of Parliament to represent his community, members need to think about it very deeply. Why has it never happened in the history of this Parliament other than for unruly behaviour? It has never happened because members before us understood what that means. It is not a decision that is made lightly. It is not a decision that is made on political grounds. It is not a decision that is made based on someone’s opinion. It is a decision that we, as members of Parliament, should never take. There are better ways to punish members of Parliament than to take away their right to represent the community. This issue has highlighted the need for a penalty process to be in place so that members who transgress the parliamentary standards can be punished without their electorates being punished. They should not have their democratic right to represent their communities taken away. It is not the community’s fault that a member transgressed. A community is being punished because it will not have a voice in this Parliament. The members involved, both ex-ministers, have already paid a huge financial price. I am happy for this Parliament to have another process for further punishment, but I have a fundamental problem with taking away their right to be in this Parliament to be the voice for their communities. More importantly, what we are doing is taking away the right of those communities to have a voice in this Parliament. We need to think about that very carefully. It is above politics and crosses all party lines. I have spoken privately to a few members today and asked them whether they understand what will happen as a consequence of this issue. They said that it will get lost anyway. That is not the point. Members of Parliament need to be in this place to protect that fundamental right. This amendment cannot be carried. Can members imagine the precedent that we will set for the future? I remember sitting on this side when I was a minister and the then Leader of the Opposition was being brought to task. I said to myself that if the house moved to suspend him, I would cross the floor regardless of what the party decision was. It did not happen; however, I thought about it at the time and I knew the decision I would have made. It is not the right of this Parliament to take away the right of a member to be in this Parliament. This amendment is awful in its nature. If paragraphs (d) and (e) were not in the amendment, I would probably not have taken this strong stance. I have sat here all day thinking that members should understand what they are doing. Mr J.E. McGrath: What would be the case if a member commits a serious crime? Mr J.B. D’ORAZIO: If a member commits a serious crime, there are processes in place to take care of that. Most members would do the honourable thing and resign. In this case nobody has been convicted of anything. The parliamentary committee brought no recommendation like that to this Parliament. That is the reason I will

3564 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] support the recommendation pertaining to the member for Murchison-Eyre, even though I have a problem. There must be a better way to deal with this matter than taking away the right of a member of Parliament to represent his community. That is what we need to consider. The fundamental right to be here is something that should not be challenged. Can members imagine if I used this process as a political stunt because I did not like the member for Hillarys because he has white hair and called me a bugger? Mr R.F. Johnson: Blonde hair. Mr J.B. D’ORAZIO: Sorry, blonde hair. Do members understand my point if this amendment is adopted? What will happen in the party political system? It cannot be allowed to happen. Dr S.C. Thomas: You must have a minimum standard. Mr J.B. D’ORAZIO: An absolute minimum standard. Most members understand what those standards are. If, in the past, members transgressed the acceptable standard, they have done the right thing and resigned. We should not take away the right of an MP to represent his community in Parliament. Mr B.J. Grylls: Normally people have resigned; now we are leaving it to the Parliament to judge. Mr J.B. D’ORAZIO: The member for Riverton has not been convicted of anything. Mr M.W. Trenorden: He has. Read the report. Mr J.B. D’ORAZIO: The recommendation is that he apologise to the Parliament. Now we are debating taking away his right to represent his community. There must be better ways to deal with issues when members have transgressed the processes and procedures and committed misdemeanours, but the right of a member to represent his community must be sacrosanct. We all need to support that process as our predecessors did. It is above politics and personal opinion and it is something we should defend. This amendment is an attack on the democratic foundations of this place and the community that elected us. I would not want any member to be in a position to have to lose their right to represent their communities. MR R.C. KUCERA (Yokine) [4.48 pm]: I cannot support this amendment. Anything that is held to hold a penalty has to be supported by evidence. I come back to what the member for Ballajura said and refer to recommendation 2 of the Procedure and Privileges Committee’s report, which reads - Your Committee recommends that the Member for Riverton be given the opportunity to apologise to the House for potentially diminishing public trust in Parliamentary institutions - The day we jump from a potential to a reality is the day we should give it away. Much of what I want to say has been said by the member for Ballajura. Unless issues are supported by evidence, and not supposition and innuendo, it would be remiss of the Parliament to act in any other way than the committee recommended. Like the member for Ballajura, I have no problems at all with the issues that were raised with the member for Murchison-Eyre, but if we were to take the premise that has been put today, we should examine the actions of the member for Kalgoorlie in 2005. I ask members opposite, if they look at what they are proposing for the member for Riverton, whether we should not revisit the whole issue of the member for Kalgoorlie and the way that he deliberately interfered with documents that were to become part of the record of this Parliament. He then had the hide to allege in this house that another member of the house had removed their documents. When the findings of the report of the Procedure and Privileges Committee were released, I did not hear any apology from the member for Kalgoorlie about the allegations that he had made. Mr P.D. Omodei: What did the committee say? Mr R.C. KUCERA: I know what the committee said. I know which staff member removed the documentation from my personal file. That was never admitted by members on the other side of the house. We know who that was; he was brought before the committee. If we are to revisit the issues concerning the member for Riverton, we should also revisit the issues concerning the member for Kalgoorlie, because they were never brought to a conclusion. If members opposite want to talk about people being dissatisfied with outcomes, I, for one, was certainly dissatisfied with the outcome of the censure against that member, as indeed were members on the other side of the house, because just after that they sacked him as their leader. Members opposite should not pontificate about members on this side of the house not considering these things. We think about them. I have agonised over this matter. I came into this Parliament some six years ago wanting to make a difference and to uphold the principles of the Westminster system. What has come out of the Corruption and Crime Commission disgusts me, quite frankly. I have no sympathy for anyone who would use the Westminster system to do what they have done. By the same token, because I lived for 35 years under the yoke of evidence, the evidence has to be clear. Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. Mr R.C. KUCERA: Despite the parliamentary stunt by the member for Hillarys - I do not blame him for that, because I would hate to see - Mr R.F. Johnson: Where was the evidence against Peter Mickelberg?

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] 3565

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Hillarys! Mr R.C. KUCERA: It must have been very difficult for the member for Hillarys to say what he did today about taking off his committee hat. I can imagine the agony that he went through, together with the member for Avon, the Speaker and everybody else, in examining these issues. I wish to raise a point of order in a moment about comments that were made by the member for Nedlands. Committee members must have gone through agony in looking at and judging their colleagues. That probably gives them an indication of what Supreme Court judges go through every day of the week, quite frankly. The committee came to a good decision and produced a good set of recommendations, which were based on the evidence presented to the committee and not on supposition or innuendo. I applaud you, Mr Speaker, and the members of the committee for doing that. To then turn it around, as the member for Hillarys has done, diminishes him a little in my eyes. I thought that the committee reached a good decision. How on earth does one judge one’s peers? I will talk about the penalties. Each one of those members has been fined $100 000 a year already, and so they should have been, by losing their ministries. Nobody knows that better than I do. The member for Ballajura is quite right; we need to revisit issues in this house about censuring members, particularly in these days of accountability. I applaud the fact that we now have a strong anticorruption program. I was extremely critical of the old Anti-Corruption Commission and how it operated. I am not critical of the CCC. I have some concerns about public hearings of the CCC and how they are handled, but at the end of the day this matter was handled properly. The Procedure and Privileges Committee has done its job properly by examining what was available to it. Many times over the past 30 years I had evidence put before me but was unable to charge someone. It does not matter whether this is not a court of law; it is akin to a court of law. The committee made a good decision. If we are uncomfortable with its recommendations, there are ways forward in the future. We should consider them without our political hats on. As the member for Ballajura rightly pointed out, this affects each and every one of us as a member of this Parliament. Our credibility has suffered since the CCC hearings began. Nobody can doubt that. Some people’s reputations have suffered. I cannot support this amendment. The committee reached a sensible set of agreements and recommendations, which we should honour. If members feel that things need to be changed, there is a process for doing that. Point of Order Mr R.C. KUCERA: Before I sit down, I would like to take a point of order. Mr Speaker, you perhaps need to examine the Hansard for comments made by the member by Nedlands about particular members who formed the basis of your committee. I believe that she should withdraw those comments under standing order 92, because she made some imputations about members’ relationships with people who were mentioned during the CCC hearings. Otherwise, I ask you, as the Speaker of the house, to examine Hansard. If you feel that she has breached standing order 92, she should be ordered to withdraw her remarks. I am sorry that this is a belated point of order, but the member left the house just after making those comments. This is a sad day for Parliament in Western Australia. It has set a precedent. Nobody likes groups of people having to judge their peers. One’s peers cannot be judged on innuendo, smear and political tactics; they have to be judged on evidence and evidence alone. The SPEAKER: In relation to the point of order, I do not know what was said. If the member attacked the Procedure and Privileges Committee, I will have a look at the transcript to see whether any action is required. Debate Resumed MR M.W. TRENORDEN (Avon) [4.55 pm]: As members know, I was not here until approximately 3.30 pm today and I am not totally aware of what was said prior to that time. A few members have approached me and have said that some of the things that I said yesterday have been referred to in today’s debate. It is a little unfortunate that committee members are involved in this debate in even a minor way. However, I guess that is inevitable. The report was tabled yesterday. I am no longer standing in the chamber as a member of that committee but as Max Trenorden, member for Avon. I have been listening to a bit of the debate. I am a bit like you, Mr Speaker; I have been through the mill for several months over this matter and was not really looking forward to continuing the debate. However, the debate is occurring today, so I might be a little slow in my speech. The last two speakers from the other side of the house said that you, Mr Speaker, cannot remove a member from this chamber. Mr J.B. D’Orazio: I didn’t say that at all. Mr M.W. TRENORDEN: That is what the member said. I am not trying to criticise the member directly; I am trying to debate with him. He said that once a member is put out of this chamber, he loses some part of his democratic processes. That is correct. However, that is only for the period of time that we are talking about. Mr R.C. Kucera: We’re not arguing with that. We’re saying that it has to be based on evidence and not innuendo. Mr M.W. TRENORDEN: We again get into the debate. There is clear evidence that the member for Riverton - Mr R.C. Kucera interjected.

3566 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007]

Mr M.W. TRENORDEN: If members want to read the report, it contains clear evidence of the guilt of the member for Riverton. Mr R.C. Kucera: You should have said that in your recommendations. Mr M.W. TRENORDEN: We did. The member for Yokine said that he supports the outcome of the report. That is why this debate is ridiculous. I do not want to run through all that evidence. Mr A.D. McRae: Member for Avon, can I just say that I accept the committee’s finding - Ms S.E. Walker: You have got such a thick hide! Mr A.D. McRae: Member for Nedlands, why don’t you just shut up for once? Why don’t you just shut your face for once? Several members interjected. Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER: Order, members! Member for Nedlands, do you not see that I am on my feet? Do you understand the rules on that? Clearly not. I call you to order. The member for Riverton made an unparliamentary comment. I direct him to withdraw that comment. I urge the member for Avon to make his comments without taking interjections. This debate has progressed reasonably well, but every now and then it breaks down. Mr A.D. McRAE: I withdraw, Mr Speaker. Debate Resumed Mr M.W. TRENORDEN: What the member for Riverton was going to say is what I am going to say now. The point that the member for Riverton made last night was true. He has admitted it. Point of Order Mr T.G. STEPHENS: Earlier in the day the member for Nedlands raised a point of order with your replacement in the chair, Mr Speaker, about the idle chatter of other members across the chamber while a member was speaking. She raised that serious point of order. However, ever since the member for Avon has been on his feet, the member for Nedlands has not stopped engaging in idle chatter, which is a breach of the standing orders of this place. What is good for the goose should be good for the gander. The SPEAKER: The day is getting long. I am sure that the member for Nedlands does not wish to be called to order yet again. I do not want to have to call any member to order. I ask members to allow the member who is on his or her feet to be heard. If members want to contribute while sitting on their backsides, I ask them to do so outside the chamber. Debate Resumed Mr M.W. TRENORDEN: I agree with you, Mr Speaker; it continues to be a long day. I am trying to put a point of view with which the member for Riverton has agreed. In fact, I had a conversation with him about this matter in the corridor. The house has the right to deal with this matter as it sees fit. That was the point I made yesterday. I am not trying to get up the nose of the member for Riverton or any other Labor member. I am stating the facts of the matter. Mr Speaker, in your correct and measured address yesterday you raised the point that we are living in brand-new times. We are dealing with new ground and the issue must be thought of in that manner. We are dealing with a new set of circumstances. What I believe the Speaker was referring to, and what I was referring to in my speech yesterday, is that procedural hearings in the chamber have been a political dogfight across the chamber. In the end, the opposition member is hanged because of the numbers. We cannot continue the procedures processes in that manner. At the same time, the opposition has every right to say what it wants to say about the report. Any point made in the report is not a direct reflection on anything that I or any other member of the Procedure and Privileges Committee has done. As I said yesterday, we are the prosecutors. We have delivered the brief. Members of the house are the jury. Mr R.C. Kucera interjected. Mr M.W. TRENORDEN: I was on the Procedure and Privileges Committee when the member for Kalgoorlie appeared before the committee. We went through the same process. What is the member for Yokine referring to? Mr R.C. Kucera: Lots of people weren’t happy because of what he got. Mr M.W. TRENORDEN: Surprise! Lots of people in the chamber today are not happy about a raft of things. That is the point of today’s debate. Everyone has a right to express their opinion. Mr R.C. Kucera: In that instance, members didn’t question the committee or its recommendations. That is the difference.

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] 3567

Mr M.W. TRENORDEN: My memory on that particular report is not that good. I have been focused on this issue. I would be amazed if there was not some criticism of that outcome. I would be amazed if that was not the case. Mr R.C. Kucera: I don’t think there was. Mr M.W. TRENORDEN: The member should check Hansard. We are dealing with a different matter today. The important thing is that we deal with this matter today. Members’ support of the committee’s recommendations is one matter. The house is free to hand down whatever finding it wants to hand down against the member for Riverton on the basis of his statement yesterday. I am not trying to be nasty to the member for Riverton. I just want to make that point. The house will make a decision. I arrived at Parliament at 3.30 pm. I read the government’s motion and then I read the opposition’s amendments to the motion. If I removed the politics from the situation, I would say that there is very little difference between the government’s motion and the opposition’s amendment to the motion. After I read both of them, I wondered what all the noise was about. Points 1 to 7 of the Leader of the House’s motion are strongly aligned with what committee members had to say yesterday. Point 8 is pretty hard to argue against. The opposition’s amendment to the motion is signed by the Leader of the Opposition. Paragraph (a) and subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) are his words. The rest of the words are our words but, again, subparagraphs (i) to (iii) are pretty hard to argue against. The point is that it is up to the house to make a decision. Subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) are correct. The member for Yokine can sit on a deckchair of the Titanic and wonder about the length of a piece of string. Members of the committee argued this point. The member argues that it is not a metre long, and he is right. However, the words are correct. That is my view. Mr Speaker, you have offered the best advice. The day is getting long. I hope that we can reach a sound resolution of which this house can be proud. When the time to vote comes, if members vote according to party lines, the government’s side wins. That is all there is to it and the Procedure and Privileges Committee process will be what it has been in the past. MRS D.J. GUISE (Wanneroo - Deputy Speaker) [5.08 pm]: I spoke about this issue last night. I have listened to the debate all day. As a member of the committee and as a member of Parliament, I have a right to express my point of view. It is the absolute right of the house to ask questions about the committee’s report and to debate our recommendations. It has been pointed out that we were asked to make a recommendation with regard to a finding of contempt, should one come about, for the member for Murchison-Eyre. If the committee finds a member guilty of contempt, it is not normal procedure for the committee to make a recommendation, which is why we were silent about Julian Grill. We believe that that is the role of the house. I wanted to clarify that situation. The committee made a recommendation about the member for Riverton because it was outside the contempt guidelines. The member for Southern River outlined the extensive evidence that we heard and the extensiveness of our deliberations. Every issue that was raised today was investigated by the committee. Having served on the Procedure and Privileges Committee for some time, I can tell members that committee members do not see themselves as politicians; rather, they see themselves as parliamentarians. Every now and again I get a glimpse of those members who are parliamentarians and those who will never be parliamentarians, because they cannot get beyond party politics. We did not approach the investigation into the former Leader of the Opposition’s conduct or the current investigation from that angle. We approached our investigations as parliamentarians upholding the institutions and processes of this place, which we hold dear, on behalf of all members. We approached our investigations as guardians of the Parliament. It is a bit difficult for other members, because they were not privy to the months of investigations, and nor did they hear all the evidence. Every time we went down a rabbit hole, counsel helped us pluck ourselves back out. We went down a few of those holes. We investigated the very issues that were raised today. We investigated them in-depth. The opposition’s amendment to the motion fails because it tries to take this matter to the next level; it tries to prove wilful contempt. It fails in subparagraphs (i) and (ii); that is, that the member for Riverton allowed the alteration of a committee report and that he failed to take proper steps to prevent undue external influence. Both points are based on the premise that the member knew. To prove wilful contempt, we must go beyond circumstantial evidence. We were told this time and again when we investigated the former Leader of the Opposition. We were warned about it. We must follow due process. We are the law-makers of this state. Okay; we might not see ourselves necessarily as a court of law, but we are the law-makers. If the opposition wants to take it to another level, it must provide the hard proof that the member knew and then failed to take proper action. The committee thoroughly investigated all the points that the opposition has raised. There is no smoking gun. Opposition members have failed to produce it, just as we did when we tried to prove those matters to go to the next level of wilful contempt. Had we gone down the path of accepting circumstantial evidence, the finding that we made last year may well have been very different. We chose not to do that, and I again urge members today to think about that when they make a decision on this recommendation. We went down this path and we sought the advice of counsel. We did not believe that the evidence stacked up and that we could prove conclusively beyond all reasonable doubt that the member wilfully entered into what the opposition has charged him with doing. Members opposite cannot go down that path, and I think the committee’s findings about the

3568 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] member for Riverton stand. In all conscience, I cannot support this amendment, no matter which side of the chamber I sit on. MR M.P. WHITELY (Bassendean - Parliamentary Secretary) [5.11 pm]: I will be brief. I want to put on the record that my opposition to this amendment is motivated not by which side of the house I sit on, but by the factors that have been outlined by the member for Wanneroo. It is clear from my understanding of the information in the report and the speeches given by committee members that it has not been established that the member for Riverton was aware that the report was altered by a person working for someone with a pecuniary interest in the matter that was being considered. That has not been established. As the member for Wanneroo said, there is no smoking gun. If we were to accept this amendment, this court - it is a court in this case because we are empowered with a right to set penalties - would be acting like a kangaroo court. We would be accepting supposition and hypothesis in the place of evidence. I have seen and heard nothing to convince me that the member for Riverton knew the source of the alterations to the report. The amendment refers to the failure of the member for Riverton to take proper steps as the chairman of a committee to prevent undue external influence. What steps would the chairman have taken in these circumstances? What steps would any chairman take in circumstances in which a member of a committee comes to the chairperson with recommended alterations to a report? That has not been outlined by the members who support this amendment. I have sat on numerous committees of this Parliament and I cannot see how any chairperson could anticipate that the source of an amendment sent to him by another member of the committee was a third party. I cannot see how any chairperson would know that or, quite frankly, would believe that he or she should be looking for that. I do not think that the chairperson of any committee that I have been on has taken the sorts of steps that would have been necessary to prevent this sort of external influence. Unless we want this chamber to become a kangaroo court rather than a court with the power to dispense penalties, which in this case it is, this amendment must be opposed. A recent event has given me time to reflect on the power and parliamentary privilege that members enjoy. We have seen recent evidence that many members of this Parliament do not understand those powers or the status of this chamber. I am not prepared to support an amendment that is, frankly, more befitting of a kangaroo court than the Parliament of Western Australia. MR T.G. STEPHENS (Central Kimberley-Pilbara) [5.15 pm]: I will be very quick. In the media coverage of this debate, there has been reference to the fact that I was the last member of state Parliament to be found guilty of contempt of Parliament and to be suspended from the services of Parliament. That is an accurate media report that refers to an incident in the Legislative Council in November 1993. It was a controversial time in the life of that house when, for the first time in the history of Parliament, the then newly elected Court government, under the leadership of Leader Cash in the Legislative Council, moved to gag and guillotine the debate to facilitate the fast movement of the native title legislation through Parliament. In the course of that debate, the temperature rose. It was clear in my mind that the Presiding Officer had not maintained an impartial approach to the handling of the affairs of the house. Members can think, know and believe something like that, but they cannot say it. Dr E. Constable: What did you do? Mr T.G. STEPHENS: I had the misfortune of going up to the press gallery to try to cool down and telling the press what I thought. Unfortunately, I cooled down a few moments later and thought that I probably should not have said that to the journalist. I went back up to talk to her and I said, “Wendy, Wendy” and she said, “I’m busy, Tom” and then pressed the send button. I asked her what she had done and she said, “That’s going in the first edition” and I said, “For goodness sake!” However, she corrected the second edition so that it read that Mr Stephens thought that the Presiding Officer ran the risk of being considered partial. I raced back to the house to apologise in advance of the publication of the article, and the Leader of the House then told the chamber that if it was reported in the press, God help me. Dr E. Constable: And did he? Mr T.G. STEPHENS: No, he did not. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan interjected. Mr T.G. STEPHENS: The honourable minister was in the chamber at that time and she did a great job of defending me in the hand-to-hand combat on the floor of the chamber and tried to help me retain my right to hold my seat in the house for the native title debate. The Liberal government of the day had the overwhelming majority in the house. Despite the fact that I pleaded guilty to, and apologised for, the contempt, I was convicted - with my own vote. I was then expelled from the chamber for four days, which coincided with the native title debate. I had to stand in the teller’s corridor and pass my speech notes to my colleagues to help them through the debate. Members might find it interesting that those speech notes included the Hansard record of what had occurred in this house during the debate on that legislation and that one of my colleagues Hon Tom Helm read those speech notes word for word and then passed them to Hansard. Members will note that in the

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] 3569 record of that debate, the interjections that occurred in the Legislative Assembly debate were transcribed as interjections that occurred in the debate on the native title legislation in the Legislative Council. A number of members of the Legislative Assembly managed to interject, at least in the Hansard record of the debate. I was in the teller’s corridor passing these notes into the chamber, and the debate continued for a long time. The effect of expelling me from the chamber was somewhat in vain. Mr J.B. D’Orazio: Was that the one with an eight-hour speech? Mr T.G. STEPHENS: No, that was another one. I will be brief, Mr Speaker. This document, which some members might like to rely upon - a summary of research into findings of contempt of Parliament in the Australian jurisdiction - is not a comprehensive document. I draw members’ attention to the missing finding of Speaker Quinlan in 1910. There was a finding of contempt and a conviction at that time. There may be others missing from the document; that is the only one I noticed. Houses of Parliament are typically partisan in the handling of breaches of privilege and contempt proceedings, particularly against members. On this occasion, the privileges committee has not been partisan but bipartisan, both in its findings and its recommendations. It would be wise for members on both sides of the chamber to recognise that it is almost a unique experience in the handling of members of Parliament for a bipartisan approach to emerge in that way, and for there to be a recommendation for a penalty that has bipartisan support. It would be unwise for members to simply do what chambers are too regularly tempted to do in handling such important matters as this, which is to make a political response. To have been thrown out of the chamber in the Legislative Council was particularly offensive when the government’s majority was so narrow, and the balance of the house was altered by those circumstances insofar as it robbed the opposition of a chance to utilise its numbers to some good effect. However, removing a member on this occasion will not alter the numbers in the house. I presume the committee took that into account before it made the recommendations. It is a relevant consideration. It is not a debate for this moment; it is for the future. One would not want to rely on this precedent, because sometimes, in a house that is evenly balanced between the government and opposition, the expulsion of a government member could in fact bring down the government. Dr E. Constable interjected. Mr T.G. STEPHENS: Yes, but - Mr M.W. Trenorden interjected. Mr T.G. STEPHENS: Yes; okay. The precedent of throwing a member out of the house, whether it is the Legislative Council or the Legislative Assembly, does not always need to be taken as the right way forward. However, a bipartisan committee of this house has recommended it, and the recommendations should be embraced without further amendment by this chamber. Amendment put and a division taken with the following result - Ayes (18)

Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan Mr J.H.D. Day Mr J.E. McGrath Ms S.E. Walker Mr T.R. Buswell Mr B.J. Grylls Mr P.D. Omodei Dr J.M. Woollard Mr G.M. Castrilli Dr K.D. Hames Mr D.T. Redman Mr T.R. Sprigg (Teller) Dr E. Constable Ms K. Hodson-Thomas Mr A.J. Simpson Mr M.J. Cowper Dr G.G. Jacobs Dr S.C. Thomas Noes (23)

Mr A.J. Carpenter Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan Mr A.P. O’Gorman Mr D.A. Templeman Mr J.B. D’Orazio Mr J.A. McGinty Mr P. Papalia Mr P.B. Watson Dr J.M. Edwards Mr M. McGowan Ms M.M. Quirk Mr M.P. Whitely Mr J.C. Kobelke Ms S.M. McHale Ms J.A. Radisich Mr B.S. Wyatt Mr R.C. Kucera Mr A.D. McRae Mr E.S. Ripper Mrs J. Hughes (Teller) Mr F.M. Logan Mrs C.A. Martin Mr T.G. Stephens

Pairs

Mr G.A. Woodhams Mrs M.H. Roberts Mr C.J. Barnett Mr J.R. Quigley Mr G. Snook Mr M.P. Murray Mr M.J. Birney Mr S.R. Hill Mr T.K. Waldron Mr J.N. Hyde Mr M.W. Trenorden Mrs D.J. Guise Mr R.F. Johnson Mr P.W. Andrews Amendment thus negatived.

3570 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007]

Adoption of Recommendations by House - Motion Resumed DR S.C. THOMAS (Capel) [5.27 pm]: It is not the intention of the opposition to drag this debate out any further. We thank the committee for its work. I simply make a point about the substantial question of mateship. There are two types of relationship; one is symbiotic and the other is parasitic. The opposition recognises the strong value of mateship. I have some sympathy for the member for Murchison-Eyre. I am sure that he has been taken advantage of. I hope that is a lesson learnt by all members. The opposition does not intend to drag this out. We think the motion should proceed. DR J.M. WOOLLARD (Alfred Cove) [5.28 pm]: It might be an appropriate time to set the record straight. When I said during the debate that I supported the second part of the amendment - I do not have a copy of it in front of me - it was for the chairing of the committee. I referred to the relationship between the member for Murchison-Eyre and Precious Metals Australia. The member for Riverton was aware of the contact between the member for Murchison-Eyre and Julian Grill, who was working on behalf of that company. I want to make that clear, because I believe that during the debate I mentioned the name of the person from PMA. Question put and passed. HON JULIAN GRILL - CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT Standing Orders Suspension - Motion On motion without notice by Mr T. Buswell (Deputy Leader of the Opposition), resolved with an absolute majority - That so much of standing orders be suspended as is necessary to allow the following motion to be moved forthwith - That this house - (1) calls Hon Julian Grill to the bar of the house to apologise for his contempt of the Legislative Assembly by reason of his actions of forwarding the Chair’s draft report to Roderick Smith; and (2) withdraws indefinitely, as from today, access to Parliament House and the benefits extended to Hon Julian Grill as a former member of Parliament. Motion MR T. BUSWELL (Vasse - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [5.30 pm]: I move - That this house - (1) calls Hon Julian Grill to the bar of the house to apologise for his contempt of the Legislative Assembly by reason of his actions of forwarding the Chair’s draft report to Roderick Smith; and (2) withdraws indefinitely, as from today, access to Parliament House and the benefits extended to Hon Julian Grill as a former member of Parliament. I will not take up too much of the time of the house in speaking to this motion. Effectively, the opposition is of a view that although the Procedure and Privileges Committee has gone through its processes and found Mr Grill guilty of contempt of the Parliament, the committee has asked the Parliament to consider a certain punishment. Therefore, I do not think that this could necessarily be seen as a criticism of, or indeed an argument that is inconsistent with, the outcomes that the committee has come up with. I think that what the committee has said to the Parliament is, “We believe that Mr Grill has been in contempt. You’re the Parliament. You decide what the punishment should be.” I think it is quite clear that, in the eyes of most members of this Parliament, the actions of Mr Grill, as captured in all their glory in the report of the Procedure and Privileges Committee, are completely and absolutely unacceptable. Indeed, it is quite clear from that evidence that it was Mr Grill who oversaw the corruption of the parliamentary process that led to the member for Murchison-Eyre providing him with a copy of the draft report of the Chairman of the Economics and Industry Standing Committee, so it would be grossly negligent of the house to not take action against Mr Grill. Unfortunately, the actions available to the house are somewhat limited. However, we feel that the two recommendations that this motion entails are a fair and reasonable place to start. The first is that Mr Grill present himself to the house and, in the prescribed manner, make a formal apology to the house. I think that is a fit and proper recommendation. The second is that, effectively, the access that Mr Grill enjoys to Parliament House, as a former member of Parliament, be suspended. Mr A.D. McRae interjected.

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] 3571

Mr T. BUSWELL: Indefinitely. He will enjoy only the access to this Parliament that every other Western Australian enjoys, outside of those who have served in this place. I will spend a bit of time describing why we have formed that view. There is absolutely no doubt that the actions of Mr Grill, if we were to put them on a continuum of extremes, are at the extreme end. They far and away overshadow the actions of the member for Murchison-Eyre and, indeed, of the member for Riverton to the extent that those actions were captured in the evidence presented to the committee. I know that the Premier has belittled the opposition for making this statement, but I think I can speak on behalf of everyone on this side of the house when I say that we feel a genuine obligation to protect the integrity of the processes and protocols of this place. That is why we are moving this motion. Effectively, all that the Procedure and Privileges Committee has done is punish the puppet and not the puppeteer, and this is an issue that must be addressed. I will look at the role that Mr Grill played, which was captured by the evidence given to the committee. Effectively, Mr Grill oversaw a very complex course of action that ultimately resulted in Precious Metals Australia receiving a significant payout from Xstrata. That was a complex course of action that involved the following. It involved the use of a parliamentary committee, and ultimately the corruption of the preparation of a final report by that parliamentary committee. That is clear. That was instigated by Mr Grill, and Mr Grill was involved right throughout the process, from the point of instigation in June 2004 until the final preparation of the report in November. Indeed, we now know that Mr Grill played an important role in doctoring that final report for no other reason than to serve the interests of PMA. What else happened in this complex course of action? PMA launched legal action against Xstrata, which happened in parallel with the preparation of the committee report. I suspect that Mr Grill and, more than likely, Mr Burke - in fact, there is evidence to suggest this - actively encouraged certain members of the committee to engage the press in Western Australia in becoming involved in a media campaign to further the better interests of PMA. In the middle of this intertwined set of activities sat Mr Grill, pulling the strings and directing the efforts of a range of people. Why did he do it? It was to provide $17.5 million ultimately to PMA in a payout from Xstrata. Why else? It was to feather his own nest. We all know that Mr Grill, on his own evidence, received a success payment in the vicinity of $133 000, I think. No doubt he received other moneys from PMA as part of his lobbyist activities. What we have is a financially driven desire by Mr Grill that led to the corruption of an important process of this Parliament. I will read from a copy of the email forwarded by Simon Kennedy, who I assume was involved with the committee - he was the principal research officer of the committee - to each of the committee members. This is the email that was then passed on by Mr Bowler to Mr Grill. It states - As you would be aware, the Report is subject to parliamentary privilege. Disclosure of the documents to any member or other person who is not a member of the Committee or an officer of the Legislative Assembly may constitute a contempt of the Legislative Assembly. That was known to the recipients of the email. That is why the member for Murchison-Eyre is now on leave from the Parliament. However, it was also known to Mr Grill. As we heard before, he was a longstanding member of Parliament and a minister of the Crown. He knew full well what he was, I suspect, demanding of the member for Murchison-Eyre as part of this process. To further highlight the point, when he passed that report on to Roderick Smith from PMA, he said, “Here is the draft report. It must be handled with the utmost discretion.” Therefore, by his own actions, he acknowledged that this was a sensitive document. He knew the implications. He tried to keep it covered up, and he was caught out. Ultimately, as I said, Mr Grill sits at the centre of this attempt to manipulate the parliamentary process. We have no option but to call him before the house to apologise, and we have no option but to suspend indefinitely his rights to access the Parliament - rights that all members of this Parliament have enjoyed for many years. Before I finish, I will quickly touch on what gives us the capacity, as a Parliament, to call a member before the house. That right is bestowed on the Parliament by the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1891. Under the heading “Privileges, immunities and powers of Council and Assembly”, section 1 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act states - The Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly of Western Australia, and their members and committees, have and may exercise - . . . (b) to the extent that they are not inconsistent with this Act, the privileges, immunities and powers by custom, statute or otherwise of the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom and its members and committees as at 1 January 1989. I will not read it out now, but Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice basically says that if a person has committed a contempt or has been found by the Parliament to be in contempt of the Parliament, we, as a Parliament, can demand that that person come to the Parliament and apologise. There are some other actions

3572 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] that we can also demand be taken, but it was felt that in this case an apology would suffice. We can do that. Members of Parliament need to understand the severity and the importance of what we are asking Mr Grill to do. What will happen if he decides not to come when called to the house? That is covered by section 8 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act, which refers to disobedience to any order of either house or of any committee duly authorised to attend the house. This has occurred once before in the history of the Parliament, as far as I am aware. It occurred in the upper house some time ago, albeit it is a matter that I will not canvass tonight. It involved Mr Easton on 22 June. Mr T.G. Stephens: It has happened more than once. Mr T. BUSWELL: I am talking about the one time I know about. The issue is that Mr Grill will be requested to appear before the house to make an apology in the proper manner. If he chooses not to do that, he will again be in contempt of the Parliament. If he chooses to take that course of action, the Parliament can choose to either fine him or have him sent to jail. The point I am trying to make is that this is a very serious step for the Parliament to take. I am sure that Mr Grill will give it due consideration before he responds to the request, which will no doubt come from you, Mr Speaker, or the Clerk of the house, to come down here and apologise to the house. I conclude where I started; namely, it is the opposition’s view that the Procedure and Privileges Committee has asked the Parliament to determine treatment for Mr Julian Grill. It is our view that this whole inquiry centres around and has been driven by the greed and desire of Mr Julian Grill to provide a financial gain to his customer, in this case Precious Metals Australia, and by extension, a payment of at least $133 000 to his name. Mr Grill’s actions have ruined the political career of his supposed good friend the member for Murchison-Eyre, and they have brought disrepute onto the Parliament and the processes of the Parliament. It is fit and proper that Mr Grill come before the house to apologise and that he not be allowed to have access to this place that other former members of Parliament enjoy. MR J.C. KOBELKE (Balcatta - Leader of the House) [5.42 pm]: The government supports the motion. I will give some reasons for that and for this procedure. It does not in any way reflect on the Procedure and Privileges Committee and its inquiry. We passed a motion just a few minutes ago that reflects the recommendations of the report from the Procedure and Privileges Committee. As a house, we have accepted its recommendations. Those recommendations were in response to the terms of reference that were given on, I think, 28 February this year. The terms of reference went both to inquiring into and reporting on the member for Murchison-Eyre and matters that I will not go into. Secondly, under the terms of reference, the committee was to make both findings and recommendations for what action should be taken by the house as a result of the member for Murchison-Eyre’s actions. The Procedure and Privileges Committee met those specifications of the terms of reference. In finding that the member for Murchison-Eyre was in contempt, and in keeping with the terms of reference, the committee went on and listed four things that could be seen as penalties. Julian Grill’s behaviour was not a matter that was referred to the Procedure and Privileges Committee; that was something that unfolded as the investigation took place and information became available to the committee. Therefore, the recommendation with respect to Mr Grill is what was passed in paragraph 7 of the motion, which means that this house has found Hon Julian Grill in contempt. It now comes to us to decide what penalty should be attached to that. That, clearly, is the force of this motion. Before nine o’clock this morning, I started discussing with members opposite and an Independent member whether there should be some penalty and what penalty would be appropriate. One option was clearly to refer the matter of a penalty back to the Procedure and Privileges Committee for its recommendation. That would have taken some considerable time. I think there was a general expectation from all members that it was appropriate that today we should pass a further motion to put in place some formal penalties for the contempt by Julian Grill. The discussion that went on behind the Chair sought to find a way of doing that. I gave an undertaking very early this morning that standing orders could be suspended for a second time, and that second suspension has occurred. We agreed to allow the opposition to move that suspension - although the opposition could have picked someone with more standing in this place when it comes to standards. Its choice causes concern, so we hope the opposition is treating this matter seriously. This motion in two parts is a compromise. My personal view is that calling Julian Grill to the bar to apologise is not necessarily the best action to take with someone who is not a member of the house. In the previous instance, when the member for Kalgoorlie was found in contempt, he was requested to apologise. It is appropriate that a member of Parliament be required to apologise. The member for Murchison-Eyre has apologised, and much more has gone on after that. I am not convinced that bringing in outsiders to make an apology is the right way to go. However, in the spirit of compromise, to ensure a penalty is imposed, I have recommended, and this side will accept it, that an apology should be part of what should follow as a consequence of Mr Grill being found in contempt. However, I strongly support the imposition of a direct penalty and to exclude an ex-member from the usual privileges, whether that be the use of the dining room or the gym or the ability to come into the Parliament

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] 3573 and converse with members. As a result of the second part of the motion, Hon Julian Grill will not be able to draw on those benefits as a former member and have easy access to Parliament House. That opens up a bit of an issue for us, because this chamber does not control Parliament House. We control what happens in the Legislative Assembly, but we have with the other place a joint committee that controls Parliament House. So I say to our members in the other place that we do not wish to usurp any right or cause offence. We think that if those members look at the facts in this report, they will support us in this. I hope that is not taken as being presumptuous, but we need to deal with this matter. I do not think motions need to go backwards and forwards between the houses. I think it is quite appropriate that we put in place these penalties given the seriousness of the contempt. I have not discussed the details; the mover of the motion covered some of them. The fact is that, having read the report, clearly the contempt by Julian Grill was very serious. I assume that most members have read the report, so I will not go over that ground, given the time. The government will support this motion. MR T.G. STEPHENS (Central Kimberley-Pilbara) [5.47 pm]: There have been instances of people being brought before the bar of the house. They are not pleasant instances when they occur; there are other ways of handling such matters. They include people being directed to apologise in writing to the house. That has happened and has been effective; nonetheless, the house will embark on whatever it wishes. We should keep in mind, however, as members know, that I have been around here for a long time and I have watched what people can do. I, for one, promise members this: I will study that CCC report very carefully indeed when it deals with the matters concerning the member for Vasse. We will have the opportunity when we study it to see whether we believe the member for Vasse in his evidence before the CCC, based on what we know from others of what he said in the south west about the activities of Senator Noel Crichton-Browne. We will be able to consider whether we want to bring him before the bar of the house and to put him through some public cross-examination over the evidence he gave to the CCC and what he has told various people in the south west about what Crichton-Browne said to him. I remember too well what Premier Court did to the then member for Ascot, Mal Bryce, with reference to the privileges of this house and the way Premier Court tried to use the numbers in this house. A government member: And the Easton royal commission Mr T.G. STEPHENS: And the Easton royal commission. What I have experienced in this house is that members opposite are the members who never observe the protocols, precedents and procedures of this house. They abuse them endlessly and use their numbers dramatically against Labor people. My view is that what is good for the gander is also good for the goose. I encourage members on this side of the house to recognise how members on the other side handle Labor people politically and make some of them stand up for the standards that they claim they do. I will watch this with great interest. I know a bit about what the member for Vasse had to say in the south west about Crichton-Browne. Mr T. Buswell interjected. Mr T.G. STEPHENS: I will wait for that report to be released. I know - Mr T. Buswell: Do you? Mr T.G. STEPHENS: Yes, I do and that is why I will wait and watch for that report. I have a good idea what went on in the car pack and I will wait for the report and then I will share my information with my members. We might get the member for Vasse before the bar of the house. In 1994 I watched a petition presented to the upper house. It was when the personal affairs of people were dragged into the Parliament - the psychological ill-health of people was played upon. A privileges committee was established and I served on that committee. Eventually, we required a Mr Easton to apologise, which he did, and a member of the house, John Halden, to apologise to the family members affected by the incident. In recent days I have watched members opposite engage in activities that I think are comparable to what Halden and others were up to at that time and for which they were required to apologise to the upper house. Now we have this hypocrite stand up and move this motion when he is tarnished with the way he has behaved. Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER: I know the member is a passionate debater; however, the word “hypocrite” is a reflection on somebody’s character. I direct the member to withdraw the remark. Mr T.G. STEPHENS: I withdraw. Debate Resumed Mr T.G. STEPHENS: I conclude my remarks and encourage members on this side of the house to watch members opposite and learn from what they do, because they have not done that. Members opposite, particularly the member for Vasse, need to be taught some lessons on ethics. It is time he was taught ethics.

3574 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007]

There are members on his side of the house who know it only too well. Perhaps we might get their vote when it comes to that point. Amendment to Motion MR A.J. CARPENTER (Willagee - Premier) [5.52 pm]: I am advised that the motion needs a time and date and that we should amend it to give effect to that need. Therefore, I move - To insert after the words “bar of the house” the following - on a day and time to be determined by the Speaker Amendment put and passed. Motion, as Amended DR J.M. WOOLLARD (Alfred Cove) [5.53 pm]: It is disappointing that the Leader of the House has had discussions behind the chair and behind closed doors today. The member for Kimberley-Pilbara has put another option to the house; that is, that Hon Julian Grill should send a letter of apology to this house. I would like all the alternatives debated in this house. I understand the government will support the motion, as amended, which means that it will be passed. I wonder what other options would have been available to the house. Whatever they are, they should have been discussed in the house rather than behind closed doors. Question (motion, as amended) put and passed. EDUCATION AND HEALTH STANDING COMMITTEE Seventh Report - “Initiatives in the Remote Indigenous Communities of Cape York” MR T.G. STEPHENS (Central Kimberley-Pilbara) [5.54 pm]: I present for tabling the seventh report of the Education and Health Standing Committee, entitled “Initiatives in the Remote Indigenous Communities of Cape York”. [See paper 2857.] Mr T.G. STEPHENS: In speaking briefly to the report, I advise members that this particular document provides the house and the wider community with the opportunity to understand the initiatives of the Cape York Institute, the work of Mr Noel Pearson and his colleagues, in establishing the array of organisations that exist on Cape York. The committee travelled to that area and took the opportunity in discussions with the residents of Cape York as well as with Mr Pearson and his colleagues to fully come to grips with the Cape York agenda. This week the national government received a document entitled “From Hand Out to Hand Up: Cape York Welfare Project”. The document includes the desired recommendations of the Cape York Institute and will be the basis upon recommendations for significant changes in Indigenous affairs. The federal government has not announced its position on this report, but the indication is that the recommendations will be embarked upon. The work of the Education and Health Standing Committee provided a prism through which to look at those initiatives. The committee had the opportunity to observe and understand the background to Noel Pearson and his organisation and how we have reached this point. My view is that we have near paralysis occurring in the field of Aboriginal affairs, especially at the federal level, and it needs to be fixed. We are destined to repeat the mistakes of the past if we do not understand the history behind the point we have reached. This report explains to all who wish to read it what has occurred in Cape York. Huge sums of money from the federal government and the Queensland government have been allocated to the Cape York agenda for a population that is minuscule in comparison to the Kimberley Aboriginal population, for which there is a desperate need for an agenda. The report is driven by a policy that avoids what I fear will be an opportunity for excesses if the national government does not thoroughly analyse what has gone on at Cape York. I have picked up on some models that are working in places such as Yarrabah in north Queensland. These models show signs of positive hope because the work being undertaken is evidence based and built on project logic. They properly digest how to engage in working with Indigenous communities. Some of these models have solid prospects. Not all that has gone on in Cape York to this point involve programs that lend themselves to wholesale embrace across the nation. This report is the result of the quality work of our research officer, Dr Jeannine Purdy, to whom I pay tribute, and the committee staff of Peter Frantom and Nicole Burgess. They have managed to put together a descriptive document based on what we saw and heard without making additional recommendations or findings. We simply allowed the story to speak for itself. There is a risk that we can too easily work from deficit models in this field without recognising how important the intergenerational relationships are within the Aboriginal community, which relationships, while fractured, continue to be very important. We need a way to tackle the issues of race, power, control and local participation without ignoring the problems that have come from some of the policies that have been adopted. There is a need to integrate and synthesise the agendas of both rights and

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] 3575 responsibilities in the field of Aboriginal affairs. The observations of people like Noel Pearson and Patrick Dodson need to be integrated with the leadership of people like Peter Yu. We need to synthesise both approaches - the focus on both rights and responsibilities - to find a way forward. Members and the wider community will find the seventh report of this committee an interesting read indeed. DR K.D. HAMES (Dawesville) [6.00 pm]: I will not delay the house long, because it has been a long and trying day for everyone. I also thank the other members of the committee - the members for Bassendean, Wanneroo and Wagin, whose apology I am giving, otherwise I would be fined. Ms J.A. Radisich: What is the fine? Dr K.D. HAMES: We have a fine system. The member for Swan Hills is lucky that she is not on that committee. If members have ever been on a committee with the member for Wagin, they will know what I am talking about. An excellent job has been done on this report. A huge amount of work was done on it by Dr Jeannine Purdy, in particular, and also by Peter Frantom and Nici Burgess. It was done at a time when the committee had already started its research on the Esperance lead inquiry. Being able to complete this document at the same time as having a huge outside workload was amazing and, as usual, only minuscule changes were needed to the report. It was an excellent effort. I will not go into the detail of the report, because the member for Kimberley has done that, other than to say that there was an interview on The 7.30 Report either last night or the night before with Noel Pearson, which discussed this issue and the Cape York agenda. Our timing is immaculate. The interview went through a lot of the issues that are presented in the report, so for those who did not see that television program, they can read the report. The report is much broader, so people will be able to understand the drive of Noel Pearson and the direction in which he has taken both his community and the Aboriginal people of Australia in trying to get all communities to work together to achieve better outcomes for Aboriginal people. Our committee members have either been dedicated to Aboriginal issues for some time or have developed that same passion. I congratulate everybody on their efforts in compiling this report. JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE CORRUPTION AND CRIME COMMISSION Twenty-seventh Report - “Hearing with the Parliamentary Inspector of the Corruption and Crime Commission on 9 May 2007” MRS J. HUGHES (Kingsley) [6.02 pm]: In lieu of the fact that the committee chairman is unable to be in the house this evening, I present for tabling the twenty-seventh report of the Joint Standing Committee on the Corruption and Crime Commission, entitled “Hearing with the Parliamentary Inspector of the Corruption and Crime Commission on 9 May 2007”. [See paper 2858.] Mrs J. HUGHES: I will read out the chairman’s foreword on behalf of the member for Perth. It states - The quarterly hearings of the Joint Standing Committee on the Corruption and Crime Commission provide an opportunity for the Committee to assess the Parliamentary Inspector’s performance against an agreed set of actions. Actions arise in the context of previous quarterly hearings or via Committee correspondence with the Office of the Parliamentary Inspector and are influenced by information tendered at hearings or as a consequence of other information that comes to the attention of the Committee Secretariat. These reports therefore need to be considered in the context of reports pertaining to earlier hearings with the Parliamentary Inspector of the Corruption and Crime Commission. Importantly at this hearing held on 9 May 2007, Mr Malcolm McCusker QC, Parliamentary Inspector, in response to a Committee recommendation, committed to maintaining a register of conflicts of interest that may arise in the course of the conduct of his functions. The Committee considers this to be a critical accountability measure because it provides a capacity to ensure compliance with Section 195 (3) of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act 2003. That Section directs that the Parliamentary Inspector declare him or herself unable to act by reason of an actual or potential conflict of interest. An example of the latter includes Mr McCusker establishing clear lines of demarcation in relation to the Mallard matter, in which he acted as counsel. Another critical issue under discussion was the inclusion of both qualitative and quantitative Key Performance Indicators in the Annual Report of the Parliamentary Inspector, ensuring more measurable performance of that Office. The Parliamentary Inspector has engaged the services of the Office of the Auditor General to progress the latter. The Committee tabled in Parliament on 17 May 2007 the Report on Past Misconduct Inquiry - Western Australia Police. The Committee has requested that the Parliamentary Inspector ascertain the existence of a referenced second report pertaining to misconduct matters arising as a consequence of the former

3576 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007]

Anti-Corruption Commission’s investigative report into any involvement by Western Australia Police Officers in the death of Mr Andrew Petrelis. It is critical that the Government and this Committee ensure that identified matters of misconduct are dealt with appropriately. The Committee has discussed with the Parliamentary Inspector and the Corruption and Crime Commission on a number of occasions, the need to keep both individuals and agencies the subject of investigatory action by the Corruption and Crime Commission appraised of matters associated with that investigation, in line with the disclosure and secrecy provisions of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act 2003. This is about ensuring fair process while not compromising the Commission’s operations. The Committee believes that the Parliamentary Inspector should monitor that this occurs. There has been an ongoing discussion with both the Parliamentary Inspector and the Corruption and Crime Commission regarding the application of public versus private hearings to ensure the security of a person’s reputation peripheral to an investigation. The Parliamentary Inspector and the Corruption and Crime Commission have agreed to examine this issue further, possibly through the development of associated protocols. The Committee announced an Inquiry into the Efficacy of Public Hearings on 17 May 2007 which will include a review of this issue. The Committee takes the opportunity in hearings to assess the progress of certain complaint matters referred to the Office of the Parliamentary Inspector that come to the attention of the Committee. The Committee may request a progress or final report on these complaints. The Committee is aware of the increased workload of the Office of the Parliamentary Inspector and the impending appointment of an Executive Officer to streamline auditing and complaint processes. The Committee views that consideration should be given to an interim appointment of an Executive Officer, pending finalisation of the substantive position. The committee has included that issue in both the chairman’s foreword and the report because we have found that the Parliamentary Inspector’s office is under a great deal of stress. We would like an appointment to be made sooner rather than later. I commend this report to the house and suggest that people read it. It is always good to keep up with committee reports, especially those concerning the Parliamentary Inspector. ECONOMICS AND INDUSTRY STANDING COMMITTEE Change of Membership On motion by Mr J.C. Kobelke (Leader of the House), resolved - That the member for Yokine be appointed to the Economics and Industry Standing Committee in place of the member for Swan Hills. ROAD TRAFFIC AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 2) 2007 Introduction and First Reading Bill introduced, on motion by Mr J.C. Kobelke (Minister for Police and Emergency Services), and read a first time. Explanatory memorandum presented by the minister. Second Reading MR J.C. KOBELKE (Balcatta - Minister for Police and Emergency Services) [6.08 pm]: I move - That the bill be now read a second time. The Road Traffic Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2007 amends the Road Traffic Act 1974 in three key areas, being the penalties applying to hit-and-run cases in which drivers leave the scene of a traffic crash and/or fail to report crashes resulting in death or serious injury; changes to affect the government’s novice driver reform package; and the method of reporting breath analysis results to comply with new Australian Standards. The proposed changes in the hit-and-run traffic crash provisions are largely driven by an incident that occurred in 2004 in which an elderly pedestrian was run down and left for dead while walking his dog across a major road. The offending driver, who took extreme steps to conceal the crash damage to the vehicle in an apparent endeavour to escape prosecution, was ultimately convicted of failing to stop and failing to render assistance, but was fined a mere $800. The tragic loss of Michael Witkowski in these circumstances has led to these amendments being referred to as Mike’s Law. This bill amends the relevant penalties to provide a strong deterrent for leaving the scene of a crash. When a vehicle has been involved in a crash in which bodily harm has occurred to another person and the driver does not stop immediately after the accident or render assistance to the injured person, the driver will be subject to a maximum of 20 years’ imprisonment when a person’s death has occurred; 14 years’ imprisonment when a person has suffered grievous bodily harm; and 10 years’ imprisonment in any other case when a person has

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] 3577 sustained bodily injury. That should be compared with the current penalty of $2 500 and/or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months. The other significant changes are as follows. The penalty on indictment for dangerous driving causing death or grievous bodily harm is to be increased from four years to 10 years’ imprisonment, and when a person is dealt with summarily, the penalty is to be increased from 18 months to three years. When a crash has occurred occasioning the death of or grievous bodily harm to another person and the driver does not report the accident to police, the driver will be subject to imprisonment for a maximum of 10 years. Presently, the maximum penalty for a first offence is an $800 fine, and for a subsequent offence there is a maximum fine of $1 600 and/or imprisonment for 12 months. This bill is also the first stage in implementing the government’s novice driver initiatives, which will significantly enhance Western Australia’s graduated driver training and licensing system. Every year, scores of young people aged 17 to 24 years die on the roads, despite making up only 14 per cent of all Western Australian licence holders. While these young drivers are at particular risk, research shows that novice drivers of all ages carry an increased crash risk due to their inexperience. This bill will introduce the first wave of a series of important safety measures aimed at reducing the wasted loss of young lives. The bill will introduce a zero blood alcohol concentration limit for learners and provisional drivers. We know that alcohol and driving do not mix, but the research shows that younger drivers are more likely to crash than any other age group when they have alcohol in their system. This measure sends a powerful message to novice drivers that while they are accumulating experience and are most at risk of being involved in a crash, they must not consume any alcohol. The bill also puts in place a graduated demerit point system for learners and provisional drivers. Novices may accrue up to only four demerit points in the time between getting their learner’s permit and completing 12 months of provisional driving and up to eight demerit points in the time between beginning and completing the entire provisional licence period. The bill also creates the power to make regulations to place further conditions on the licence of novice drivers. Following the successful passage of this bill, we will introduce new regulations to require learner drivers to spend a minimum of six months in the second learner phase. This will mean the average supervised driving time is increased. Currently, learner drivers are required to complete 25 hours of supervised driving before moving to the provisional stage. The government has indicated its wish to extend this to 120 hours but will not mandate this until access and equity issues are addressed. These changes will ensure novice drivers spend more time accumulating valuable supervised driving experience in a variety of conditions after they have passed their practical driving assessment. Research shows that once a novice driver begins to drive solo on a provisional licence, he or she is up to 20 times more likely to crash than when the novice driver was driving under supervision. It is therefore critical that the training and licensing system gives learners as much opportunity as possible to develop the skills and experience that will make them safer drivers once they have received their provisional licence. This regulation-making power will also be used to include night-time driving restrictions for all novice drivers in the first six months of their provisional licence. The government is also looking to restrict the carrying of peer-age passengers during the first six months of provisional driving. Point of Order Mr A.D. McRAE: Mr Speaker, I am having difficulty hearing because the member for Nedlands has got her back to the chamber. Mr R.F. Johnson: You have only just come in the chamber! Ms J.A. Radisich: That’s not true, member! Mr A.D. McRAE: The member for Nedlands is constantly harping on in a conversation and talking over the top of the minister on his feet. The SPEAKER: It is quarter past six. I am sure the member for Nedlands wants to carry on private conversations, and I urge her to do that, but just not in here. So, a little shush and we will get through this as quickly as possible. Debate Resumed Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I will start that sentence again. The government is also looking to restrict the carrying of peer-age passengers during the first six months of provisional driving. The other safety initiatives will be implemented first to see if peer restrictions are necessary and, if peer restrictions are thought necessary, we will engage in wide consultation before proceeding. The safety benefit of this package cannot be denied. We know that these changes will save lives and we also know that the community is demanding changes to the way young drivers are trained and licensed in Western

3578 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007]

Australia. Similar measures are in place in jurisdictions in other parts of the world and have been shown to deliver long-term reductions in fatalities and serious injuries among novice drivers. The final area dealt with by this bill is the reporting of breath analysis results. The enforcement of drink-driving legislation relies on a person being required to provide a specimen of breath for analysis into what is known as an evidential breath analyser. The sample is measured in accordance with the provisions of the commonwealth National Measurement Act 1960 under a relevant Australian Standard. In 2003, the National Measurement Institute developed a new Australian Standard for evidential breath analysers. The institute agreed to a sunset clause of five years for total implementation of the new Australian Standard. The sunset clause is due to expire in November 2008. Currently, evidential breath analysers use a calculation to convert a person’s blood alcohol concentration to an equivalent of the number of grams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. The new standard requires that evidential breath analysers report blood alcohol concentration as the number of grams of alcohol contained in 210 litres of breath. This measure directly correlates to the number of grams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. This provision of the bill is purely a technical change to reflect the new Australian Standard for reporting breath analysis results. I commend the bill to the house. Debate adjourned, on motion by Mr T.R. Sprigg. MISUSE OF DRUGS (METHYLAMPHETAMINE) AMENDMENT BILL 2007 Introduction and First Reading Bill introduced, on motion by Mr M.J. Cowper, and read a first time. Explanatory memorandum presented by the member. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (PROHIBITION OF BARGAINING SERVICES FEES) AMENDMENT BILL 2007 Introduction and First Reading Bill introduced, on motion by Mr M.J. Cowper, and read a first time. Explanatory memorandum presented by the member. MISS EARTH AUSTRALIA - DANIELLE CARTER Statement by Member for Carine MS K. HODSON-THOMAS (Carine) [6.17 pm]: As members of Parliament, we are all becoming increasingly aware that as lawmakers we are having to deal with environmental issues of increasing complexity and increasing importance. My time as shadow Minister for the Environment brought this home to me very clearly. It was in that role that I first became aware of a project called Miss Earth Australia, when I was asked to be a judge in the 2005 pageant. I have previously commended this program to the house. It impresses me now, as it did then, that young women across the world demonstrate their concern for the environment by entering the pageant and becoming involved in activities to raise awareness of our need to slow down the rate of damage we make to our fragile world. This year I am especially proud, as one of my constituents, Danielle Carter from Gwelup, has qualified for the finals to be held in Sydney in September of this year. Danielle is 18 years of age and has been modelling since she was 13 years old. In that time she has gained a number of successes, including becoming a finalist in Miss Teen Australia last year. This year, she is joining her modelling career to her concern for our environment by being part of Miss Earth Australia 2007. Her areas of interest are the perils of global warming and the position of developing countries as they strive to balance their need to develop industry against the needs to protect their environment. I find it most impressive to see a young woman considering matters of such importance. I wish Danielle the best of success personally and also in her wider quest to help protect our environment. AUSTRALIA UNDER-17 SOCCER SQUAD - JOSHUA RISDON Statement by Member for Bunbury MR G.M. CASTRILLI (Bunbury) [6.19 pm]: I wish to bring to the attention of Parliament the achievements of a young Bunbury boy, Joshua Risdon. At an early age, Josh showed a great talent for soccer and was selected in a number of junior representative teams and for inclusion in specialised training programs in Perth. This week he has been selected with 29 other 14-year-olds from a squad around Australia for the Australian under-17 squad to attend an exclusive training camp at the Australian Institute of Sport next month. Should Josh make it through to the final 24, he will represent Australia in Japan next year and then play throughout Asia with the Australian under-17 team, known as the Joeys, to qualify for the 2009 junior world cup. All that is very impressive. However, as a regional boy, Josh found it impossible to fulfil the extensive training and playing requirements by travelling between Bunbury and Perth. Josh and his close-knit family made the

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] 3579 difficult decision that, at the young age of 14, Josh should move to Perth on his own. He now shares a flat in Perth and is close to his training facilities. Josh started a new school. He cooks and cleans for himself and rides his bike to and from training. Last weekend Josh was injured and he had to ride from school to a physiotherapist. He has to deal with all the things for which a 14-year-old kid usually relies on his parents. This young man is a wonderful example of what can happen when a person applies himself and follows his dream. He is a fantastic ambassador for junior sport in Bunbury and for our youth. He has shown other young people what can be achieved with the right attitude. COLLEEN RANKIN - MEDAL OF THE ORDER OF AUSTRALIA Statement by Member for Serpentine-Jarrahdale MR A.J. SIMPSON (Serpentine-Jarrahdale) [6.21 pm]: I rise to acknowledge a very special person in our community. I refer to Colleen Rankin, who was presented with a Medal of the Order of Australia in the general division. She was deservedly awarded this high honour for her commendable service to the community of Serpentine-Jarrahdale, including the 13 years she spent as a councillor of the Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale. From 1996 to 1999 she was also deputy president and then president of the shire. In 1997 Colleen was awarded Citizen of the Year from the Serpentine-Jarrahdale Shire, and in 2001 she received a distinguished service award from the Western Australia Local Government Association. She has also been involved in many groups, including the Landcare Association, the Byford Progress Association, and the Byford Townscape Committee. Colleen is always ready to roll up her sleeves to become involved in the community. She more than deserves the high honour that she has been awarded. HUNTINGDALE PRIMARY SCHOOL Statement by Member for Southern River MR P.W. ANDREWS (Southern River) [6.22 pm]: I would like to acknowledge one of the primary schools in my electorate; namely, Huntingdale Primary School. Having spent a large amount of time at the school over the past few years, I would like to suggest that it is one of the prime state government schools in my electorate. The school is running a program that seeks to reclaim some of the bushland around the school. Students are planting all sorts of native vegetation. The school has received a number of small grants and the work it has done is outstanding. The school’s principal, Ed Black, is one of the great primary school principals in the district. He is renowned throughout the education system. Not only do staff at that school become involved in academic pursuits, but also they encourage the school to be a central part of the local community. The school runs a number of initiatives, including an environmental program, which teaches students basic land-care skills and an awareness of native vegetation and water use. Indeed, it is a Waterwise school. The program involves preprimary students and extends right through to year 7 students. It teaches students the importance of water and how to effectively use it. Hopefully, students will take home those skills and teach good gardening skills to their parents. It is an excellent school. VICTORIA PARK YOUTH ACCOMMODATION Statement by Member for Victoria Park MR B.S. WYATT (Victoria Park) [6.23 pm]: I rise to commend the work of Marilyn Crispin and all the dedicated workers at Victoria Park Youth Accommodation, which has been operating since 1983. Initially, the service required residents to enter into a contract whereby part of rent charged is held in trust to assist the person to build up sufficient funds for a bond in unsupported accommodation and independent living skills were acquired. That service went beyond the call of duty. It has been extended to provide services beyond simply providing homes for those who have fallen through the cracks of Homeswest. In 2001 its service agreement with the department described the service as providing community-based accommodation for young people who are in need of accommodation and support. However, the name is somewhat deceptive, because it provides accommodation for not only youths, but also people who require a lot of services, such as parenting and budgeting skills. Marilyn and the people who work in the 16 houses that they have been allocated to manage work with those people in our community who are at the bottom end of society and who are trying to get ahead by way of building up a background of regular rent payments and of being able to use that capacity to get their children back. I commend all those who work at Victoria Park Youth Accommodation. DR MARK ROONEY - DEATH Statement by Member for Bassendean MR M.P. WHITELY (Bassendean - Parliamentary Secretary) [6.25 pm]: I rise to pay tribute to Dr Mark Rooney, who tragically died at the young age of 49 late last week. I got to know Dr Rooney because he was chairman of the ministerial attention deficit hyperactivity disorder implementation committee. I came to respect his integrity, honesty and capacity to accommodate conflicting views, particularly because the committee process was very difficult. Dr Rooney gave the committee great leadership. He was admired by all who served

3580 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] on the committee for his fairness and impartiality, for his great sense of diplomacy and for his ability to progress a controversial issue and, in doing so, to take people with him. For a time he was acting director general of the mental health services, a role he performed exceptionally well. It is a tragedy to lose a clinician of such calibre and a man of such integrity, honesty and capacity. I give my sincere condolences to his family. MEMBER FOR NEDLANDS - POINT OF ORDER Statement by Speaker THE SPEAKER (Mr F. Riebeling): I have had a look at Hansard transcript as it relates to the member for Nedlands and a point of order that was raised. The transcript contains reference to standing order 95 which, I think, the Deputy Speaker handled. However, I cannot see the other issues raised by the member for Yokine. At this stage, I cannot find anything wrong with the member for Nedlands’ speech. ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE On motion by Mr J.C. Kobelke (Leader of the House), resolved - That the house at its rising adjourn until 2.00 pm Tuesday, 14 August. House adjourned at 6.27 pm ______

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] 3581

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Questions and answers are as supplied to Hansard.

SCHOOLS - STATISTICS 1926. Mr M.J. Birney to the Minister for Education and Training (1) How many Full Time Equivalent (FTE) male teachers were employed in State schools as at the last day of last month? (2) How many FTE female teachers were employed in State schools as at the last day of last month? (3) How many children were reported to have truanted from Western Australian Government schools last month? (4) How many assaults (student against student) were reported in Western Australian Government State schools last month? (5) How many assaults (student against teacher) were reported in Western Australian Government schools last month? (6) How many students in Western Australian State schools were suspended last month? (7) How many students in Western Australian State schools were expelled last month? (8) What was the total value of all maintenance work required at Western Australian Government schools identified, but not yet undertaken, as at the last day of last month? (9) How many requests for school funding were rejected by the Minister last month (please give details of each refused request)? (10) How many complaints were received by the Education Department regarding Outcomes Based Education last month? (11) How many adverse audits of school finances were completed in each Education District last month (please give details)? (12) What is the number of school performance audits completed in each Education District last month, where performance effectiveness measures were - (a) qualified; (b) caused concerns for the Evaluation team; and (c) not met? (d) Please provide details? (13) How many teachers resigned per Education District last month? (14) What was the current required number of teachers in each Education District and what were the actual numbers in each District as at the last day of last month? (15) With reference to Disciplinary Proceedings, and according to each Education District, in the last month - (a) how many teachers have had disciplinary proceedings initiated against them; (b) what number of these actions were on the grounds of sexual misconduct/abuse of a child; (c) what is the average length of time taken for each disciplinary proceeding; (d) how many teachers have been dismissed following a disciplinary investigation; and (e) what number were dismissed following child sex allegations? Mr M. McGOWAN replied: (1) There were 5 097 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) male teachers or school administrators employed in Public Schools at the end of February 2007. (2) There were 11 918 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) female teachers or school administrators employed in Public Schools at the end of February 2007. (3) The Department of Education and Training does not keep centralised data on student attendance on a month by month basis. Schools report student attendance data at the end of Semester One each year.

3582 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007]

(4) 33 (5) 85 (6) 1470 students were suspended from schools in February 2007 (as at 29 March 2007). (7) No students were excluded from school in February 2007. (8) The Carpenter Government is spending a record $1billion on new and existing schools, including $400million to build new schools, improve existing schools at $300 million and maintain schools at a cost of $300 million. In 2007/08, the State will spend $75.5 million on the continuing school maintenance programme, including $14.1 million on the "Fixing Our Schools Programme." The 2007/08 Budget provides a $6.8million commitment for the commencement of administration upgrades, covered assembly areas, library/resource centres and toilet upgrades at various schools. Of course, maintenance, by definition, is an ongoing process. (9) Due to the very general nature of the question and the wide range of issues raised, it is not possible to provide an answer. (10) Two (11) Two schools in the Swan District; Two in the Midlands District; and one in the Albany District. (12) The School Review cycle is completed for all schools over a 24 month period. No school review was completed in the month of February 2007. (13) 22 teachers or school administrators resigned in February 2007, broken up by districts as follows; District Count Admin Central Office 2 Bunbury Education District 1 Canning Education District 6 Esperance Education District 2 Fremantle/Peel Education District 5 Kimberley Education District 2 Midlands Education District 1 West Coast Education District 3 (14) Staffing is allocated to schools not education districts. The staffing of schools is a fluid process. The calculated FTE allocated to each school is based on student enrolments. The staffing of schools is an ongoing process, as staff take long service leave, parental leave etc at various times of the year. The vacancies for each school reflects the staffing levels for each school and thus across the districts. The number of vacancies within each district as at 28 February is tabled below. District Number of Vacancies Albany 0 Bunbury 3 Canning 4 Esperance 4 Fremantle Peel 8 Goldfields 7 Kimberley 8 Midlands 5 Mid West 12 Narrogin 5 Pilbara 16 Swan 6 Warren Blackwood 4 West Coast 2 Data source: Manual Report from the Teacher Establishment System (TES). (15) (a) One (b) None (c) The case referred to in (a) is still ongoing and so it is not possible to provide an average duration. (d)-(e) One

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] 3583

MINISTERIAL OFFICES, GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES - STAFF ENGAGED IN COMMUNICATIONS, MARKETING, SPEECHWRITING OR MEDIA 2052. Mr T.R. Buswell to the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture and Food; Forestry; the Mid West and Wheatbelt; Great Southern (1) For each department and agency under the Minister’s control, including the Minister’s Office, will the Minister please advise of the following - (a) how many employees (head count) are engaged in communications, marketing, speechwriting or media (including public, corporate and media relations); (b) what is the salary band for each of these employees; and (c) what is the job title for each of these employees? Mr F.M. LOGAN replied: Ministerial Office (1) (a) 1 FTE (b) MA1 (c) Ministerial Media Adviser Department of Agriculture and Food (1) (a) 3 FTEs (b) $70,564 to $78,138 (c) Media Liaison Officer Forest Products Commission (1) (a) 5 FTEs. (b) $54,510 to $57,609 x 1; $82,227 to $88,131 x 3; $93,131 to $101,155 x 1 (c) Promotions Officer, Manager Marketing, Corporate Communications Manager, Senior Projects Officer and Manager Corporate Affairs. Great Southern Development Commission (1) (a) None (b)-(c) Not applicable Mid West Development Commission (1) (a) None (b)-(c) Not applicable Wheatbelt Development Commission (1) (a) None (b)-(c) Not applicable EDUCATION - STATISTICS 2192. Mr M.J. Birney to the Minister for Education and Training (1) How many FTE male teachers were employed in State Schools as at the last day of last month? (2) How many FTE female teachers were employed in State Schools as at the last day of last month? (3) How many children were reported to have truanted from Western Australian Government schools last month? (4) How many assaults (student vs student) were reported in Western Australian Government State schools last month? (5) How many assaults (student against teacher) were reported in Western Australian Government schools last month? (6) How many students in Western Australian state schools were suspended last month? (7) How many students in Western Australian state schools were expelled last month?

3584 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007]

(8) What was the total value of all maintenance work required at Western Australian Government schools identified, but not yet undertaken, as at the last day of last month? (9) How many requests for school funding were rejected by the Minister last month (please give details of each refused request)? (10) How many complaints were received by the Education Department regarding Outcomes Based Education last month? (11) How many adverse audits of school finances were completed in each Education District last month (please give details)? (12) What was the number of school performance audits completed in each Education District last month, where performance effectiveness measures were - (a) qualified; (b) caused concerns for the Evaluation team; and (c) not met? (d) will the Minister provide details for (a) (b) and (c)? (13) How many teachers resigned per Education District last month? (14) What was the current required number of teachers in each education District and what were the actual numbers in each District as at the last day of last month? (15) With reference to Disciplinary Proceedings, and according to Education District, in the last month - (a) how many teachers have had disciplinary proceedings initiated against them; (b) what number of these actions were on the grounds of sexual misconduct/abuse of a child; (c) what is the average length of time taken for each disciplinary proceeding; (d) how many teachers have been dismissed following a disciplinary investigation; and (e) what number were dismissed following child sex allegations? Mr M. McGOWAN replied: (1)-(15) Please refer to Question on Notice 1926. If the Member has a specific query the Minister will endeavour to provide a response. KARRINYUP LAKES LIFESTYLE VILLAGE 2242. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure I ask this question in relation to the Minister’s responsibilities for the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC). There have been long-standing problems in the development of Lot 36 Gribble Road, Gwelup by Moss Glades Pty Ltd into a retirement village known as Karrinyup Lakes Lifestyle Village (KLLV). Residents of the KLLV wrote to the Minister on 29 January 2007 pleading for the Minister’s assistance in resolving the problems between themselves, the City of Stirling and the developer. Will the Minister please advise - (1) Why has the Minister not replied to this letter? (2) When will the Minister reply to this letter? (3) Will the Minister make a commitment to intercede with the WAPC to resolve the long-standing problems involved? (4) Does the WAPC have the power to resolve matters of building approval between Local Councils and property developers? (a) If so, why has it not used that power to resolve an issue that has been a problem for the local council, residents and the developer since 2002? (b) If the WAPC does not possess that power, will the Minister initiate a review of its operations to enable it to resolve conflicts rather than allowing them to continue in this manner? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(2) The Karrinyup Lakes Village Residents Ass. Inc. also wrote to the Premier on this matter, and a response was sent from the Premier, and on behalf of the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, to the Association on 22 May 2007. (3)-(4) As the member is aware, I have asked the Department for Planning and Infrastructure and the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) to more thoroughly review the background and circumstances giving rise to the members question, and will provide a comprehensive briefing for the Member.

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] 3585

EDUCATION - STATISTICS 2264. Mr M.J. Birney to the Minister for Education and Training (1) What was the total cost of all damage that occurred as a result of vandalism (all schools) in each of the following Education Districts, for the years 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 - (a) Albany; (b) Bunbury; (c) Canning; (d) Esperance; (e) Fremantle-Peel; (f) Goldfields; (g) Kimberley; (h) Mid West; (i) Midlands; (j) Narrogin; (k) Pilbara; (l) Swan; (m) Warren-Blackwood; and (n) West Coast? (2) For each Education District, how many incidents involving violence or verbal threats and abuse were recorded in the years 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006? (3) For each Education District, how many incidents involving verbal threats or verbal abuse by students against teachers were recorded in the years 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006? (4) For each Education District, how many incidents involving violence committed by a student against a teacher (please give details of each incident and the disciplinary action taken in each case) were recorded for the years 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006? (5) For each Education District, how many students were suspended from schools for the years 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006? (6) For each Education District, how many students were expelled from schools for the years 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006? (7) For each Education District, how many teachers requested a transfer away from their school for the years 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006? (a) For each Education District, of the teachers who requested a transfer away from their school (with reference to the above mentioned years), how many did so either in part or in full because of concerns about violence and abuse at the school? (8) For each Education District, how many teachers received a transfer away from their school for the years 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006? (9) For each Education District, how many teachers resigned for the years 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006? (a) Of the teachers that resigned from each of the Education Districts in the above mentioned question (with reference to year), how many did so in part or in full because of concerns regarding violence and abuse at their school? (10) For each Education District, how many different students were recorded truanting from school at least once for the years 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006? (11) How many students currently attend schools in each of the Education Districts? Mr M. McGOWAN replied: (1)-(11) [See paper 2895.] EASTERN GOLDFIELDS SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL 2265. Mr M.J. Birney to the Minister for Education and Training With reference to Eastern Goldfields Senior High School (Middle School Campus) can the Minister advise - (1) What was the total cost of all damage that occurred as a result of vandalism at the school for the years - (a) 2004-2005; and (b) 2003-2004?

3586 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007]

(2) How many incidents involving violence or verbal threats and abuse were recorded at the school for the years - (a) 2005; (b) 2004; and (c) 2003? (3) How many incidents involving verbal threats or verbal abuse by students against teachers were recorded at the school for the years - (a) 2005; (b) 2004; and (c) 2003? (4) How many incidents involving violence committed by a student against a teacher (please give details of each incident and the disciplinary action taken in each case) occurred for the years - (a) 2005; (b) 2004; and (c) 2003? (5) How many students were suspended from the school for the years - (a) 2005; (b) 2004; and (c) 2003? (6) How many students were expelled from the school for the years – (a) 2005; (b) 2004; and (c) 2003? (7) How many teachers at the school requested a transfer away from the school for the years - (a) 2005; (b) 2004; and (c) 2003? (8) Of the teachers who requested a transfer away from the school in the below mentioned years, how many did so either in part or in full because of concerns about violence and abuse at the school for the years - (a) 2005; (b) 2004; and (c) 2003? (9) How many teachers at the school received a transfer away from the school for the years - (a) 2005; (b) 2004; and (c) 2003? (10) How many teachers at the school resigned for the years - (a) 2005; (b) 2004; and (c) 2003? (11) Of the teachers who resigned from the school in the below mentioned years, how many did so in part or in full because of concerns regarding violence and abuse at the school for the years - (a) 2005; (b) 2004; and (c) 2003?

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] 3587

(12) How many different students were recorded truanting from the school at least once for the years - (a) 2005; (b) 2004; and (c) 2003? Mr M. McGOWAN replied: (1) The cost of wilful damage as provided by the Department of Housing and Works is as follows: (a) 2004-2005 - $19 641 (b) 2003-2004 - $17 625 (2) The Online Incidents Database commenced in July 2006. There are no comparable or reliable figures prior to that date. (3) The Online Incidents Database commenced in July 2006. There are no comparable or reliable figures prior to that date. (4) The Online Incidents Database commenced in July 2006. There are no comparable or reliable figures prior to that date. (5) (a) 148 suspensions were recorded by the Eastern Goldfields Senior High school's SIS data base pertaining to students in Years 8-10. (b) 113 suspensions were recorded by the school Eastern Goldfields Senior High school's SIS data base pertaining to students in Years 8-10 (c) 77 suspensions were recorded on the District Office suspension data base pertaining to Eastern Goldfields Senior High School Years 8-10. (6) (a-c) No students were excluded from the school between 2003-2005. (7) Separate records have not been kept for the middle school campus. However, the number of teachers who applied for transfer for Eastern Goldfields Senior High School in the specified years are as follows:

2003 2004 2005 13 13 13 Data source: Manual report from TES (8) Teachers are not required to indicate a reason for transfer. (9) The number of teachers successful in transfer from Eastern Goldfields Senior High School (not just middle school campus) in the specified years are as follows:

2003 2004 2005 6 1 3 Data source: Manual report from TES (10) The number of permanent teachers who resigned from Eastern Goldfields Senior High School (not just middle school campus) in the specified years is as follows

2003 2004 2005 4 7 4 Data source: Manual report from TES (11) Information is not available. When completing a termination form staff are able to tick a box outlining their reason for resigning. 'Violence or abuse' is not a listed option on the termination form. (12) The Department of Education and Training does not keep data specifically on truancy. DET collects data on unauthorised absences but is unable to separate truancy from other forms of unauthorised absence. EDUCATION - STATISTICS ON TEACHERS, STUDENTS AND SCHOOLS 2278. Mr M.J. Birney to the Minister for Education and Training (1) How many FTE male teachers were employed in State Schools in March 2007?

3588 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007]

(2) How many FTE female teachers were employed in State Schools in March 2007? (3) How many children were reported to have truanted from Western Australian Government schools in March 2007? (4) How many assaults (student vs student) were reported in Western Australian Government State schools in March 2007? (5) How many assaults (student against teacher) were reported in Western Australian Government schools in March 2007? (6) How many students in Western Australian state schools were suspended in March 2007? (7) How many students in Western Australian state schools were expelled in March 2007? (8) What was the total value of all maintenance work required at Western Australian Government schools identified, but not yet undertaken, in March 2007? (9) How many requests for school funding were rejected by the Minister in March 2007 (please give details of each refused request)? (10) How many complaints were received by the Education Department regarding Outcomes Based Education in March 2007? (11) How many adverse audits of school finances were completed in each Education District in March 2007 (please give details)? (12) What was the number of school performance audits completed in each Education District in March 2007, where performance effectiveness measures were - (a) qualified; (b) caused concerns for the Evaluation team; and (c) not met? (d) will the Minister provide details for (a) (b) and (c)? (13) How many teachers resigned per Education District in March 2007? (14) What was the current required number of teachers in each Education District and what were the actual numbers in each District in March 2007? (15) With reference to Disciplinary Proceedings, and according to Education District, in March 2007 - (a) how many teachers have had disciplinary proceedings initiated against them; (b) what number of these actions were on the grounds of sexual misconduct/abuse of a child; (c) what is the average length of time taken for each disciplinary proceeding; (d) how many teachers have been dismissed following a disciplinary investigation; and (e) what number were dismissed following child sex allegations? Mr M. McGOWAN replied: (1)-(15) Please refer to Question on Notice 1926. If the Member has a specific query the Minister will endeavour to provide a response. TRANSCRIPTION OF MEDICAL RECORDS 2353. Mr P.D. Omodei to the Minister for Health (1) Are any medical records from Western Australian public hospitals sent for transcription outside of Western Australia? (2) If so, where are they sent? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: 1. Yes. Medical Records from Royal Perth Hospital for Inner City Mental Health, Psychiatry and Cardiac Transplant Unit are sent for transcription outside of Western Australia to manage administrative workload. 2. The medical records are sent for transcription to NTS Transcriptions, 15 Byron Street, Kew, Victoria 3101. NOTE: No for all other WA public hospitals.

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 21 June 2007] 3589

HEALTH - INFECTION WITH GIARDIA 2429. Mr M.W. Trenorden to the Minister for Health I refer to the dangerous waterborne human pathogen, ‘Cryptosporidium’, more commonly known as Giardia, and ask, how many cases of human infection by Giardias have been reported in Western Australia in - (a) 2004; (b) 2005; (c) 2006; and (d) 1 January 2007 to 31 May 2007? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: Cryptosporidium is not a "dangerous" waterborne human pathogen. It is a parasite that causes an acute self limiting diarrhoeal disease that is only severe in immunocompromised individuals. Cryptosporidium is not Giardia, but a different organism. Giardia is also a parasite, but causes more prolonged offensive diarrhoea often associated with weight loss. (a) 2004 Cryptosporidium Parvum 120 Giardia Intestinalis 937 (b) 2005 Cryptosporidium Parvum 189 Giardia Intestinalis 747 (c) 2006 Cryptosporidium Parvum 231 Giardia Instestinalis 783 (d) 2007 (to 31 May) Cryptosporidium Parvum 339 Giardia Intestinalis 271 ______