Parliamentary Debates (HANSARD)

FORTIETH PARLIAMENT FIRST SESSION 2019

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Thursday, 4 April 2019

Legislative Council

Thursday, 4 April 2019

THE PRESIDENT (Hon ) took the chair at 10.00 am, read prayers and acknowledged country. STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS 2019–20 Budget Estimates Hearings — Statement by President THE PRESIDENT (Hon Kate Doust) [10.01 am]: Members, I have received a letter from the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations, which states — Dear Madam President 2019–20 Budget Estimates Thank you for your letter dated 19 March 2019 granting use of the Legislative Council Chamber for holding the Estimates and Financial Operations Committee’s hearings into the 2019–20 Budget Estimates. The Committee requests you advise the House the following information as part of the Committee’s consideration of this year’s estimates. (1) The hearings will be held in the Chamber from Tuesday 18 June to Friday 21 June 2019 inclusive. (2) The Electronic Lodgement System (ELS) will open on the day the Budget is released for Members to submit a reasonable number of questions prior to hearings. It will close at 5pm on Tuesday 21 May 2019. (3) The ELS will re-open when hearings commence on Tuesday 18 June 2019 for additional questions and close at 5pm on Friday 28 June 2019. (4) A Procedure Policy and timetable of hearings will be emailed to Members in due course. Yours sincerely Hon MLC Chair CHRISTCHURCH TERRORIST ATTACK — CONDOLENCE BOOK Statement by President THE PRESIDENT (Hon Kate Doust) [10.02 am]: Members, I remind you that the condolence book for the Christchurch terrorist attack is in the entrance foyer. If you have not already signed it and you wish to do so, I encourage you to sign that book. I understand it will be collected early next week and presented to the High Commissioner of New Zealand in Australia when she visits the Parliament on Tuesday. ROYAL PERTH AND BENTLEY HOSPITALS — RAINBOW TICK ACCREDITATION Statement by Parliamentary Secretary HON ALANNA CLOHESY (East Metropolitan — Parliamentary Secretary) [10.03 am]: I am pleased to announce that the mental health inpatient services at Royal Perth and Bentley Hospitals, which are part of the East Metropolitan Health Service, have become the first public health services in Western Australia to achieve Rainbow Tick accreditation. Rainbow Tick accreditation requires achievement against a set of nationally agreed standards that indicate of safe and inclusive services to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people in the community. The six standards are organisational capacity, workforce development, consumer participation, a welcoming and accessible organisation, disclosure and documentation, and culturally safe and acceptable services. Since February 2016, the Royal Perth Bentley Group has been working towards achieving Rainbow Tick accreditation by improving practices to promote inclusivity of patients, carers and staff who identify as being LGBTI. To achieve the standards for the mental health inpatient services at the two hospitals, an extensive education program, and policy and practice review was delivered across the two sites to promote and inform staff of practices that promote LGBTI inclusivity. The services utilised staff who nominated to be rainbow champions, along with lived experience representatives and LGBTI community members to support staff during the accreditation process. This contributed to healthcare providers having a better understanding of the diverse and unique set of challenges faced by LGBTI consumers and staff. In September 2018, the Royal Perth Bentley Group underwent a formal assessment against the standards, specifically in mental health inpatient services. In March 2019, the Royal Perth Bentley Group became the first public health service to achieve the Rainbow Tick, which is a significant achievement for the service and indicates a considerable benefit to its consumers and staff. The East Metropolitan

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019] 2013

Health Service board provided its support for the placement of a rainbow flag at the hospitals upon achievement of the Rainbow Tick. The rainbow flag demonstrates support and respect for the LGBTI community and any staff members identifying with this community. PAPER TABLED A paper was tabled and ordered to lie upon the table of the house. STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS Seventy-seventh Report — “2017–18 Budget Cycle—Part 2: Annual Report Hearings” — Tabling HON ALANNA CLOHESY (East Metropolitan — Parliamentary Secretary) [10.06 am]: I am directed to present the seventy-seventh report of the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations titled “2017–18 Budget Cycle—Part 2: Annual Report Hearings”. [See paper 2560.] Hon ALANNA CLOHESY: The report I have just tabled advises the house that the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations conducted hearings with eight agencies about their 2017–18 annual reports in November 2018. The theme of the inquiry was key performance indicators. The committee asked 50 agencies questions about the frequency of their key performance indicator reviews, the frequency of their target reviews, when their KPIs were last reviewed and whether any new KPIs had been developed, given the machinery-of-government changes. Conceptually, the committee explored the meaningfulness of KPIs. Machinery-of-government changes to agencies’ financial, human resources and administrative systems were also explored. Another focus was the government trading enterprises’ statements of corporate intent. The committee, when reflecting on its internal processes for conducting the inquiry, noted that its themed approach was successful, particularly in highlighting a lack of focus on the part of two government trading enterprises with respect to their statement of corporate intent responsibility. The committee was satisfied with the conduct of its hearings, the level of attendance and member participation. Both government and non-government members asked a wide variety of questions and a significant number of subject matters were canvassed. Overall, 55 agencies were asked 469 questions. The committee extends its appreciation to those members who participated in the hearings and the assistance given by ministers and their agencies. The 2017–18 budget cycle is now complete and closed. JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON DELEGATED LEGISLATION Fifteenth Report — “Annual Report 2018” — Tabling HON ROBIN CHAPPLE (Mining and Pastoral) [10.08 am]: I am directed to present the fifteenth report of the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation titled “Annual Report 2018”. [See paper 2561.] Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: The report that I have just tabled advises the house of the key activities of the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation for the 2018 calendar year. The committee scrutinises instruments made under statutory delegation and determines whether the instruments are beyond the scope of the delegated power or otherwise in breach of the committee’s terms of reference. The committee continues to scrutinise a large volume of delegated legislation. In 2018, 377 instruments, including 161 regulations and 121 local laws, were referred for scrutiny. The committee also tabled eight reports. In seven of those reports, the Parliament was asked to consider whether eight instruments should be disallowed, and all eight instruments were disallowed by this house. Motions for the disallowance of delegated legislation usually do not proceed in Parliament if satisfactory undertakings are given to the committee. The committee recommends disallowance only as a last resort. During 2018, the committee received nine departmental and 30 local government undertakings. The committee encountered one set of amendment regulations that abrogated a fundamental common law principle. Another set of amendment regulations was unreasonable and had unintended consequences. Satisfactory undertakings were received in both instances. Section 3.12(2A) of the Local Government Act 1995 excuses minor procedural errors in local lawmaking. That section has been operating for over two years, and the report discusses examples of occasions on which the committee has and has not applied the section. Five local laws breached their empowering acts due to procedural defects that could not be excused under section 3.12(2A). The committee also encountered a local government’s prescription of modified penalties in the absence of a general penalties clause; the complications that can arise when a local law simply adopts the text of another local law by reference; and a systemic issue in extractive industries local laws that gives local governments the power to enter onto private land. The committee trusts that the matters noted in this report will assist persons and bodies making delegated legislation to understand the committee’s processes and the issues identified in previous instruments. I commend the report to the house.

2014 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019]

DISALLOWANCE MOTIONS Notice of Motion 1. Shire of Dowerin Local Government Property Local Law 2018. 2. City of Bunbury Cats Local Law 2018. 3. City of Bunbury Parking and Parking Facilities Local Law 2018. 4. City of Rockingham Bush Fire Control and Bush Fire Brigades Amendment Local Law 2018. 5. Town of Victoria Park Dog Local Law 2018. Notices of motion given by Hon Robin Chapple. POLITICAL DONATIONS Notice of Motion Hon Alison Xamon gave notice that at the next sitting of the house she would move — (1) That this house acknowledges the increasing public concern about the role large corporations play in influencing public policy, recognises the urgent need for donations reform at both the state and federal level, and calls on the government to urgently increase the transparency of political funding by — (a) abolishing third party donations; (b) instituting real-time reporting of gifts and donations; and (c) banning foreign donations. (2) That this house further calls on the government to work through the Council of Australian Governments’ processes to ensure that financial disclosures to both federal and state bodies uniformly reflect the highest standards of transparency. HARDSHIP UTILITY GRANT SCHEME Motion HON COLIN TINCKNELL (South West) [10.15 am] — without notice: I move — That this house notes that the McGowan government’s tightening of the hardship utility grant scheme has removed an essential form of government assistance offered to families already struggling to meet everyday living costs. The Labor government has increased utility charges for gas, water and electricity and these increases, together with the limiting of HUGS, has caused unnecessary financial stress to Western Australian households and their families. The main purpose of this non-government business motion is to work with all sides of Parliament to find solutions to the looming crisis that we have on our hands in Western Australia. As parliamentarians, it is the duty of all of us to try to find solutions to this problem. We would like this to remain a small problem and not become a massive problem. However, I feel that this will become a massive problem unless we can get positive action from this government. To start off with today, the problem in a nutshell is that the government has increased utility prices. The number of applicants for the HUGS program has increased. The government is running out of money to pay for this program, due to the increased demand, and is making it extraordinarily difficult for people to gain access to these funds. We need to find solutions to this problem. In 2017–18, electricity prices went up by $169, or 10.9 per cent. Payroll tax increased from six per cent to 6.5 per cent. We know that payroll tax makes it difficult for small business people to employ people. Vehicle registration costs went up by 5.5 per cent. In 2018–19, electricity prices went up by seven per cent—they went up by 10.9 per cent in 2017–18 and by seven per cent in 2018–19. That is the crux of the problem. Water prices went up by 5.5 per cent; gas prices went up by 1.9 per cent; public transport costs went up by 2.1 per cent; vehicle registration costs went up by five per cent; and the emergency services levy went up by 10 per cent. The cost of many things has gone up. In our community, we have the haves and the have-nots. It is not always people on low incomes who find it difficult to pay their bills. Sometimes they are people who have reasonable incomes, but have overcommitted from previous times, when the state was booming. It is a combination of factors, but the figures show that the major cause of people applying for HUGS assistance is energy prices. I will talk a bit more about that as I go through. People living above the twenty-sixth parallel can claim as much as $962 through HUGS, and below the twenty-sixth parallel the maximum is $581. It is not an immense amount of money. It is a one-off payment, and it is done for a specific reason.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019] 2015

Most utilities and agencies have a hardship payment system. The Water Corporation is a fantastic example of how it should be done. The “Water Corporation Financial Hardship Policy for Water Services” states — We understand customers experiencing financial hardship find it difficult to pay their account. All customers, regardless of circumstances, will not face judgement and will be treated with fairness, integrity and compassion. We work with our customers to ensure they are listened to and understood, so we can proactively assist them in managing their bills and accessing the support they need. We are committed to working with our customers to find an appropriate, realistic and effective payment solution. Water Corporation staff have had training. The Financial Counsellors’ Association of Western Australia provides hardship training for agency staff. Somewhere in the region of 40 Water Corporation staff have gone through that program. Kleenheat staff have also gone through that program, as have staff of other water providers. Perth Energy staff have also been through that program, but I note that Synergy, which is most affected by this hardship payment—80 per cent of HUGS applications are for electricity or gas charges—has not sent any of its staff to that hardship training. The facility is available, but the management of Synergy has chosen, at this stage, not to take up that support. I commend the government for putting that program in place. As I mentioned before, this problem has come about because there was a boom in Western Australia. It is quite obvious that a lot of people overcommitted. They were on high wages, and may have had great jobs at the time, but they have either lost those jobs or their wages have gone down, or they have found other jobs that are not as highly paid. One way or another, they are overcommitted. People were buying homes that they probably could not afford. I hate to think what would happen to these people, and others, if interest rates were to rise in the next year or two. This problem will only get worse. We are talking big numbers. Driving home last night, I was listening to radio 6PR, and people were ringing in about their problems paying their bills. They were talking about the federal budget, but they were also talking about not being able to pay their bills. Let us get more into that issue. We believe that Synergy has been referring customers to HUGS too liberally. Maybe the government also believes that, because it made changes that are not working well for the people really in need, and have made it very hard for people to access the program. I will talk a bit more about that later. I am not the only person who has brought this issue up. Articles about Synergy and its bills were published in The West Australian in July and November 2018, and another article appeared in the same month about more people being hit by poverty in Western Australia. The National Debt Helpline says that the number of calls have skyrocketed, and have reached epidemic proportions in Western Australia, where the number has doubled. I am not just talking hot air about this; this is a real problem that everyone acknowledges. The government raised HUGS payments for a time, but the money ran out. Let us look at some of the reasons for this. As I said before, Synergy has been referring customers to HUGS too liberally. The system needed to be tightened, but it is not the sole reason. There is undoubtedly a correlation between the 10.9 per cent and the seven per cent increases in the base charges. Yesterday, Synergy was taken before the Economic Regulation Authority over, to put it simply, rorting and overcharging customers. That will play out over the year and, hopefully, it will be sorted out very quickly. I will mention some possible solutions to this problem. Increases in electricity charges have been severe, so one solution would be to cut electricity charges and other household costs. Our party has put this to the Premier for close to six months now, especially since we found out that the goods and services tax situation was improving, and iron ore royalties were increasing. We brought to the Premier’s notice—I am sure he knew this—that low-income families and others in financial strife are in desperate situations, and that would help them a great deal. At this stage, that has not happened, but I hope it is part of the government’s short-term plans. That is the first solution that could happen. If we do not increase electricity charges, we need to reduce the cost of living in general. I mentioned all the other things that have gone up in price—increasing household charges and the cost of living. Many people have difficulty asking for assistance, because HUGS is a last resort, and that is the real crux of the issue at the moment. Fiscally responsible people want to get help before they are engulfed in debt. However, with the changes that the government has made to HUGS, people now have to wait 180 days, or six months, to qualify. That is two or three power bill cycles. These people have applied for HUGS because they are desperate. It is not as though they need the money tomorrow; they need the money yesterday and today. That is what HUGS is designed for. It is there for emergency relief, so how can we make people wait six months before they qualify? That has to change. I am not suggesting that we necessarily increase the HUGS program, because the government has already done that, but we must make sure that utilities such as Synergy do the right thing and do not take advantage of the scheme. Synergy has been referring people to HUGS when it should be running its own hardship program, as the Water Corporation and other utilities do. Synergy needs to be running a successful hardship payments system, but it is not doing that, and we can only imagine the reason. That is the main crux of the problem here. As I said, by this time, these people are already in extreme financial difficulty. I have talked about the change in the hardship utility grant scheme from 1 July. That is not too far away for us, but it is too far away for some people who cannot pay yesterday’s bill and may have their power disconnected. I have

2016 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019] heard that this program will be made even more difficult to access. If that is the case, it is a disaster waiting to happen for households all over Western Australia. We cannot allow that to happen. We have to work together as a Parliament to find solutions. I mentioned that the Water Corporation has a great attitude towards its customers. I implore Synergy to have the same attitude and take up that hardship training and look after its customers in a similar mode. As I mentioned before, different providers have different programs for delinquent bills, and people who are suffering. The Water Corporation has a fantastic system to help cater its bills to best suit customers. Synergy has a reputation for referring people to financial counsellors unnecessarily and to apply to HUGS when they are not in financial hardship. People have not even got into financial hardship, yet it seems that Synergy—I understand that the government believes this as well—is referring customers unnecessarily. The Water Corporation has seven different options and payment alternatives before suggesting customers apply for HUGS. We would love Synergy to have that; it should be better equipped to handle and accommodate financial stress. As I mentioned, Water Corp staff have been through this training and they are ready to assist people who are going through a problematic time. This is the crux of the matter. I have brought up this matter to find solutions. I am asking the government, the opposition and the crossbench to work together to find solutions. It is very hard for me, with the resources available to me, to know all the different solutions that will be available. It is clear that we need to lower the increases in all utility charges. The number of HUGS applications has risen. I am not suggesting that we throw more money at the scheme, but that we keep up the funding and make it easier for people who are in the position to qualify. I understand that people will always try to rort the system, but there should be a system in place that clearly defines that. The people who are desperate for this money should not have to wait six months—180 days. That will not work for them. They do not apply for HUGS because they could have a problem in a month or two; they apply for HUGS because they have a problem now—yesterday or last week. We do not want to see those people on the streets because they have been kicked out of their house. We do not want to see their kids getting into trouble with the law. We do not want to see that social decline that comes when people have major economic problems. We are used to seeing that sort of social decline in certain suburbs in Perth and some rural areas, but this problem will flow into all suburbs of Perth. The government has to respond to this need. We know we are going through a hard time. I do not want to hear the government mention in its reply the previous government’s financial performance. That is not an excuse. It has been in government for two years now. Part of this problem is of its own making, and some of it has been created over many years because people have overcommitted. We have a leadership issue and we need the government to lead the way and work with the rest of Parliament to find solutions; and, when those solutions come to this house, I believe it will find support from members. I hope that the government has real answers to some of these problems. This is an issue that has been going through my mind and I hope that it is not true: is the mentality that if people are poor now, they will still be poor in six months, or is this designed to give the government six months’ respite from having to pay out through HUGS? It is a pretty cynical statement. I hope that it is untrue. I hope that the government is trying to find answers to this problem. It is not an easy problem and it needs to be solved. There is no getting away from the fact that this financial year, power prices have gone up by another seven per cent, after previously going up by 10.9 per cent; water prices have gone up by 5.5 per cent; gas prices have gone up by 1.9 per cent; public transport costs have gone up by 2.1 per cent; and vehicle licences have gone up by five per cent. We have known for a while now that we will do well from the GST distribution. We have known for a while that iron ore royalties are coming in pretty well. We know that a commodities boom is just around the corner and it is already starting to show. The jobs have not started to flow yet, but they will come. This problem may be around for only a year or two, but we need to address it now. We cannot afford to just say, “We tried that, but it didn’t work.” The responsibility of government and parliamentarians is to find solutions to problems. That is why we get paid. That is why we are in this place—to find solutions for the public of Western Australia. It is our number one responsibility. When people are in need, just like the people who apply to HUGS, we should not make it harder for them. Hopefully, we will have these solutions today. HON TIM CLIFFORD (East Metropolitan) [10.36 am]: I rise to support the sentiment of member’s motion that we need to address the issue of the hardship utility grant scheme and utility prices in this state. Given where we are after two years of the current government, we are still looking at an issue that is prevalent in the community. We have 360 000 Western Australians living in poverty, which is 14.5 per cent of the total population, and another 150 000 in this state are at risk of poverty. Over the last two state budgets, there have been increases in electricity prices due to the goal to meet full cost reflectivity. Unfortunately, many of the most vulnerable people in society are not shielded from those costs, regardless of their situation. Research into expenditure by WA households on utility charges has shown that the rate of growth of energy poverty for certain cohorts, such as single parents and older single people, has been significant. There are issues in the federal space, because the federal government is not looking at increasing the Newstart allowance or supporting low-income earners, and at a state level, the government is not looking at addressing the need to carve out a huge cohort of society that is getting crushed by the increases over the past couple of years. There has also been an increase in residential electricity disconnections from 9 774 in 2015–16 to 15 935 in 2016–17. Synergy’s disconnections increased from 8 069 to 14 109. This is the highest number of disconnections by

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019] 2017

Synergy since the Economic Regulation Authority started reporting. That is quite significant. It indicates that we are in a bit of a crisis and we need to address it. People are trying to stretch their incomes as far as they can. The honourable member is right; we are at the end of a boom. We are seeing a casualisation of the workforce. It is harder for people to get meaningful work hours. The cut in penalty rates has affected many people across this state who relied on those extra funds to pay utility costs. As I said, the cost increases across the board have led to many people struggling in this state. I really hope that the upcoming budget will address what is going on in that regard, and also the issues relating to the Water Corporation. I was at a forum late last year and I listened to someone from the Water Corp explaining the measures it has taken to support low-income earners—people who are facing difficulty. The Water Corp goes to the nth degree to help these people. It is a measure that Synergy should be looking at because it is really important. It is better to support these people and get them through the hard times so that when they get back on their feet, they have a way of paying back any debt that is in arrears, ensuring that they can keep the lights on for not only themselves, but also their extended family and their children. I take my hat off to the Western Australian Council of Social Service. It has been a strong advocate for addressing the issue of energy poverty in this state. It has consistently impressed in its budget submissions that HUGS was never a solution for ongoing hardship; it was meant to be a one-off payment to get people through, but more and more people are relying on it. We need to get creative and be more flexible in that space, and we need to work with all parties to ensure that we can address the scourge of energy poverty. We have seen a growing number of people getting hurt. We need to ensure that we can address the overall number of people in that situation. We know everyone who is on a pension card or who receives any sort of benefit, so why do we not look at these people as a cohort to ensure that they are protected from cost-reflective prices? These people are on the books; we know how to target them specifically. Why do we not look at the people who are living in hardship? These cost-reflective prices are going up. Someone living in one part of the city can afford to install solar panels on their roof and reduce their energy costs as a result, but a pensioner in another part of the city may not have the funds to knock the edge off those costs by installing a solar system on their roof. We need to look at these things and we need to ensure that we address them. I am hoping that the upcoming state budget will include a measure to address that. I am hoping that those in the federal space look at those commitments to address this issue because it is a nationwide issue; it is not just a WA issue. Recently, I was looking at a personal story in a WACOSS submission on the Economic Regulation Authority’s draft amended “Financial Hardship Policy Guidelines—Electricity and Gas Licences”. It cited one story relating to David and Gary. It is an indication of the situation not only faced by these people, but also in which thousands of people in this state find themselves. It states — David was unable to pay his electricity bill at his public housing apartment and the electricity was disconnected. David does not have the capacity to pay the debt owing on his Synergy bill and has decided to live without electricity. David now spends all day at his neighbour’s house as his house is dark, he can’t run a fridge, have hot showers or cook food. This has pushed David’s neighbour Gary into financial hardship with his own utility bills due to the increased consumption. Gary has since begun accessing assistance from our medical and counselling services as the burden of providing essential services to his friend and neighbour is beginning to effect his mental health We can see from this story that this could be anyone and we can multiply it by the thousands. It is a ripple effect. It is affecting so many people in this state and we need to address it. HON RICK MAZZA (Agricultural) [10.44 am]: I deeply empathise with people who have to go through the hardship utility grant scheme to cover off a utility bill. I am sure that it is distressing for any low-income family that is hit with a $500 or $600 electricity bill to go to HUGS to try to get some relief. As far back as July 2017, an article appeared on PerthNow about the rising number of applications to HUGS—rising from 10 266 in 2015–16 to 27 000 in 2017. The cost of HUGS had risen from $3.4 million to $11.4 million. I am sure that later figures would be even higher. To throw more money at HUGS is not sustainable. The government is limited in the amount of funds it can throw at HUGS. We are trying to treat the symptom and not the cause. The cause is the rising cost of electricity, in particular. When the Labor government came to power in 2017, the Treasurer was quite open about the fact that we had to reduce the subsidies on electricity, warning that the cost would rise by around 27 per cent in the forward estimates. That is what has happened. A lot of people started to suffer as a result. We have to look at why our power costs are so high. One of the reasons is the monopoly generator that we have in Western Australia—that is, Synergy. The only generator that households and small businesses can get their power from is Synergy. Big industry is able to shop around, with Western Power and Bluewaters, and there is competition in the market for the price of electricity that it pays. Hon Alannah MacTiernan: I think you’re talking about a monopoly retailer, aren’t you? Hon RICK MAZZA: No, I am talking about a monopoly generator. When it comes to the generation of electricity used by households and small business, I am quite sure that Synergy is the monopoly generator. The minister can correct me later if I am wrong. That is how I understand it. There is no competition in the generation market for domestic households. Consequently, we are stuck with a monopoly generator.

2018 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019]

In today’s The West Australian is the headline “Synergy ‘gouged’ clients for $100m”. The article states — WA’s economic watchdog has accused State-owned power provider Synergy of gouging customers up to $100 million by charging prices that were higher than reasonable for more than a year. Releasing the findings of a long-running investigation, the Economic Regulation Authority said yesterday it would seek to have Synergy punished by launching action … Power prices could be brought down by allowing competitors to enter the generation market and, on top of that, allowing retailers to enter the market, the same as we have done with gas. Competition is one way of bringing down electricity prices. I know that the Greens always bang on about renewable energy and that sort of thing—solar and wind. Hopefully, the wind blows and the sun shines and we can get some energy! I am not against a mix of renewable energy in the generation market, but there is no doubt that we still need coal and gas-fired generators in order to keep a reasonable price in our generation market. It is really about managing it over time. I am sure that as technology improves over the years, we will see more renewable energy within the generation market, but that needs to be managed so that pensioners are not freezing in their houses in winter because they cannot turn on the heater. We need to look very closely at allowing competitors to enter this generation space and ensuring that we are able to produce power at a reasonable rate; otherwise, we will be stuck with people needing to go to welfare groups such as HUGS to pay their bills. That is what we should not have. It all gets back to the cost of generation in the market. I would not say that Synergy was the be-all and end-all either. I asked a question without notice earlier this year about the outages in Mullewa. The Mullewa area experienced 414 outages between 1 February 2014 and 31 January 2019. That is a significant number of outages. I had phone calls just before Christmas from people telling me that the town of Mullewa was without power. I cannot see why in this day and age Mullewa cannot have a standalone power system—a solar battery system with a diesel generator backup or something like that—so it has consistent and reliable power. Having this one great big monopoly of Synergy generating power, using Western Power’s poles and wires and being the single energy retailer is one of the reasons that we are suffering with the prices we have now. I am not going to point the finger at this government. This is something that has been developing for a long time through successive governments. There has not been a focus on providing for competition. Commerce competition in Australia provides the best prices and services for people and in this space we do not have it. If we are to solve some of the issues of people in hardship and sustain an affordable power system, I feel we have to look at competition in the market. I am not against renewables. In fact, I would like to get off the grid one of these days and use a solar and battery-powered system. However, at this stage it is something that we have to monitor very, very closely to make sure we have a mix of power and competition in the marketplace and that the generation of power and delivery to households is at a reasonable rate so people are not receiving huge bills that they just cannot pay. HON DIANE EVERS (South West) [10.50 am]: I take the opportunity to speak for the Greens, as well as Hon Tim Clifford—I was pleased with everything he had to say—on power and renewable energy. Western Power generates the electricity and Synergy is the retailer. I agree that Western Power is the majority producer of our power in this state, but in addition we have a lot of renewable companies starting up and applying to produce more energy. What slows the process down is bringing in the generators of renewable energy to actually provide that power. Our old, slow, archaic way of thinking that we have to keep it as it is because we have to keep the people employed digging up coal is slowing us down from reaching that time when we can be fully renewable. That time is not far away. Although we scoff at the idea of having to have the sun shining or the wind blowing, we also have wave energy, which one day will come back as an idea here. We also have tidal energy and geothermal energy. There are endless ways that we can produce energy that does not require burning fossil fuels. What is interesting is a member said that one day the price for renewables might come down. Recently the price has been shown over the life of the infrastructure to be cheaper for renewables than it is for coal and for gas, even without taking into account the carbon pollution they put out. One day this country will put a price on carbon again and those costs will have to be figured in. Everybody outside of this room is figuring this out, but we sit here and still say that we have to use coal. Before members bag the Greens for being a little bit more progressive than the rest of us in here, have a look at what is happening out there with the insurance companies, consultants and accountants. The whole industry out there is advancing fast, and we sit in here and listen over and again to what we call debate and get nowhere. Come on! Wake up! Speed up! The future is happening around us and we are sitting here letting it pass us by. HON ALANNAH MacTIERNAN (North Metropolitan — Minister for Regional Development) [10.53 am]: I was hoping to give the opposition the opportunity to speak so we could address the issues, but, clearly, it is playing another game. That is okay. Several members interjected. Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: Yes, and they do.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019] 2019

I thank Hon Colin Tincknell for raising this issue and certainly for raising the issues of affordability. The hardship affecting parts of our community is an issue that deeply concerns us, as they concern the member. I think, as both Premier McGowan and Minister Simone McGurk have said many times, it is deeply important that we try to address the problem and that we do not just provide the money. Hon Rick Mazza made the point that we cannot just keep handing out money; we need to solve the problems. Certainly, part of the problem, I agree, is trying to bring down electricity prices. We do believe that we will be able to do that. The domestic gas reservation—that very, very inspired policy of Alan Carpenter and the Carpenter government—has made a very real difference. It is one of the reasons that our electricity prices for domestic and commercial applications are considerably below those of the eastern states. We understand that we have to move on all those fronts. We say that the scheme that has emerged has become highly problematic. It has become highly problematic because anyone regardless of their financial circumstances could make an application for a grant and get it. All they had to do was let their Synergy bill go unpaid for a couple of months. Synergy would put in the application and regardless of what a person’s financial circumstances were they could get a grant. That is not a good situation. We also believe that it is absolutely critical to help people develop the skills to manage their money. We understand that there are certain subsectors of the community—one in particular is Newstart. Newstart has not had a decent increase for many years. The level of money that people on Newstart are being expected to live on is completely unrealistic, so we know there are some structural problems. It is also important for us to understand that we need to ensure that people need to get help to deal with these financial situations. We have sought to bring back a financial counselling program that will help people manage their finances by increasing their skills in managing during difficult circumstances. We saw a massive increase in this and felt that more rigour was needed to be put around the scheme. As the Premier said at the time when we made some of these changes, ministers would be able to apply for hardship utility grant scheme grants, so we thought we needed to tackle this. Hon Colin Tincknell pointed out that some other utilities, such as Water Corporation, have better practices. I think this was part of the concern with regard to Synergy. As soon as there was a couple of months’ debt, Synergy would put in the application for HUGS on behalf of its customer to pay the debt. We have now sought to put some more rigour around the system to ensure that the utility has a much bigger role in engaging with the customer. It is really important to understand that with the 180 days a person does not have to have their electricity cut off and they wait 180 days to get a grant. As I understand it, over that 180 days it is Synergy’s obligation to work with its customers to have a payment plan put in place for that six-month period. As I understand it, at the end of the six-month period, through the financial counselling process, if a person is not a concession cardholder and is still in hardship and cannot pay their bill at the end of the 180 days, but they have not been without electricity for 180 days, a financial counsellor assesses the person’s circumstances. If the person is seen to be genuinely at risk, they receive the HUGS grant. One of the positive things coming out of this process is that broader help is being given to people. Seeking that assistance and going to a financial counsellor has, in many of the case studies that we have been presented, identified other problems that people are having and got them in contact with services or programs that could help them re-establish their life. We are going to be changing the scheme, as members understand. It was noted in the Government Mid-year Financial Projections Statement that additional money will go into the budget that I think will take effect from 1 July this year. Concession cardholders will also go through that financial counselling process, which will cost us extra money. It is not being done to save money. We are doing that because we can see the personal advantages gained by people who go through this assessment process. We have put additional money into the budget so that we can expand that same assessment service to the non-cardholders. There is no suggestion at all that people have to wait 180 days before they get any assistance. That 180 days is the time in which Synergy is now required to—quite properly—work with its customers and deal with a bill. At the end of that process, if there is still a problem and people need to access the hardship utility grant scheme, an assessment is done. I understand that is done by Anglicare WA at the moment—I am looking to my adviser for assistance because is it not in my portfolio. I understand that the arrangement with Anglicare will potentially be extended. We absolutely understand the importance of this issue and we hope that we get a commonwealth government that will tackle the issue of the Newstart allowance because many of the people on this allowance are in the most difficult of situations and have not had an increase in their payment for six years. Effectively, the amount that they are getting is eroding. It is widely accepted, even by the Business Council of Australia, that it is at an unsustainable level. We need to deal with those structural issues. We are trying to help solve the problem. Of course, we all want to bring down energy prices. We desperately want to do that. As I said, courtesy of the domestic gas reservation policy, we have got ourselves into a better situation. Some of the members were a bit confused about who generates power. Western Power is not a generator. Western Power is a poles-and-wires outfit by and large, with a bit of battery and a few other things, but, basically, it is a transmitter. I know that Hon Rick Mazza said that Synergy is a monopoly generator, but that is not true either. Synergy is a monopoly retailer for the domestic market that has not been made fully contestable. Hon Rick Mazza: What I said is that Synergy is a monopoly generator for the domestic market. Industry can shop around between different generators, but when it comes to households and small business, they can only get their generation from Synergy.

2020 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019]

Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: I sought to get some clarification on this. My understanding is that under the original model of electricity reform, which was a really positive thing done by the Gallop government, we divided the market into four. In the metropolitan area and the south west interconnected system, generation was one entity and it was contestable. We put a cap on government-owned generation to take into account the existing legacy assets at the time of reform, such as the Muja power stations and the other assets that we had. But government was not going to be involved in new generation; that was going to be done privately. The monopoly provider of poles and wires was Western Power, and then there was Synergy. The idea was that over time that would become more and more contestable. The previous government never felt comfortable with electricity reform and re-merged Verve Energy, the holder of the legacy generation assets, with Synergy. My understanding, however, is that Synergy does not necessarily receive its power only from Verve. It receives power from other private generators such as wind farms, for example, which are major contributors to our grid. The wind farms in the midwest in particular are major contributors that feed into the system. Synergy is a monopoly retailer, not a monopoly generator. In an ideal world, this would all be made contestable. We have a problem in that these are government or community-owned assets and it is important that we do not necessarily see that wiped off because it would affect the taxpayers as well. If we were to lose value in parts of that market, it would impact on those government assets and our ability to do the redistributive stuff that we need to do. I also point out that Mullewa is in Horizon Power’s area. I am pretty sure it is outside the south west interconnected grid. The member is quite right when he says that there needs to be more creativity. We are beginning to see it emerge and, indeed, many people are arguing that the renewable hydrogen industry that is coming on board may be part of the solution for some of these remote applications, whereby electricity is generated by solar by day, and the excess can be stored by way of hydrogen and then used at night to power the power stations. A lot of work is going on around those possibilities and we have to become more decentralised in terms of generation. I want to reassure members that Minister Simone McGurk is very committed. We understand that people have financial difficulties, but our view is that we have an obligation to not just hand out money, but also work with them to solve their problems, to help to manage their limited funds and to ensure that their lives improve. HON PETER COLLIER (North Metropolitan — Leader of the Opposition) [11.08 am]: I thank Hon Colin Tincknell for bringing this motion to the house. The Liberal Party most definitely supports the motion. My point in waiting was that because Hon Colin Tincknell brought forward the motion, I wanted to find out what the government response was. That is eminently sensible. It happens all the time. Hon interjected. Hon PETER COLLIER: No, that happens all the time; sorry. The member has been here long enough to know that we wait for a government response. That is all I was doing. I was not playing games. I was looking for a government response. I am not going to exchange anymore on that. At the outset, if there is one issue that has captured the imagination of the entire nation more than anything else, particularly over the last decade or two, it is electricity charges and climate change in an overall generic sense. That is, of course, because it is something we are confronted with, and it has impacted on everyone. We could safely say that it has cost three Prime Ministers their jobs as a direct result of their not getting it right. Western Australia was faced with a similar situation; I certainly was personally. When we came to government in 2008, I took over as energy minister and the most compelling challenge we had initially was that the cost differentiation between the production and distribution of electricity compared with what we were recouping from tariffs was, at that stage, 85 per cent. I received the preliminary report that the previous government got and it showed an 85 per cent differentiation. I got the final report in January 2009 and it showed 115 per cent. We cannot live in a fool’s paradise. We cannot ask people to pay the lowest energy costs in the nation, which we were, and then expect people to cut down on energy use. It just will not happen. What actually happened is that we had to increase energy costs when in government. I was lambasted for it, as is the current government at the moment. Hon Alannah MacTiernan: Do you realise why we didn’t increase it in the previous government? Hon PETER COLLIER: The Labor Party did not do it for 10 years. Hon Alannah MacTiernan: Do you realise that that was the condition that was actually put on by — Hon PETER COLLIER: Do not tell me that it was an agreement. Hon Alannah MacTiernan: It was that you put on disaggregation. Hon PETER COLLIER: Let me pick up on that. I do not even need the interjection because it is rubbish; it is absolute garbage. Hon Alannah MacTiernan interjected. Hon PETER COLLIER: The minister should listen to this: the previous government made it conditional on our agreeing to the disaggregation that prices would not go up. Hon Alannah MacTiernan interjected.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019] 2021

The ACTING PRESIDENT: Order! Hon PETER COLLIER: That is exactly what happened. It was evidently wrong because what happened as a result of disaggregation is, of course, that the cost of prices would not remain stable. We then had to increase electricity costs to get to a point at which we were even remotely cost reflective, but also getting that cultural change in the community and getting people to be a little more receptive to the fact that they could not keep their air conditioners on 24/7. As a result of that, it had a direct impact, particularly on those who were least able to pay, and that is where the hardship utility grant scheme came in. As a government, we significantly increased HUGS. In our first budget, we allocated $2.062 million for HUGS. In our last budget, we allocated $17.508 million for HUGS. That was to assist those who were least able to pay, being mindful of the fact that so many people, those who are marginalised in particular, are struggling day to day just to put food in front of their children, let alone pay for their electricity costs that were going to increase at such a significant rate. We were very mindful of that. The current government came to power, having lambasted us for increasing electricity costs for the previous eight or nine years. What did it do? It not only absolutely accelerated utility costs across the board—in fact, $735 for the first two years and another $517 in the forward estimates, which would impact significantly on those who really struggle—but in addition, made it much more difficult to access HUGS. The minister has gone through the raft of ways that the government has made it more stringent to get HUGS. The government introduced a requirement for HUGS recipients to enter into a payment arrangement for at least 180 days to address the outstanding debt before a grant is provided. If an outstanding bill is still more than $300 but less than $1 750, or $2 500 if a person lives north of the twenty-sixth parallel, one may be eligible to apply. In addition, if we go by the budget papers—because that is what we must do; that is what the government says it will spend its money on—HUGS will fall to only $10 million in 2019–20. That is a 60 per cent decrease in HUGS, if we are to believe the budget papers. All members have to do is look at the budget papers. This is the sleight of hand. As I said, in 2009–10, it was $2.06 million; in 2016–17, it was $17.508 million. Under the McGowan government, it went up to $25 million, being mindful that it had poked the bear. It realised that people really were struggling. They were struggling significantly. Of course, in 2018–19, the figure goes down to $16 million and for 2019–20, 2020–21 and 2021–22, it is down to $10 million. I do not want to hear any bleating from members opposite that they are forward estimates and they will change. Every time we ever talked about changes to the forward estimates, the howls of disapproval from members opposite was extraordinary. On the government’s own figures from its own budget, HUGS goes from $25 million to $16 million to $10 million. No-one is going to get any assistance. Only two men and their dogs in some of the suburbs that are really struggling will qualify for HUGS. That comes from a so-called socially conscious government. This is at the same time as nine of its ministers did not mind taking $5 300 extra money by double dipping on their cars. Members opposite are telling people who struggle to put food on the table every day that they have to tighten their belts and that they cannot get HUGS anymore. Mind you, they do not mind pocketing $5 300. Why on earth they did not just pay that is beyond me. In addition, the Economic Regulation Authority puts out an annual performance report on energy retailers. It has done so for the last 10 years. Members should have a look at that and see what impact it is having on those who are really struggling in our community. The 2017 report found that disconnections among electricity customers soared more than 50 per cent in the 12 months to 30 June, from 9 774 to 15 953, with state-owned provider Synergy accounting for much of the rise. It states that Western Australia went from having the lowest rate of disconnections for electricity users in 2015–16 to the highest in Australia last year. Residential customers on instalment plans jumped from 48 057 in 2015–16 to 64 219 last final year; and from 45 343 to 61 551 among those supplied by Synergy. The latest snapshot released in January 2017 found that hardship levels among electricity users were the highest since the agency began taking records more than a decade ago. People are really struggling. One of the ways those people have been able to come to terms, to a degree, with those financial challenges is through HUGS. The ERA report for 2017 identified that. This is not political-speak; it is fact. I add also that the ERA annual report, which is always completed and tabled in January, was not tabled for last year. It is now April. Yet again the government of openness, the government of transparency, is left wanting. Where is that ERA report? The figures I gave everyone are for 2017. We find that for report after report, by stealth the government tables it in the dead of night or will not table it at all, or tables it after debate on a bill has started. Here is an ERA report on the impacts of electricity price increases from 2018 that has still not been tabled. Yet again, in terms of openness and transparency this government has been found wanting. All I am saying is that if it wants to be perceived as a government of openness and transparency, it needs to come clean. We all know that people are out there struggling. The government should not reduce HUGS grants by any stretch of the imagination. People are really struggling with paying their electricity costs. HON COLIN TINCKNELL (South West) [11.18 am] — in reply: I thank all members for their contributions to the debate. Hon Tim Clifford talked about general poverty in the state. He acknowledged the same things as I pointed out in my discussion. He also talked about a creative attitude to this; that we need to look at creative ideas to solve these problems. He mentioned in particular a program targeted at hardship customers. That is a great idea. The government should certainly look into that. We know who those people are and that they are facing extra hardship at the moment, so a program to support them in some way is a great idea.

2022 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019]

Hon Rick Mazza mentioned that low-income families are struggling and said that the number of people on HUGS has increased from 17 000 to 27 000 over two years. He also mentioned the lack of competition in power generation, which we know now is retail power—in other words, Synergy. He also talked about striking a balance between renewables and traditional power generation. Hon Diane Evers talked about energy options. Of course, the government’s response from Alannah MacTiernan — The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon Dr Steve Thomas): That would be Hon Alannah MacTiernan. Hon COLIN TINCKNELL: Hon Alannah MacTiernan—thank you very much, Mr Acting President. I know that this matter does not come within her portfolio responsibilities, so I appreciate her contribution to the debate. I agree that we cannot keep just plying more money into HUGS and that we should be finding out why HUGS is accessed so much. The program needs to be improved. It was good to hear that. We also heard that Newstart has not increased in many years. I acknowledge that. Not too many people in this place would disagree with that and we will need to continue to talk to another government about that. Hon Alannah MacTiernan also suggested that a financial counselling program is needed. That is a very good suggestion. It was also good to hear that more rigour will be applied to the system with Synergy. I do not know whether it needs help or whether it has just been ignored, but it was good to hear her say that. She also mentioned the 180-day payment plan and that Synergy is working closely with customers, so I really look forward to that working a lot better than it has in the past. Hon Alannah MacTiernan also mentioned that concession customers will get help, which is great. However, she said nothing about energy prices coming down, which was a little disappointing because 80 per cent of people who access HUGS do so due to the price of energy. Hon Peter Collier talked about energy price rises and the history of HUGS, and that it rose from $2.6 million to $17 million under the previous government. He also provided a bit of history about electricity charges and wondered when the government would table information from the Economic Regulation Authority. In the short time that is available to me, I want to point out that this is an issue. I believe the government has made some very good moves to address this matter but more is needed. Hon Tim Clifford brought a great idea to the house: money is still needed for HUGS, but we cannot overlook the fact that most people access HUGS because of high energy prices. The government has raised energy prices by close to 28 per cent in the last two financial years. That needs to be looked at. We know that some problems have been addressed by increases in our GST share. We also know that there is more money in the coffers because commodity prices are going up. We need to invest in the people of WA into the future. People are our future. We need to support them when they are down. The government needs to continue to show that leadership and address this problem. Thank you very much. Motion lapsed, pursuant to standing orders. DISCRIMINATION Motion HON KYLE McGINN (Mining and Pastoral) [11.23 am] — without notice: I move — That this house — (a) acknowledges that whilst we are at the most progressive point in history for acceptance, discrimination still plays a damaging role in society; and (b) recognises the discrimination in sport that athletes face on a professional and amateur level and acknowledges the McGowan government’s commitment to change. Normally I would be proud to move a motion in this house during private members’ business; unfortunately, I am not proud to be bringing this matter to the house today. Although I understand how important this matter is, I am upset that in 2019 I am standing here still talking about discrimination in sport. A few high-profile incidents have occurred recently that no-one has been able to ignore. We cannot ignore them and Australians have not ignored them. The backlash has been pretty powerful. I am sure that in the debate today, we will touch on the effects that social media has had in changing the face of discrimination. I am sure that some of the examples I provide today will give members something to think about. Today, I hope to see something that I do not normally see in this house; that is, all of us in agreement. I think everyone agrees that discrimination is a problem in sport. I am intrigued to hear members’ thoughts on this matter. In my view, discrimination of any kind has no role in society. I believe that more than at any other time in history, we are stamping out discrimination and are being very progressive in this space. However, I recognise that discrimination is still occurring every day in sport, in workplaces, on the street and on TV. As a young fella growing up in Darwin, I played rugby league. Thank you, Mr Acting President—rugby league is probably not big on this side of the country, but it has a massive following in Darwin and on the east coast. Go Melbourne Storm! When I was young, racism was not at the front of my mind. I do not think racism is at the front of any kid’s mind. Most kids just want to be kids and get on with their lives. Everyone on my team was a teammate. There was no difference between us, whether a person was Aboriginal, Chinese, Fijian or Kiwi. It did not matter. I look back on an incident that, many years later, I now find to be quite disturbing. I was selected to

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019] 2023 represent the Northern Territory for the Casuarina team. It was a proud moment. We got to travel to the remote town of Nhulunbuy and a lot of fundraising was done to get us there. When we arrived there, we were billeted with families who had children playing in the competition or with families in the community who wanted to take on a kid. All the teams from Darwin, as normal, were a multicultural mix—Aboriginal, Fijian, Kiwi; you name it, they were all there. Darwin is a multicultural melting pot. Being billeted to families in the town saved us a lot of dollars and it was great to get to know local families and learn about their hardships. Nhulunbuy was a mining town so it was quite an experience—the different life there. Without mining, that town has disappeared, so mining was quite important. The teammate with whom I was to be billeted was an Aboriginal boy called Addy Boy. I had played rugby with him in many teams most of my childhood. When we were picked up at the airport, our billet left to have a chat with the coach. There was a bit of an issue and we did not understand what was going on. All of a sudden Addy was taken to another house, and a white teammate and I were billeted together. Thinking back on all those little things, which I did not notice at the time, I realise how that tiny little incident would have affected my mate Addy. That tiny “I don’t want an Aboriginal in my house” comment has an effect on a child who does not understand what is going on. It is natural for children to not understand that. We are not born racist; it is built into us as we grow. I grew up respecting all human beings regardless of their gender, skin culture, culture, disability et cetera. Kids learn from their parents and other role models. If we as role models, leaders and parents do not set an example, what can we expect to happen? The flow-on effect is discrimination throughout the rest of their lives. I feel that discrimination in sport has come a long way, but I feel also that this has only just started to truly turn. Women’s , AFLW and NRLW are finally starting to get some of the limelight that they have always deserved. If I were to reflect on my experience as a sports’ spectator, it is easy to say that five years ago, I did not watch any women’s sport but today I thoroughly enjoy watching woman’s cricket. How good is the quality of our Aussie women’s team! How good is that! Let us be honest, our men’s team is going through a rough patch— sandpaper gate, anybody?—but the Aussie women have been on fire, with the likes of , and , who are amazing role models for young women who want to take on professional sport in the future. They have been hanging around this code for a long time, waiting for Australia to pick up on it and finance it and support it. A lot of them do it voluntarily. It is not paid, unlike the men’s sport, which has infrastructure and all the necessary things in place. The women in this sport have to fight to make sure they can get on the centre stage. I was trying to avoid getting this one on Hansard, because I know how passionate Western Australians are about their footy teams, but I am very proud to say I am a staunch Adelaide Crows fan. I support both the AFL men’s team and the AFL women’s team. Hon Robin Chapple interjected. Hon KYLE McGINN: There are no rocks around here! Excellent. First and foremost, I need to give huge congratulations to the women’s team for their win on the weekend. The AFLW Adelaide Crows have gone on to take their second premiership. Two out of three is not bad, in my opinion, and I think they have many more wins to come. We ended up winning 10 goals three to Carlton’s two goals six. To my brother-in-law, Marty, sorry, mate—Carlton cannot quite cut the mustard in either of the divisions, but hang in there, please. In all seriousness, the hardship these women have faced in trying to get on the stage with the men needs to be recognised. The men have an established code that has been around forever and a day and brings with it support structures, finance and a fan base. I can proudly say that last year in Western Australia, we had the biggest ever attendance at an AFLW game, when 41 975 fans went to the first AFLW game at Perth Stadium. How great is that. All the talk that no-one will watch women play football—what a load of rubbish! It was shot down very quickly, with 41 975 fans attending. However, we now have a bit of a challenge on our hands, because Westerns Australians are very competitive by nature. The AFLW Grand Final Adelaide saw 53 000 fans stack in to watch that game. That was absolutely amazing. I want to make a quick mention of Erin Phillips, the of the AFLW Adelaide Crows team. She also won player of the match. That was after she had been injured halfway through the third quarter. That is how good she was. She went on to win most valuable player in the league. I want to read a comment that she made during her speech that I think is very powerful. I quote from an ABC News media statement — “My dad obviously played footy and when I was born people felt sorry for him because he didn’t have a son to play footy some day and carry the Phillips name.” Erin, I think you have proved that you do not have to be a boy to be a superstar in the AFL arena. It shows how far we have come that there is a platform for someone like Erin to get up there and say to the haters, “I’m not going to cop it.” It is absolutely brilliant. Turning to the men’s side of the AFL, we have another big discrimination issue. It has always been there, and it rears its head every now and then. It tends to come from men who have been around the game for a long time and hold positions of power. I am not sure how many members in this room support Collingwood. I expect it would be very few. Several members interjected.

2024 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019]

Hon KYLE McGINN: Oh, no! They are right in front! They are about to cop an absolute serve. Hon : That explains so much—it really does! Hon KYLE McGINN: I would not be surprised if there were a few supporters in the other chamber but I was hoping for none in this one. There is one man who has had a career of shameful acts, and he simply apologises, says it makes him feel a bit sick, waits for it to die down and blow away, and then slides back in. I am talking about Eddie McGuire. If members do not agree with me now, I hope that after a little recap on his history, that will change. In just a little google search, I found plenty of stuff that made me angry about Eddie. I originally wanted info on the recent disgusting comments he made while commentating in the last AFL men’s round. To even think it is okay to talk in that way at a pub would be considered unacceptable, but this was a bloke who is telecasting on live TV, around not just Australia, but the world. He should feel sick and ashamed, and the backlash he got from the many Australians who were upset about this was great to see. Of course I am talking about the comments he made around the coin toss at the Sydney–Adelaide game. If people did not see it, I suggest they look at what happened. Eddie has a habit of saying what he thinks, and he thinks it is okay to say what he wants. It is a disgrace that someone in a position of power would think they can get away with making off-the-cuff comments that have ramifications for people’s lives and family circles, and, in this case, for people with disability. Eddie stood himself down after making those comments. That is a bit of a shame for the AFL. I think he should have been stood down immediately by the AFL. He made the comment that Cynthia Banham, who is a double amputee after having survived a plane crash, should have tossed the coin better. I thought it was a pretty good coin toss. Try standing out in the middle of a field with a crowd like that and tossing a coin—it does not matter who you are, I am sure it is quite difficult. But that was not enough for Eddie. He had to go on and make the comment that people should train for a week before they go out and toss the coin. His talk about this lady was quite downtrodden. It was unacceptable. But the backlash came out, and it came out thick and it came out fast, including from the Sydney Football Club. The Sydney Football Club was upset about it and said it is a disgrace and cannot be accepted in the game. Eddie had to stand himself down the next day. He should have been stood down by the AFL. It was an absolute disgrace. In 2013, if members remember, Edie McGuire also made some disgusting comments about Adam Goodes. We saw a Collingwood fan turn around and use the word “ape” towards an Indigenous player. That is an absolutely disgraceful comment to make. The word “ape” has a very painful history and should never be used towards an Indigenous Australian. It is disrespectful and disgusting. This man of privilege said that Adam Goodes should be used to promote King Kong the musical. That was just days after this incident had taken place. This is a man who is supposed to be representing a football club and the AFL. He does not just condone his comments but makes them even worse. You are a shame on the game, Eddie McGuire. You should be ashamed of yourself. I think anyone who is a member of the Collingwood Football Club should write a letter and ask for his resignation. He is a disgrace. He constantly makes comments like this and gets away with it. I have probably hours on end of information to talk about Eddie McGuire but my time is going to run out very quickly. I want to mention another thing Eddie did that is also a disgrace. I refer to an article in the Herald Sun in 2016 titled “Eddie McGuire joked about drowning a woman on Triple M radio”. Is he taking the micky? Seriously? He joked on Triple M radio about drowning a woman. That was said during a charity fundraiser for the Big Freeze. He joked about how he would pay 50 grand for Caro Wilson to stay under the water. That is an absolute disgrace. He used his platform to speak hate speech. That is terrible, it is shameful, and it should be stamped out as quickly as possible. There are other incidents of discrimination that people would be aware of in Western Australia. Liam Ryan from the West Coast Eagles was a victim of social media. It is easy for a keyboard warrior who is sitting at home and probably does not even know how to kick a football to get on social media and call someone a monkey. It is absolutely shameful and a disgrace. There was a great show of camaraderie between the GWS Giants and West Coast at Perth Stadium when they stood together after the game as one. West Coast has gotten behind Liam Ryan absolutely well and truly. I think that is excellent. Eddie Betts, who is from Kalgoorlie, also suffers from a lot of racial discrimination, again on his Twitter feed. It is a disgrace that keyboard warriors are harming our game and doing shameful acts. We need to make sure that we call it out and stamp it out. In the little time I have left, I want to say, on a positive note, that some great women’s sports are happening in the goldfields. I give a big shout-out to the WABL Giants. They have a women’s team in the goldfields and they push very hard to make sure they are represented. They need sponsorship, and we have to make sure we get behind them. A lot of the men’s teams get sponsorship. We have to stop discriminating on the basis of commercial viability and start looking at the fact that if we can get women’s sports into the limelight, they can be as good, if not better, than the men. Just look at our cricket team. Talk about a sponsorship tool! They are brilliant. I also want to make a quick mention of the West Australian Football Commission. It is doing a fabulous job in the goldfields for girls’ football as well.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019] 2025

HON (South Metropolitan) [11.39 am]: I am very pleased to support the motion moved by Hon Kyle McGinn. What a great motion and what a great member of Parliament. Only a few weeks ago, he moved a motion on wage theft, and today he has moved a very good motion reminding us about the evil of discrimination and the need to support equality. I agree with the sentiments of the motion, and with what Hon Kyle McGinn said, that we are living in the best time as a nation. I will go back into history a bit. Had I come to Australia in 1898, rather than 1998, I would have been subjected to the Chinese Immigration Restriction Act 1889, which placed a restriction on the number of Chinese persons a ship could carry, to the ratio of one Chinese person per 500 tonnes of any ship trying to berth in a Western Australian port. Because I would have arrived in 1898, I would not have been subjected to the poll tax of £10 per Chinese, as the act to regulate and restrict Chinese immigration, 50 Victoriæ, No. 13, assented to on 28 July 1886, was repealed by the Chinese Immigration Restriction Act 1889 that I have just mentioned. However, I would have had another problem—passing the dictation test. I had some English education before I came to Australia, so back in 1898 I probably would have been able to string together a 50-word paragraph. However, that would not be the test. Section 3 of the Immigration Restriction Act 1897 stated — THE immigration into Western Australia by land or sea of any person of any of the classes defined in the following sub-sections of this section, hereinafter called “prohibited immigrant,” is prohibited, namely:— (a.) Any person who, on being asked to do so by an officer appointed under this Act, shall fail to himself write out, in the presence of such officer, in the characters of any language of Europe, a passage in English of fifty words in length taken by such officer from a British author, and to append his name thereto in his own language; I would not have passed that test. The only European language I can speak is English. Had I come to Australia in 1898, I would not have been able to get in. I then would not have been able to obtain two degrees at one of the top universities in the world. I would not have been able to have a legal career in this fabulous state. I would not have been able to have been trained in the Royal Military College at Duntroon to become an officer in the Australian Army. I would not have been able to serve as an Army Reserve officer on an overseas deployment. We heard a bit about that in December 2018. I would not have been able to serve my local residents as a local councillor, and I would not have been able to stand here and serve the people of Western Australia. I can do all this because we live in modern Australia. We not only sing in our national anthem of those who have come across the sea, and our boundless plains to share, but also practise what we preach. Australia has changed so much in the past 100 years. The Australian people love fairness and believe in equality. They encourage inclusion and encourage others to have a go. I feel lucky to live in modern Australia, and that my children can grow up in modern Australia. Nonetheless, that does not mean that we do not have any discrimination in this nation. We have heard, in the very meaningful and important words of Hon Kyle McGinn, that we see a lot of cases of discrimination. As we say in the Australian Army, there is always room for improvement. Discrimination can come in many different forms. It can be race discrimination, sex discrimination, age discrimination, discrimination against people with a disability, discrimination against people of the LGBTI community, and many other forms. Discrimination is bad for our nation and our community, as well as those who are subject to discrimination. To name just a few, and to echo the sentiments of this motion, we have witnessed just recently the abuse of AFLW player Tayla Harris, and our very own Liam Ryan, and not very long ago the abuse endured by Nic Naitanui and Adam Goodes, who retired from the AFL due to sustained racially motivated bullying and attacks. I express my personal support to those fine sportspeople. We should enjoy the essence of the sport, rather than viewing it through the prism of race, gender or any other factor. In conclusion, Hon Kyle McGinn’s very fine contribution is a timely reminder for all of us, and I am sure members will join me in support of his motion. We should all take a stance against discrimination—call it out when we see it and when we hear it. Lieutenant General David Morrison once famously stated that the standard you walk past is the standard you accept. We, as leaders of our community, have a duty to support equality and fairness and make our own contribution to the effort to stamp out discrimination. HON PETER COLLIER (North Metropolitan — Leader of the Opposition) [11.47 am]: I would like to stand in support of this motion, and thank Hon Kyle McGinn for bringing it to the house. I think it would take a very brave person not to support this motion. We are a very rich, multicultural society in Australia, but unfortunately discrimination remains rampant, as it always has been. As I have mentioned before, I was a Kalgoorlie boy, born and bred. I grew up with the Wongi people, and I loved them, but even in those days, back in the 1960s and 1970s, Aboriginal students were isolated from us. They were taught in a donga out in the playground. They did not have the same playtime or lunchtime as we had. It was extraordinary. Fortunately, we have moved on from then. Having said that, I was very insistent when we were in government that I would do everything I possibly could to break down those barriers, particularly with the original Australians. That is just one component of the previous government. I will touch on the first component of the motion—that is, acceptance that discrimination still plays a damaging role in our society. It does, and one of the biggest issues in our education system is the fact that there is still a huge disparity between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students. The attendance and graduation rates for Aboriginal

2026 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019] students are still appallingly low. One of the issues in our schools in particular is ignorance of Aboriginal culture. I think it would help enormously if we could develop an awareness of Aboriginal culture in our education system so that non-Aboriginal students can understand the beauty, dignity, history and heritage of Aboriginal people. As Minister for Education, I introduced the Aboriginal cultural standards framework. We were the very first state in the nation to introduce the framework. Every school in the state now has an Aboriginal cultural standards framework embedded in the curriculum, so students are learning about Aboriginal culture. That is a wonderful thing. In addition, I introduced the elders in residence program, whereby Aboriginal elders go to schools and teach students about Aboriginal culture. The inaugural elders in residence were Sue Gordon and Robert Isaacs. I am not sure who is in that role now. It was going to be expanded, but then we got turfed out. I would like to think that the government has retained that program and I would be disappointed if it has not. Another program was KindiLink in 37 Aboriginal kindergartens. The whole point of that exercise was to try to embrace the Aboriginal family within the community and have early intervention in literacy and numeracy, speech therapy and parenting workshops for Aboriginal families. It has been very successful. I understand that the current minister has retained the program. I would be disappointed if it had evaporated. Finally, the Partnership, Acceptance, Learning, Sharing program was done through the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. I hope that program has been retained, even though the department has now gone, unfortunately. The PALS program was being run in 120 schools when I started as minister and it was being run in 540 when I finished. Schools were asked to look into Aboriginal culture. They could perform a play, make a video recording or do a whole host of things, and the awards were presented each year. We used to present them in the courtyard at Parliament House. A lot of current members went to those presentations, usually in October or November. That is a tapestry of programs that worked towards embracing Aboriginal culture in schools in the hope that, just perhaps, it would plant the seed in the minds of non-Aboriginal students, or those who have been brought up in homes that are not as accepting and tolerant, that Aboriginal culture is wonderful. I really like Aboriginal culture. We have to start young. Early intervention is pivotal in anything, but particularly in changing the shape and attitude of a nation about discrimination, particularly towards the original Australians. We have to start in school. That is why the programs that exist now are testament to what the previous government did. I would like to think that they will be retained and enhanced by the current government and those who come after it. Sport is referred to in the second part of the motion. I say to Hon Kyle McGinn that there is nothing there that I disagree with. Again, it is very important to me. I am a proud, lifelong supporter of the West Perth Falcons. At the moment, I am its vice-patron and an honorary member. I have been a West Perth supporter all my life and a proud Eagle. In August 2012, one of our players was suspended for making a racist comment to a player in another team. I found out what the comment was and, suffice to say, it was not flattering. I spoke to the coach and said that I would like to speak to the player. The player was suspended, but I did not think that that would solve the problem, because it was punitive. He just got suspended for a week and he did not really learn anything from the experience. I would have liked to have had a chat to this young man and explain to him why what he said was so inappropriate. As members can imagine, it was at the very offensive end of the spectrum. He refused to meet with me. I did not take that personally. I know that he just thought: why bother? He just wanted to get on with his footy, have a week off and go to the pub and then come back and play. I did not meet with him, but I thought I would do something about it, so I met with the West Australian Football Commission. We then started the Aboriginal culture awareness program. I met with all the West Australian Football League team captains and the administrators at Subiaco Oval and said that I would like to do some Aboriginal awareness training for the coaches, boards, committees and, ultimately, players so that it filters right through. They embraced it enthusiastically. It was terrific. I spoke to all the WAFL clubs individually. It gradually filtered through. Unfortunately, now that the Department of Aboriginal Affairs has gone, that program has gone. I think it is a shame on the government. That program could have a meaningful impact. Quite frankly—I use this cliché quite frequently—it is like putting a bandaid on a broken arm. The program lasted for only two years and then we got turfed out and it was lost. In addition, Netball WA got on board. I knew the then CEO at Netball WA and they were really enthusiastic. They wanted to do the same thing to teach young players the value, history and heritage of Aboriginal culture, so that when they go out there, they understand that saying these things about their Aboriginal teammates is not just inappropriate, but really cuts to their culture. It really gets to them as individuals and diminishes them. No-one in our community, particularly Aboriginal people, should feel diminished. That is why the cultural awareness program that we developed through the WAFL and Netball WA worked. It was doing some good things. I am really disappointed that it has been stopped. I hope that Hon Kyle McGinn can twist the arm of Hon Ben Wyatt and resurrect it, because it was doing good things. The WA footy commission and Netball WA were on board, but now it has gone. That is a shame. Finally, I will finish with one of my last passions—tennis. I am very disappointed that we will not have any women tennis players in Perth next January. Having said that, I think what has happened with the ATP tournament is the right way to go. We will get some sensational players here. We will get Nadal here as a result. That is great, but it is a shame that it is at the expense of female tennis players. I spent three years coaching on the female tennis tour.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019] 2027

I have been intimately involved with elite female tennis players. One of the greatest experiences of my life was to work at the elite level. They have tried so hard for generations to get pay equity. When I was on the tour in the 1980s and 1990s, they used to get half the pay of the men. They finally got pay equity. One of the girls I was with was Dinky Van Rensburg, the former number one player in South Africa. She was a top 20 player, but she could not play because of the inequity in her nation. Fortunately, apartheid came tumbling down in 1990 and she was allowed to play. All I am saying is that it means a lot to me, it means a lot to Western Australia and it means a lot to people in Perth. They love to watch the Hopman Cup. In real tennis terms, the Hopman Cup is a bit of a hit and giggle. There are no points but it is a bit of fun. It is a good prelude to the Australian Open. Now we will have a really good tournament with two, three or four of the top 10 players in men’s tennis, but by goodness, I would love to see two, three or four top women players here as well. Guys, if you do not jump on the bandwagon soon, you will lose it. Hobart has one and Sydney has one, but we have nothing. It really disappoints me. It would be good to have two tournaments—a male tournament and a female tournament—side by side. If we are talking about discrimination, that is all well and good, but let us see the government put its money where its mouth is and fund a top-class women’s tennis tournament in Perth. HON (East Metropolitan) [11.57 am]: I thank Hon Kyle McGinn for bringing this motion forward. I think motions that allow for a large degree of consensus in the house are worth something. We do not always have to bicker and fight over every point that arises. Sometimes if we can demonstrate consensus in the house, we can set an example for the rest of the community. I thank the member for bringing forward the motion. I am very pleased to support it. I also endorse the comments that have been made by Hon Pierre Yang and Hon Peter Collier about the importance of support and the need for inclusion. Like Hon Peter Collier, I would dearly love to see a women’s tournament come to this state. From my understanding of what the Minister for Tourism has been saying, it is the McGowan government’s intent to make sure that that happens. What I would like to focus on in the motion relates perhaps to the community level. Sport does not just happen on television or at Optus Stadium or RAC Arena; it predominantly happens in the community at council parks and facilities. Having young children who have come through the community sporting stream, I have had some experience of that, particularly with football. I think this is perhaps reflective of broader society. Over time, discrimination in all its forms—racism, sexism and treating people with disabilities less favourably—has gone from being an overt thing, with people being very open about it and expressing their views publicly, to a covert thing. It has become more insidious in its covert nature. There is more innuendo, whispers and sly comments; people are not outwardly yelling racist statements from the sidelines. It is more of a player-against-player situation in which someone whispers some nasty thing in the ear of another player and the victim of that comment reacts. I have heard those comments from club officials, parents and others—sneaky little comments about the Aboriginal family or the Asian family in the community. It is horrible. I obviously come from a privileged white background. I do not have to deal with that level of racism at all. Sometimes I am seen by those who receive this racism and are subjected to these horrible comments as being part of the club because of the colour of my skin. It must be a terrible burden to be a person of colour and live in a society in which people still whisper those things to each other and make sly comments, and that carries on. Unfortunately, it is reflected in sport. It is more obvious at the elite level, when people comment on social media and cameras are pointed at people. That gets picked up. This everyday stuff—the stuff that happens on a Saturday morning down at the local park—is most crushing for a young person who wishes to be judged on their effort, on how well they play the game and for their sportsmanship or sportswomanship or however we want to describe it, but instead get judged by the colour of their skin or gender. This kind of discussion in this chamber is good because it sends a message to the community that it remains unacceptable to engage in that kind of behaviour. Not only should it be driven behind closed doors, but it also should be driven out of our society altogether. Sport plays an important role in our community. It allows us to be active and healthy, and it provides us with social engagement and opportunities to meet new people. In many respects, it is the melting pot for our community. When I was in Japan a couple of weeks ago, I was asked a question by a Japanese minister. Japan has a society in which the community does not allow immigrants from anywhere. It has a very homogenous society when it comes to race. The minister was asking how we can have so many people from so many different backgrounds. I instantly said that one of the things that brings us all together is sport, which is important for social cohesion. When a player from a different background gets on the field or when female participants get on the field, we become tribal about our sporting team and we try to forget the racial, gender or other differences and how important it is to unify that. As part of the great social experiment of the Australian nation, sport has been one of those elements that has driven greater social cohesion. We come across instances in which it points the other way and we see racism. I remember the time when Nicky Winmar pointed to his belly and the colour of his skin and how important and transformative that was for our community for that to be spoken out about. I remember when Michael Long stood up to the racial abuse that he received from Damian Monkhorst and how important it was when Damian, who did not seem to understand the impact that it was having on Michael, realised and came to the understanding that his words hurt and that they were dangerous and difficult for Michael Long. I recall his reaction and how he built on that and how important that was for the broader understanding of how Aboriginal people are perceived within society, not just

2028 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019] in sport and when those sorts of incidents occurred. I remember when Chris Lewis used to play for the West Coast Eagles. Unfortunately, a common comment amongst members of my broader family was that he was a good player but he was a dirty player. I think that was a reflection on his Aboriginality. We did not realise the degree to which Chris Lewis had to face racial slurs when he was just playing the game that he loved. It was not until Dermott Brereton publicly said that he was ashamed of the things they used to say to him on the field, and how bad that was. To Dermott’s credit, he came forward and made those comments. That was important. Chris Lewis’s legacy can be viewed differently when we see the number of times he was suspended and what he was putting up with on the football field, which was never acceptable. I think we are now moving towards a society in which we see women as being more capable and equal in their contribution to elite level sports, particularly in sports that have been dominated by men, such as the team sports of AFL, rugby league, rugby union — Hon Peter Collier: Cricket. Hon MATTHEW SWINBOURN: Yes, cricket—absolutely. Obviously, tennis is a hobby of Hon Peter Collier’s. We had the “battle of the sexes” in the 1970s and the demonstration by Billie Jean King that a man could be beaten by a woman. It seems so absurd these days that a middle-aged man could challenge the elite of female tennis, boldly saying that he could never be beaten by them. I am not very good at tennis at any level but the thought of facing someone like Serena Williams would petrify me. I would stand there shivering. She is so powerful. It is brilliant to see the way she plays the game, as she has for a long time. She is as equal in the tennis pantheon as Roger Federer or those other players. Her gender is not an important factor in making that assessment of her worth. I appreciate Hon Kyle McGinn bringing this motion to the house. It is important that this house reflects on those things and expresses its support for a society free of discrimination on the basis of sex, racism, gender or disability. I commend the motion to the house. HON (North Metropolitan) [12.06 pm]: My wife and I support and watch sport of any kind, even to the extent that my wife watches golf, but I draw the line at that. When looking at this motion, unfortunately, we need to focus in some way on the negatives to highlight the positives. I want to draw the distinction between the two and the absolute optimum that we should be aiming for and the negatives that occur within sport. In researching this motion, I googled “brats in tennis”, just to see what sort of names would pop up. I was quite surprised that a young lady’s name came up first. Her name is Yulia Putintseva. I was quite surprised that her name came up first. I have known of and watched a lot of brats in tennis and it would not have been the first name that would have sprung to mind. I read the article and I was quite surprised that she received this nickname—there may be other reasons—mainly because of her actions at the 2019 Australian Open. Apparently, when she shook hands with her opponent, her handshake was very limp. She was quite upset with the crowd when she walked off because obviously she did not get a great deal of support. It surprised me greatly because I have seen quite a number of matches by Nick Kyrgios and Bernard Tomic. We would have to be embarrassed as Australians to look at those two and what they have done during their careers to earn the name of brats in tennis. It seems to me that unfortunately women seem to be held up to different standards. That is a shame because there are so many great women within sport. Then we turn to what I see as a great story occurring at the moment, and that is the rise of Ashleigh Barty. This young lady is a wonderful role model. I would love to put on the record my congratulations to her for winning the Miami Open. She has now moved into the top 10 in the world and manages to be tough, hard and combative, but one would not see a greater role model within sport. Hon Matthew Swinbourn raised the prospect of playing Serena Williams. I agree that she is another magnificent lady in sport. It was a little shocking to me a couple of years ago when a comparison was made of the prize money for a particular tournament in which both men and women competed. Serena won that particular championship and received a grand total of $495 000, which is great. It is a fantastic amount. But Federer won the men’s competition in the same tournament and received $731 000. When looking at the arguments about why there should be a differential, there is some talk about how in women’s tennis they play only the best of three sets and men play the best of five, but they are both spectacles in their own right. I imagine that people would pay the same amount of money to watch Federer play as they would to watch Serena Williams play. It just beggars belief why there should be a differential at that high level that impacts on the young men and women moving into sport. I also looked at the recent phenomenon of the AFLW. As I said, my wife and I watch all sorts of sport. I remember watching the first games in 2017 and thinking that the skill levels of the AFLW players back then were not great. But of course, whenever people move up to a new sporting level, there is difference in skills. When the male players in the West Australian Football League move into the AFL, they bulk up and skill up. Obvious improvements are made. I watched the televised grand final of the AFLW in Adelaide and was absolutely amazed by the skill level of those ladies. It was great to see that people turned out in their thousands in Adelaide to watch such a great spectacle. One could not have asked for a more skilful game. Understandably there was a difference between the two sides, but the skill levels on display were magnificent. We might then consider the differences between what the ladies in that sport have to cope with compared with the men. The ladies are paid about $27 000—there are differences in pay but that is roughly what they are paid for a season—and the men, in general,

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019] 2029 are paid about $300 000. The ladies have to not only skill up, train and travel, but also, in most cases, have another job. The men would be just happy to have hobbies on the side because they do not have those other commitments. These are the challenges that we put before ladies in sport. I would just as likely go and watch a ladies’ game as a men’s game and admire the skill levels on display. I will not go into the next matter in great detail because time always beats me, but also because I am embarrassed to be a man when I talk about it. There was some recent controversy about a photograph in the newspaper of a female footy player and her kick — Hon Kyle McGinn: Tayla Harris. Hon MARTIN PRITCHARD: Yes, Tayla Harris. I think the headline was “The Kick”. When I saw that photograph, I was amazed at the feat of skill required to make that kick. I was totally embarrassed that some males responded online to that photograph in a different way. As I said, I will not go into it in great detail because it is a total embarrassment, but any men who made disparaging online remarks about that photograph should be absolutely ashamed of themselves. They are disgusting people. My wife and I enjoy watching many other sports. Cricket is one of them. I am absolutely in awe of people such as Ellyse Perry who is not only in the Australian women’s cricket team, but has also represented Australia in soccer. To watch those women play cricket is most exciting. When I played cricket, the best bowling that I could do involved spin, so I am very excited that Georgia Wareham has been introduced into the team. As a society, we need to do all we can to ensure that we admire the sporting achievements of both males and females. Anything we can do to promote that is important. We are doing a number of things at a state level that will have some benefit, one of which is to try to improve female representation in state sporting associations, because that sends the right message through the whole sport that there should be gender equality. A targeted participation program also encourages young females between 12 and 17 years of age to get active in sport. That also sends out the right sort of message. VenuesWest and the Department of Sport and Recreation are making a concerted effort to host and promote major women’s sporting events, including the Matildas at HBF Park. I encourage everyone who can go to get there. The grand final featuring West Coast Fever will also be held at RAC Arena. Let us support them. HON (East Metropolitan — Parliamentary Secretary) [12.16 pm]: I do not have a lot of time to talk and Hon Kyle McGinn would like to give a reply, but I will take a couple of minutes to say that first of all I support this motion wholeheartedly. It is really great to see debate from across the chamber. One would imagine that people would support this motion. I want to very quickly touch on some of the discrimination that occurs to women in sports. I think that a lot of that stems from our lack of adequate sporting facilities and female change rooms. Often we find in our community that females from local sporting clubs are forced to get changed either in their cars, on the sidelines or in the male change rooms. That needs to change. We need to invest in that area so that they get the same conditions that a lot of the male sporting clubs get. I am pleased to say that back in 2018 our government invested $250 000 a year to ensure we have suitable, female-friendly change rooms for our local female sporting clubs. When girls reach adolescence, we see a drop-off in numbers involved in sporting activities. Between nine and 11 years of age, they are quite active and really engaged. When they hit adolescence, which is between 12 and 17 years of age, those numbers drop off. We could make an assumption that the drop-off in numbers is due to a lack of proper facilities and change rooms. This investment does not completely fix the problem, but it goes some way to rectifying the situation and ensuring that more women get involved in sport. I am not overly sporty. That probably will not come as a shock to anyone. However, one of my favourite female sporting personalities is Sam Kerr. She is a fantastic role model for young women who want to get into sport—it is not just because her name is Sam. I wanted to get her name on the record as a great female sporting role model. I hope that one day we will not have to have these conversations about making sure sporting communities are inclusive. I thank my friend and colleague Hon Kyle McGinn for bringing this motion to the house. It is a timely motion, given that we have seen many media reports recently about discrimination in sports. HON KYLE McGINN (Mining and Pastoral) [12.19 pm] — in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions on the motion today. I thought it was a very good motion to debate and I was very impressed with all the contributions. Hon Pierre Yang, once again, spoke about equality and fairness. He talks about that every time he gets up and he is very passionate about it. His views are very well respected. Hon Peter Collier’s comments about ignorance regarding Aboriginal culture were very true, unfortunately. As Australians, I think we need much more education about it. Hon Peter Collier also made comments about the education system. If culture is embedded in that system and it flows out onto the sporting field, it will just go on and up. I think kids, no matter their age, always respect their coach and their teammates, and they follow what their teammates do. If we get that ignorance out of the system, we can go a long way to getting a better result in sports, at not just a grassroots level but also a professional level. Hon Matthew Swinbourn talked about community and sport. He was bang on. Being a father, he would understand exactly how hard that is. We need to monitor what happens on the sporting field and on the sidelines to ensure that kids are protected from that type of discrimination. I remember it when I was a kid and it is still happening today.

2030 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019]

Unfortunately, every now and then, we hear about a parent on the sideline who goes a little bit too far. That little bit too far needs to be stamped out completely—not just with an apology and a ban for a couple of games. It needs to stop. That was very well put by Hon Matthew Swinbourn. I picked up pay equality from Hon Martin Pritchard’s contribution. He was bang on. What is the difference between Serena Williams and Roger Federer? They are great tennis players with amazing sporting ability. The Hopman Cup showed that very clearly. I think it was packed every time they were on the court. When they finally got to play each other, it was quite a spectacle. Hon Samantha Rowe’s point about changing rooms was also very valid. It is something I hear from many sporting teams, particularly in the goldfields. We do lack changing rooms, which again goes back to what I said about infrastructure. Male players of these sports already have infrastructure in place and a process that is designed to get kids from outback areas and schools into professional sports. That channel is not designed for women in sport. I want to mention a story from my electorate, in the goldfields. It is a great story. It happened in October last year and it was reported on ABC news. It is about teenagers Jasmin Stewart and McKenzie Dowrick. They come from Kambalda, which is a very small town about 50 kilometres from Kalgoorlie. They are football players who managed to get picked up in the women’s Australian Football League draft. In a small regional town like that, it is quite a feat. I have no doubt that they would have been playing in difficult conditions and trying to get a game would have been very difficult, but they managed to make it. They joined a childhood friend Arianna Clarke who was recruited last year. The trio come from the outback mining town of Kambalda, six hours’ drive east of Perth, where football is the life in small towns. On the weekend, everyone gets involved in football. It is part of the community—bred into it. I quote the article — Ms Stewart said their upbringing in the outback had toughened them up—they learnt to hold their own against the boys because there was no competition for girls. My sister, who is not as well built as I am, played in our rugby union team when I was 14 years old. Rugby union is quite a physical sport and I remember that the front page of the paper had a photo of my sister when we were lifting her up in a lineout. It is probably the funniest family photo we have. She played in men’s sport because there was no female team. She gave footy away after that season because it was quite dangerous. The article continues — “I don’t think it was much of a disadvantage, playing with the boys made me tougher—made me a better footballer,” Ms Stewart said. That is the heart and soul of someone from a regional area. She took on a challenge regardless of what was in front of her. She went out and had a crack and now she is drafted. I thank everyone for their contributions on the motion. I appreciate it. Motion lapsed, pursuant to standing orders. DISALLOWANCE MOTIONS Discharge of Order Hon Martin Pritchard reported that the concerns of the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation had been resolved on the following disallowance motions, and on his motions without notice it was resolved — That the following orders of the day be discharged from the notice paper — 1. Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Regulation 2018 — Disallowance. 2. Shire of Morawa Cemeteries Local Law 2018 — Disallowance. HUMAN REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY AND SURROGACY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2018 Second Reading Resumed from 3 April. HON (South Metropolitan) [12.26 pm]: Once again, the government has prioritised the Human Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Legislation Amendment Bill 2018 as its top piece of legislation to be dealt with today, Thursday, 4 April 2019. At the outset, I have to say that I was very disappointed by the complaints I heard from the Leader of the House. I understand that the Leader of the House complained to the media this morning about the progress, or perhaps lack of progress, that has been made on this legislation. What particularly disappointed me about her remarks was the false suggestion that I have been repeating arguments during the course of my contribution. I was very disappointed to hear that because the Leader of the House is a person whom I respect. She has a lot of experience in this place and I believe she upholds the conventions of the Legislative Council that have been passed down from one leader to another, from both sides of the chamber—whoever happens to be in government. The Leader of the House, whoever they are, has always had a responsibility and I believe a respect for the conventions of the house. On multiple occasions in past Parliaments—this is the third Parliament I have been involved in—I have had to sit on the other side of the chamber and listen, at length, for many hours to speeches made by some current members

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019] 2031 opposite and some former members of the Labor Party. We had to do that. It is part of the process of the scrutiny of legislation that happens from time to time. I was therefore very disappointed to be criticised this morning by the Leader of the House about that, not so much because of the criticism, but more the fact that there was the false suggestion that I have been repetitive in my arguments that have been put forward. I draw to members’ attention, at the outset, that it was on 14 February this year when I first commenced debate on this bill, when the government first decided to bring on this bill for consideration. That was the first time the government decided to bring on this bill for consideration in this chamber. On that day I outlined for members a summary of the different themes that I would go through. I indicate to members and the Leader of the House that if they go back to those remarks and review the Hansard on that occasion, they will see that I have been systematically and chronologically going through each of those themes. There are still quite a number of themes to go, but the suggestion that they have been repetitive is false and can be demonstrated by a review of the Hansard, both the outline that was provided on that first day and the subsequent iterations of Hansard since that matter was debated. I remind members that the first day for this debate this year was 14 February. The matter then came on for debate on 19 February and then 21 February. During the month of March, there was a hiatus and this matter did not come on for debate. Then the matter came on once again this week, on 2 April, 3 April and, indeed, today, which is 4 April. That has been the chronology and the sequence of events. The suggestion that I have somehow been repetitive across the course of that debate is an entirely false statement, and I was disappointed by that. I indicate to members that the themes I have managed to cover so far include the genesis of the Surrogacy Act 2008 and what has transpired since 2009 when our laws were enacted. I have looked at the issues to do with the Western Australian Reproductive Technology Council, which has an obligation under the laws of Western Australia to table an annual report. We have looked at each of those reports, and to the extent that there have been some discrepancies in those reports, they have also been put on the record. I looked at what members said previously when this legislation first came into the Parliament of Western Australia and the competing views that were expressed at that time. I went on to indicate to members what the experience has been in other jurisdictions, particularly around our Federation here in Australia. I then made the case for criminal record checks. I asked members whether criminal checks were needed. Members will be aware that in my view the answer is yes. I cited a number of Australian cases to evidence the need for this and went on to quote from the remarks of the honourable Rob Hulls, who at the time was the Victorian Attorney-General, about the necessity for such things. Then we had a discussion about the need for extraterritorial application of our laws. Those are the themes that have been covered so far in a systematic and chronological fashion. Therefore, I want to get on the record early today that there has been no repetition of arguments across this debate so far. I might add that to the extent that there has been any repetitive behaviour demonstrated by any members of the chamber with this bill, the government has been tediously repetitive in its approach to this piece of legislation. I remind members that on 14 February, the parliamentary secretary misled the Parliament of Western Australia—something that still has not attracted an apology or an explanation. In the following week, on 21 February, the Minister for Health misled the public via the media, pretending that a report was not relevant—a report that at the time the government was hiding. We then had the spectacle on 19 March when the government said no to the Hon Tjorn Sibma’s reasonable request that it explain the basis of the alleged legal advice that it had. The government then belatedly decided to table the report on 21 March, after having 10 weeks to consider it. No apologies were provided. The government simply shifted from a deceptive approach to a bullying approach. Then we had the spectacle on 2 April when the government simply said a flat no to Hon Aaron Stonehouse. While all that was taking place, we had a situation in which, firstly, the government still had not tabled the review submissions, despite the fact that it indicated last year that that would be done on 14 March. Secondly, the government still has not provided a response to the review, nor has it provided the legal advice that it says it is relying upon. That has been the repetitive behaviour of the government, so it was a bit rich of the Leader of the House to cry to the media this morning about repetitive remarks when it is plainly clear from an analysis of the Hansard on those various days that a systematic approach has been taken. Hon : Has she called a point of order on you with respect to that? Hon NICK GOIRAN: No. I think that would be because it would end up being quite embarrassing. I move now to look at one element of the second reading speech that was read into this place by the honourable parliamentary secretary. For the purpose of this exercise at this time, I want to quote one sentence that the parliamentary secretary read out. In the second reading speech, she said — One benefit we expect to see following the enactment of this bill is that we may reduce the impetus … to travel overseas to create a family. It is a time-honoured tradition that the government can say whatever it likes in a second reading speech to justify the policy of the bill and why members should support it. That has been a longstanding practice, convention and tradition of this honourable place. However, simply because the government asserts certain things, it does not mean that those things cannot be challenged and scrutinised. I looked in particular at that sentence read by the

2032 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019] honourable parliamentary secretary, which indicates that this is one of the benefits that we might expect if this bill is to be read a second time, pass through the Committee of the Whole House and then be read a third time. According to the parliamentary secretary, on behalf of the government, this would be one of the benefits. It is important for the house to consider this suggestion—this assertion—that this would be a benefit. Members are presented with this situation: they can either agree with the status quo, which would mean defeating the bill, or, alternatively, they could agree to the proposal by the government, which would see some change in the law of Western Australia and which, according to the government, would attract the benefit referred to in the second reading speech. There is, of course, a third alternative. It is also possible for members to consider further amendments to the government’s proposal. Those amendments would obviously still need to be consistent with the policy of the bill. Nevertheless, it would be a third alternative. Members have three choices available to them at this time. As they consider each of those three choices and decide which one they will align with and put their name with—will they support the bill and see the reforms that the government is proposing; will they defeat the bill and allow the status quo; or, thirdly, will they come up with a variation, an alternative?—they need to weigh up the pros and cons of each of those different scenarios. Government members say that one of the pros for their approach, their option, is this benefit. They say that following the enactment of this bill, we may reduce the impetus for people to travel overseas to create a family. I find that very interesting, at the outset, because the government carefully chooses the words that it inserts into second reading speeches. The advisers and all the resources of government carefully considered what words to use in this second reading speech, and they decided to insert “may” into this particular line of the second reading speech. Why did the government and parliamentary secretary decide to choose the word “may” reduce the impetus to travel overseas to create a family rather than “will” reduce the impetus to travel overseas to create a family? I ask the parliamentary secretary to indicate to the house, in the fullness of time, when she delivers her reply to the second reading debate, why the government has said that the benefit of the enactment of this bill may reduce the impetus to travel overseas to create a family rather than will reduce the impetus to travel overseas to create a family. If that is one of the benefits, I, for one, would want something more sure, certain and concrete than a simple statement from the relevant minister or parliamentary secretary indicating that such a proposal may reduce the impetus for people to travel overseas to create a family. If that is indeed the allegation, suggestion or proposition by the government, then I encourage it to provide some evidence that that will indeed be the case. I am saying to the government: convince us. It needs to exercise its duty to satisfy the onus of proof that is upon it. It is the government that wants to reform the surrogacy laws in Western Australia; in fact, it is seeking to amend two statutes of Western Australia. The onus is on the government to clarify and convince the rest of us—indeed, persuade at least the majority of the house—to agree with it. If the government says that one benefit will be a reduced impetus to travel overseas, I would like to know what the basis is for that claim. What material does the government have that indicates that that may well be the case, and why did the government choose not to say that it will do so? It may be that the government is keeping other reports secret. I do not know. It may have other material, briefing notes or information. Whatever it is, I simply ask the parliamentary secretary, in the fullness of time, when delivering her reply, to indicate what that evidence is. Whether the government says that it may or will reduce the impetus to travel overseas, the government needs to explain why that is necessary. Why should we as parliamentarians in Western Australia care whether people travel overseas to create a family? Why is that our business? The government needs to explain that. The second reading speech states that this will be a benefit and reduce the impetus for people to travel overseas. Why do we care about that? Do a majority of members care whether people travel overseas to create a family? Maybe members are ambivalent about that. Maybe they will say that this really has nothing to do with us. But, of course, those who have followed this debate closely know that the government is rightly concerned about people going overseas to access commercial surrogacy. That is precisely why the government is saying we may reduce the impetus for people to travel overseas to do these things. A few questions arise from that that I ask the government to consider, if that is indeed the case. If this bill does pass, and if what the government says is true—that it will reduce the impetus to travel overseas—then the question is: will the supply in Western Australia be able to meet the demand? In other words, if we are now going to extend the category of individuals who will be able to access surrogacy in Western Australia, it is logical that there will be a greater demand. If currently only a certain number of individuals in Western Australia are able to access surrogacy, and that leads to a certain number of applications, it will follow that if the pool of individuals who make such applications increases, the demand will go up. Indeed, if the demand is not going to go up, why are we doing this at all? I assume at this point that the government will agree with me that if this bill passes, demand will increase. If that is not the case, I encourage the government to clarify that in its response at the relevant time. However, for the purpose of this debate, let us assume that the government agrees that if we extend the category of individuals who are able to access surrogacy, the demand will increase. The question then becomes: will there be sufficient supply to meet that demand, and who are the suppliers? The suppliers are the people who agree, under Western Australian law, to be a surrogate under our altruistic system, because, of course, as has been mentioned, commercial surrogacy is not permitted in Western Australia. The question on which the government needs to

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019] 2033 satisfy members of this house, if we are going to pass this legislation in its current form, is: will the altruistic supply be able to meet the male demand? I have not researched this particular issue, but my intuition tells me that it is highly unlikely that the altruistic supply in Western Australia will be sufficient to meet the male demand. Do not get me wrong; not for a moment am I suggesting that the male demand is acceptable. I do not support that. I say that it is a matter of biology that men cannot birth a child; nevertheless, that is what this bill is about. It is seeking to extend the category of individuals who can access this to include men, including single men. It is interesting to note that lobbying has already occurred in Western Australia on this issue. As I flagged last night, I note that a seminar was held in Western Australia on 13 February 2019. Of course, 13 February this year was a significant day—it was the day before the government brought on this bill for debate, which was 14 February. The day before the government brought the bill on for the first time—members will recall that the government was continuing to hide the report at that time—a seminar was held, which was titled “AU/NZ ED and surrogacy seminar.” “AU”, of course, is shorthand for Australia and “NZ” is shorthand for New Zealand; in other words, the title was the “Australia/New Zealand egg donor and surrogacy seminar”, which, as I say, took place on 13 February 2019. The program for that particular seminar included information about surrogacy in Mexico and the current state of play, and also a talk about what legal steps are involved in surrogacy and egg donation. Even with that limited information, before this bill has even passed this house of Parliament—obviously it has passed the other place—these information seminars are already taking place in Western Australia. I put it to members that one reason these information seminars are taking place, in not only our state but also other places, is that supply will not be able to meet the demand. If supply was able to meet the demand, information about the options, should people wish to go to another jurisdiction, and, indeed, encouragement of them, would not need to be provided by way of this seminar. I note that these particular seminars have been taking place in other jurisdictions around the nation, including in Brisbane on the previous day, 12 February, and in Sydney in the following week, on 17 February. All those seminars had the same title. Therefore, one can reasonably assume that all the seminars provided the same type of information. Therefore, I ask the parliamentary secretary, when providing a reply to the second reading debate, to indicate to the house whether the government is familiar with these seminars. I also ask the parliamentary secretary to indicate to the house whether the government is involved in any way in the distribution of information at those seminars, and, indeed, whether the government has provided any funding for those seminars. That would be useful information to enable members to come to a conclusion on the question of whether, if we were to increase the scope or categories of individuals who will be able to access this regime, the supply will be able to meet the demand. I have a further question that needs to be considered by the government. If it is the case that this bill acknowledges that there is a so-called male right to surrogacy and altruistic surrogacy, and if it is also the case that the supply will not meet the demand, does the government concede that a future Western Australian government will need to legalise commercial surrogacy to enable Western Australian men’s rights to be exercised? By way of explanation, if the government is enshrining into our statute book in Western Australia a male right to surrogacy, will that compel a future Western Australian government to widen the scheme in order to meet the demand? I ask the government to clarify that. I do not want the government to simply give a glib response and not provide the basis for that response. If the government says that what I have just suggested is not correct and it will not be the case that a future Western Australian government will need to legalise commercial surrogacy to enable Western Australian men’s rights to be exercised, I would like to know on what basis the government says that. Has the government taken advice on that? We know that the government has taken advice with regard to the alleged invalidity of our laws with respect to the commonwealth jurisdiction—advice that it continues to hide. Nevertheless, if the government says that this will not be a problem in the future and will not lead incrementally to a demand by Western Australian males to open up the regime of commercial surrogacy in our state, I would ask the government to table whatever advice it has received. I will be very disappointed if I see at the conclusion of the parliamentary secretary’s reply to the second reading debate that the table in front of me is as bare as it is at the moment. If the government fails to table any documents at that time, I will be most disappointed indeed, and, should the bill survive the second reading stage, I will most probably look to interrogate those particular issues further during Committee of the Whole House. The issue of individuals having an impetus to travel overseas, as was mentioned by the parliamentary secretary in the second reading speech, is, of course, not something new that the parliamentary secretary has brought to this debate. I note that in November 2014, when the Department of Health for the government of Western Australia prepared its report “Review of the Surrogacy Act 2008”, it looked at this particular and discrete issue that the parliamentary secretary has drawn to our attention in the second reading speech. The Department of Health has specifically addressed the issue of people travelling abroad for fertility treatment. I draw to members’ attention that review by the health department of Western Australia, in particular the penultimate paragraph on page 18, which reads — Common reasons for people travelling abroad for fertility treatment (cross-border reproductive care) include reduced costs of treatments, to evade domestic prohibitions such as commercial surrogacy and trade in gametes, embryo gender selection, and postmenopausal fertility treatments …

2034 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019]

Those are not my words. Those are the words of the Department of Health of the government of Western Australia. The learned individuals who were involved in the preparation of this particular review report, which totals some 32 pages, have determined on page 18 that it is appropriate to draw to the attention of the people of Western Australia that one of the common reasons for people to travel abroad for fertility treatment is to evade domestic prohibitions such as commercial surrogacy. I emphasise to members that the use of the word “evade” does not come from me. It comes from the Department of Health. It is the one that is saying that it is common for Western Australians to evade our laws. Is that a situation that we as members should be satisfied with? Should we be pleased that Western Australian citizens are seeking to evade our laws? The Department of Health has suggested in this paragraph of its review of the Surrogacy Act that people are trying to evade the laws of this state, yet the parliamentary secretary has said, presumably upon advice from the same department, that one of the benefits we can expect from this bill is a reduction in the impetus for people to travel overseas to create a family. I draw from that that the government’s position must surely be that it is happy for people to evade the domestic prohibition on commercial surrogacy. If that is not the case, not only is the government thumbing its nose at this particular portion of its own health department’s report, but also it makes no sense that the parliamentary secretary has chosen to use the phrase that this bill “may reduce the impetus of people to travel overseas to create a family”. That matter must be explained by the government. Why, and on what basis, has the government said that people are evading the domestic prohibition on commercial surrogacy? Has the government received any evidence? Have there been any complaints? Perhaps the parliamentary secretary during her reply to the second reading debate will be able to indicate to the house how many complaints have been received about people evading the domestic prohibition on commercial surrogacy. As a supplementary question, for what reason is the government seeking to reduce the impetus of people to travel overseas? Is it because it is unhappy with these evasion techniques being used by individuals in our state? This needs further clarification and explanation by the government as we continue to consider the bill that is presently before us. The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon Robin Chapple): Member, just before you continue, I remind you of the comments made by the President yesterday in dealing with the matters of surrogacy and overseas travel, but I will allow you to continue. Hon NICK GOIRAN: Thank you, Mr Acting President. I remind members that these are not my words; these are the words of the parliamentary secretary, who said in her second reading speech — One benefit we expect to see following the enactment of this bill is that we may reduce the impetus of people to travel overseas to create a family. These are the words that the parliamentary secretary used to try to persuade us to support the government’s position. I will continue to scrutinise those arguments that the government has put forward, including its suggestion that this is one of benefits of the bill that is currently before the house. This is an issue that has been raised by not only the parliamentary secretary but also the Department of Health. Sitting suspended from 1.00 to 2.00 pm Hon NICK GOIRAN: I am pleased to continue my contribution to the question that is presently before the house, which is whether the Human Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Legislation Amendment Bill 2018 should be read a second time. Prior to the interruption of the debate at one o’clock today, 4 April this year, we were looking at one of the statements that was made by the parliamentary secretary in her second reading speech. She said — One benefit we expect to see following the enactment of this bill is that we may reduce the impetus … to travel overseas to create a family. Prior to the interruption for the luncheon interval, I was looking at what the Western Australian government’s own Department of Health had to say about the matters that have been encapsulated by the parliamentary secretary in her second reading speech. One of the places where we can find what the Department of Health has to say about this issue is in its report, “Review of the Surrogacy Act 2008”. This report, dated November 2014, has a short extract that, in its conclusions, deals with this issue that has been identified by the parliamentary secretary on behalf of the government as a very important issue for our consideration. If it was not important, the parliamentary secretary would not have included it in her second reading speech. Indeed, if it was not important, the government would not have identified it as one of the benefits that it says might flow should this bill be enacted. I want to refer members to page 21 of that report. Under the heading “2.9 Conclusions”, the Department of Health commented — There is a need to gather information on international commercial surrogacy trends including which countries people are travelling to, the demographic of the parties involved, and follow-up studies on the families formed through surrogacy, and importantly, the birth mother and her family.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019] 2035

I ask the parliamentary secretary, in her reply to this second reading debate, to indicate to the house what the Department of Health has done to gather this information that it identified in its November 2014 report. After all, it will have been four and a half years since the Department of Health produced this report; therefore, it is reasonable for us to ask the government what has happened over that time to gather this information, recognising that over that period there has been a change of government. For about two and a half years of that period, it was the government of which I was a part, as a member of this place supporting the government; then, of course, in the last two years, members opposite have been in government. It would be interesting to know what information the Department of Health has gathered over the last four and a half years since it made that statement. It has indicated that such information is needed. In its report, the department said that information on the trends was needed, so I ask the government to indicate the information about those trends that it now has in its possession that it did not have when that statement was made in November 2014. Is that information now in some form that could be tabled in this place or in some other format? I would ask the parliamentary secretary to clarify that when she sums up in the fullness of time. The information that the Department of Health has identified as being necessary to gather—certainly, that was its view in 2014—includes the places that people are travelling to. I notice that the parliamentary secretary mentioned in her second reading speech that the government sees a benefit in reducing the impetus of people to travel overseas. If it is the case that that is going to be a benefit, the government must surely know which countries these people are travelling to. Indeed, that is consistent with the Department of Health’s November 2014 report, which stated that there is a need to gather this information. In addition, the Department of Health has indicated that there is a need to identify data, information and the like with respect to the demography of the parties that are involved in these arrangements. I would like to know whether the parliamentary secretary could inform the house in due course what information the Department of Health has gathered over the past four and a half years in relation to that. In fact, the department did not just say that it should be gathered; it said that information needed to be gathered. I welcome the government clarifying for us whether such information has been obtained; and, if it has, in what format it is available for the rest of us to digest and consider as we continue our consideration of the bill that is before the house. Thirdly, I note that the Department of Health also felt that it was necessary to identify further follow-up studies on the families that are formed through surrogacy. This is, of course, a very interesting area, and I agree with the Department of Health that there is a need to gather such information. Again, I ask the government whether such information is presently available. If it is, I would welcome that information being provided to the house, preferably tabled in this place, so that we can consider what those follow-up studies have to say. Indeed, I wonder whether the government considered any of those studies prior to approving this piece of legislation coming to the Parliament of Western Australia. I also note that the Department of Health thought that it was necessary in November 2014 to indicate a need to gather information on follow-up studies of the birth mother and her family. That would be appropriate because the birth mother and her family, having participated in the nine-month gestation of this child, would have formed a bond with that child, who will no longer be part of their immediate family because of the surrogacy arrangement. It will be interesting to know what information the Department of Health gathered over the last four and a half years specifically with respect to those studies that it said it needed to follow up. I welcome the parliamentary secretary clarifying that for us in due course. I move on to ask members to consider the question of whether surrogacy is harmful. If we are to embark upon extending this Western Australian scheme to more Western Australians, we should firstly satisfy ourselves whether surrogacy in and of itself is harmful. If it is not harmful, I can understand why some members may be inclined to support the extension of the categories of individuals who might want to access this regime. If surrogacy is found to be harmful, I would anticipate that a majority of members would not want to support something that is deemed to be harmful. I draw to members’ attention the thoughts and research of people who have had to consider this issue over the years. I commence with a quote from a book titled Children on Demand: The Ethics of Defying Nature written by a gentleman by the name of Tom Frame. This book was authored in 2008. As members will be aware, that is the same year that our surrogacy legislation passed through the Western Australian Parliament. I remember it well because it was the period that I had been elected as a member of Parliament but not yet sworn in, due to the period between the election and the swearing in of members and the change of the composition of the Legislative Council. It is stated at page 165 — … once surrogacy has even the smallest commercial element, the character of the activity is altered and the relationship between the commissioning couple and the surrogate changes. Both parties to a surrogacy agreement inevitably become demanding, and altruism is rapidly replaced by contractualism. People are then hurt. Generosity is squeezed out by compliance. It is already very difficult to detect the presence of financial dimensions in arrangements that are meant to be purely altruistic.

2036 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019]

I pause at this point to remind members that that was precisely the point I made yesterday about the difficulty in trying to identify those things. The Standing Committee on Legislation in a previous Parliament also identified the difficulty in specifically identifying such things. I go on to quote from this book, specifically page 166 — While we might try to limit the commercial element by legal means, I think it would be almost impossible to define limits that would be widely acknowledged and universally respected. Later in this book, the learned author has plenty of other things to say from a personal perspective, but for the time being I do not propose to quote further from it because I want to keep our minds focused on the issue of whether surrogacy in and of itself is inherently harmful. I ask members to contemplate that before we are asked to cast our conscience vote either in the affirmative or, alternatively, in the negative. Others have had things to say about this particular issue, including the organisation FINRRAGE. As I mentioned last night, FINRRAGE is the Feminist International Network of Resistance to Reproductive and Genetic Engineering. It holds a view that surrogacy of any form, whether it be altruistic or commercial, is harmful to the parties involved. It put this in its submission to the Department of Health in March last year. I had something to say about that yesterday when we were looking at the extraterritorial side of things. Now that we are looking at the issue of harms of surrogacy, FINRRAGE deals with this issue in its March 2018 submission to the Reproductive Technology Unit, Patient Safety and Clinical Quality, Clinical Excellence Division, Department of Health. It states at page 4 —

• FINRRAGE (Australia) is increasingly contacted by Australian women who tell us their heartbreaking experiences with so-called altruistic surrogacy in Australia. Their stories share many similarities: a family member is infertile or becomes infertile through illness. She, her partner and their families are devastated that they cannot have their own children. IVF does not work, but they may have frozen embryos. A female relative is approached—or offers herself—and out of sheer naivety and the strong desire to do good, agrees to bear a baby for the couple. Problems become already apparent during the pregnancy when, quite frequently, the so-called commissioning mother (these days called, nicely, ‘intended mother’, … cannot deal with her relative being pregnant, when she herself is infertile. The hurt and malice bestowed on the pregnant woman can be considerable, leading to tension, stress and ill health of her and the developing baby. Often, promises for payments for medical expenses are not upheld. This can even include not paying for the hospital at which the birth takes place. Some of these cases end up in the Family Court with both parties then prohibited from speaking publicly about their ordeal. The babies remain the casualties of the warring parties. While the mothers remain birth mothers on the birth certificates, they may not be allowed to see their children at all. This can lead to a severely destabilised mental health status of the birthmother with dire consequences for her relationship/marriage, work, and her other children. FINRRAGE believes it is crucial that the public (and governments) begin to understand that the danger of harm and exploitation in so-called altruistic surrogacy is no less than in commercial surrogacy. In some ways it might even be worse as the surrogacy process deeply divides families and causes lasting grief and anger for all parties. Those were the views of the Feminist International Network of Resistance to Reproductive and Genetic Engineering when it made its submission to our state Department of Health’s review. Members can readily see that that particular organisation clearly finds that surrogacy of all forms is harmful to the parties involved in the arrangement. It is not the only one that holds this view; others also hold this view. Earlier, I quoted the author Tom Frame. We talked a little bit about the harm of surrogacy to the birth mother, but one must also consider whether there is any harm to the child and whether that harm exists irrespective of whether any consideration has passed between the parties involved in the surrogacy arrangement. If money has changed hands between those individuals, has any harm been done to the child in question? Bernadette Tobin, the director of the Plunkett Centre for Ethics at St Vincent’s Hospital, has looked at this issue and her work is cited in Renate Klein’s book Surrogacy: A Human Rights Violation. It is well worth members reading and familiarising themselves with this book. Page 49 of Klein’s book refers to the dangers of surrogacy and quotes Tobin’s 2014 article, which reads — Surrogacy intentionally violates a child’s entitlement to be brought up—if at all possible—by his or her natural parents. Surrogacy intentionally violates the gestational link between the child and the natural mother. No surrogacy contract can protect the child from the wrong done to him or her by being brought into the world in these circumstances, whether or not money changes hands. That is another example of a view and another category of individual who one could say is harmed by surrogacy arrangements. Members can continue to contemplate whether they agree with the question: is surrogacy inherently harmful to the individuals involved?

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019] 2037

I note that the Western Australian Department of Health has acknowledged the lack of research on all aspects of surrogacy, whether altruistic or commercial. For members who would like me to demonstrate how we know that, I indicate that the Department of Health’s 2014 report “Review of the Surrogacy Act 2008” makes that assertion on page 21. The report states — There is a lack of research on all aspects of surrogacy. The Department of Health is working with fertility clinics to undertake research on the experiences and perspectives of people who have been, or are currently, involved in an altruistic surrogacy arrangement in Western Australia. This study could help to shed light on a complex life event, which may help to inform policy and increase public understanding of altruistic surrogacy in Western Australia. I think it would assist the house if the parliamentary secretary, in her reply to the second reading debate, could indicate what progress the Department of Health has made in working with fertility clinics to undertake the research it referred to in 2014. Indeed, in November 2014, the department said that it was working with fertility clinics in a very active way. At the time, it was not a mere proposal for some form of commitment—far from it. The department expressed in its report that it had active involvement and a working relationship with the fertility clinics. It would be useful for the house to have an update on what has happened with respect to the research that it has continued to undertake. Has that research concluded? If it has concluded, could it be tabled or made available to members? Alternatively, is that research still underway? If that were the case, it would be useful to know how long that research has been going, who is involved—who are the lead researchers and participants—and what has been the cost to the Department of Health for its involvement in that research project. Is one of our Western Australian universities heading up this research project into the experiences and perspectives of people who have been or are currently involved in surrogacy arrangements in Western Australia? Of course, a small amount of data is available to us in the information provided in the Reproductive Technology Council’s annual reports. We know that the number of individuals accessing the existing scheme is quite small. We know from a briefing provided by the government last year that, at that time, no single females had applied to the scheme. It would be interesting to know who are the participants involved in the research taking place between the Department of Health and the fertility clinics. I look forward to the parliamentary secretary providing us with that information in due course. It is useful to contemplate for a moment what Sonia Allan’s review says about this area of surrogacy. Remember, this is the same review that the Minister for Health alleged had nothing to do with the bill before the house. I have already indicated and demonstrated to members how false the Minister for Health’s claim was. I have also indicated to members my disappointment that the honourable minister of the Crown has not provided an apology or explanation. Nevertheless, we now know that the Sonia Allan review is highly relevant to matters before the house. On this particular issue, I draw members’ attention specifically to part 2 of the report. Members may recall that part 1 deals with the first act considered by the house that the government seeks to amended, which is the Human Reproductive Technology Act, while part 2 deals with the second act being considered for amendment by the house, which is the Surrogacy Act 2008. A section of page 172 of the report would be of particular interest to Hon Aaron Stonehouse as he continues to make his way through the 600-page report, which the government has refused him the good grace of a few extra days to get through. I draw to his attention, and to the attention of others interested in this debate, the heading “Extraterritorial offences” on page 172 of part 2 of the report. The learned reviewer’s comments on extraterritorial offences are set out under section 9.7.1, “The current law”. I quote — In some Australian states and territories prohibitions on entering into commercial surrogacy arrangements outside of Australia also exist, as the law applies extraterritorially.

In New South Wales it is an offence to enter into, or offer to enter into, a commercial surrogacy arrangement. The legislation provides for a geographical nexis in which a person will be liable to be prosecuted for this offence if they are ordinarily resident or domiciled in New South Wales, or if the offence is committed wholly or partly in New South Wales or has an effect in New South Wales. The maximum penalty is a fine of up to $275,000 (2500 penalty units @ $110/unit) for a corporation or $110,000 (1000 penalty units @ $110/unit) for an individual or imprisonment for up to two years (or both).Offences related to advertising certain matters also apply extraterritorially, including that advertisements related to commercial arrangements attract a maximum penalty which, for an individual, is $110,000 or up to two years imprisonment (or both). I pause there to indicate that that is what the reviewer has said is the state of play in New South Wales for that particular issue. The reviewer then goes on to explain the situation in Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory. We must remember here that once again this is where the Minister for Health has said that none of these things in this report has anything to do with the bill before the house, which we now know is false and incorrect. At page 172, the reviewer goes on to say the following about the scheme in Queensland — In Queensland it is an offence to enter into, or offer to enter into, a commercial surrogacy agreement. The legislation provides for a geographical nexus in which a person will be liable to be prosecuted for

2038 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019]

this offence if they were ordinarily resident in Queensland at the time the act was done. The maximum penalty is a fine of up to $11,000 (100 penalty units @ $110/unit) or imprisonment for up to three years. Other offences, which also have extraterritorial effect, relate to advertising, and giving or receiving consideration for, or providing technical, professional or medical services in relation to a commercial surrogacy arrangement. As I say, the reviewer also then took the time to inform us about the Australian Capital Territory. At page 172, the reviewer says — In the Australian Capital Territory it is an offence to intentionally enter into a ‘commercial substitute parent agreement’. The legislation provides for a geographical nexus in which a person will be liable to be prosecuted for this offence if they were ordinarily resident in the Australian Capital Territory at the time the offence was committed. The maximum penalty is a fine of up to $75,000 (100 penalty units @ $750/unit) for a corporation or $15,000 (100 penalty units @ $150/unit) for an individual or imprisonment for up to one year (or both). Other offences, which also have extraterritorial effect, relate to advertising, and procuring or facilitating a commercial substitute parent agreement. It is interesting to me that the reviewer would choose to refer to the exact three jurisdictions I referred to in my earlier remarks in my contribution to the second reading debate. It is interesting indeed that the reviewer should choose to identify the precise same three jurisdictions, given that the Minister for Health has said that these things have nothing to do with the matters presently before the Parliament, a statement that we now know to be false, deceptive and misleading. I find it instructive for us to consider for a moment what the reviewer has to say about this whole issue of extraterritorial offences. At the bottom of page 172, the reviewer goes on to say — The general underpinning reasoning for such prohibitions is illustrated by the statement of the then New South Wales Minister for Community Service in relation to the extension of prohibitions on commercial arrangements to other jurisdictions: The reviewer then quotes the New South Wales minister. That quote, found on page 173 of part 2 of the report, reads — My amendment will … give effect to the policy position agreed to by all States and Territories in Australia that commercial surrogacy is not supported in this country. I pause there to underscore for members that the minister from New South Wales indicated that this was a policy position indicated by all states and territories in Australia. If that is indeed the case, it would include our own jurisdiction here in Western Australia. Surely, we are one of the states and territories in Australia; therefore, if what the minister said is true and correct, we have agreed to this policy position. New South Wales, the ACT and Queensland seem to have given effect to that agreement of the policy position, but it appears that Western Australia is lagging behind. That is why I am imploring the government to consider this very issue if we are going to extend the category to other individuals. The reviewer’s quote of the New South Wales minister continues — We all know that the desire to be a parent is very powerful. That instinct is an important part of humanity’s survival. However, in this brave new world we must protect everybody involved, including the surrogate mother. … I acknowledge the sadness of people who cannot realise that dream. However, gaining access to children by circumventing local laws and travelling overseas to engage the services of private clinics and then bring the children back to Australia is not a practice that we as the lawmakers of this State should encourage … It is crucial to the long-term psychological wellbeing of children to know who they are and where they come from. As Minister for Community Services I see evidence of this time and again. My amendment relates also to the issues of women’s rights and to the potential for exploiting women in a vulnerable position, especially women in poor or developing countries. By making commercial surrogacy an extraterritorial offence we will help to prevent exporting this exploitation of women overseas. We do not support it here so why should we support it overseas. I could not agree more. I think that minister in New South Wales, the Minister for Community Services, hit the nail on the head and encapsulated precisely what I am asking the government to consider. It appears to me that is what the review, which the government was trying to hide from us, is also trying to say; that is, if we do not support such things in our own jurisdiction, why would we support them overseas? That is the threshold question for members to consider when looking at that issue. Otherwise, I dare say we would look rather hypocritical. It is for that reason that it is no wonder that all of the states and territories have agreed to that position. Helpfully, in this review that the government was trying to keep secret from us, the reviewer then goes on to say at page 173 what the situation is here in Western Australia with this issue. She says — In Western Australia section 8 of the Surrogacy Act 2008 (WA) provides that “a person who enters into a surrogacy arrangement that is for reward commits an offence”. The Surrogacy Act 2008 (WA) itself does not purport to have effect outside Western Australia; however, by operation of section 12 of the Criminal Code, an offence is committed if an act that makes up an element of the offence occurred in Western Australia.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019] 2039

I pause there to again identify for members that that is the precise section of the Criminal Code I have previously drawn to members’ attention, that being section 12 of the code and its interaction with section 8 of the Surrogacy Act. That being the case, it is once again no wonder, when we continue to discover these gems of gold in the report by the reviewer, that the government was adamant about wanting to keep it a secret. At page 173 of the report, the reviewer concludes her remarks on the analysis of the current law by stating — South Australia, Tasmania, and Victoria do not make provision for the extraterritorial effect of their surrogacy legislation. We are presented with the situation in which we, the lawmakers in Western Australia, have to decide whether we wish to follow the example of those in New South Wales, Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory, or we want to continue to languish behind with South Australia, Tasmania and Victoria on this particular issue. What else does the reviewer have to say about this important issue of the application of extraterritorial offences? I draw to members’ attention an entire portion of the review, which commences at page 173, continues on pages 174 and 175, and concludes on page 176, which is titled “Application of extraterritorial provisions”. On this issue, it is well worth members having a read of this particular section, which has been given the numerical reference 9.7.2. At this point, I specifically draw to members’ attention the comments made by the Reproductive Technology Council on this issue. During the course of the review, the reviewer received a number of written submissions and, indeed, at appendix 6 of the report, there is a qualitative analysis of the themes and categories of those written submissions. In addition, a list of submissions can be conveniently found by members at appendix 5 of the report on page 211, through to page 213. I hasten to add that, of course, this is the list of submissions that the government continues to refuse to table in this place, notwithstanding what it promised—what the parliamentary secretary indicated to the house would occur—as far back as 14 March last year. Let us not be confused with 14 March this year. I refer to the parliamentary secretary’s comments in response to a question from me on 14 March last year in which there was an indication that the submissions would be tabled, a commitment that the parliamentary secretary gave in an answer to a question in Parliament that has not been fulfilled. Nevertheless, despite the ongoing noncompliance of the parliamentary secretary and the Minister for Health, we have at our disposal the list of 126 people who put in a submission to the reviewer whose review cost nearly one-quarter of a million dollars. I specifically draw to members’ attention that the submission numbered 122 is by none other than the Reproductive Technology Council, the key body in the oversight and execution of the legislation that is currently before the house. I propose to quote one section of that submission, which has been helpfully set out by the reviewer on page 177. The reviewer noted that the Reproductive Technology Council noted — New South Wales, the Australian Capital Territory and Queensland all have extraterritorial reach in relation to the prohibition of commercial surrogacy…Western Australia does not have specific exterritorial provisions in the Surrogacy Act; and while prosecution under s 12 of the Criminal Code 1913 (WA) may be possible where any part of a commercial surrogacy arrangement is undertaken in WA, this has little practical effect since overseas-based agents and clinic representatives are seldom in WA for sufficient periods to initiate proceedings [or not at all]…Council recommends amendment of the Surrogacy Act to give extraterritorial effect to the prohibition of commercial surrogacy, at least insofar as those provisions apply to persons other than the persons who have parental responsibility for a/ the resulting child. (Noting the paramountcy of welfare of the child whose interests may not be served by prosecution of the person/s having parental responsibility. The Reproductive Technology Council in Western Australia is also supportive of the type of provisions that exist in New South Wales, the Australian Capital Territory and Queensland, and that is why it is particularly disappointing that the government has refused Hon Aaron Stonehouse’s request for more time to consider these particular elements of the report. It is disappointing because the government has not indicated its position; does the government agree with the Reproductive Technology Council or does it hold a different view? These are the questions to which we need answers if we are to make significant progress in these matters. I note that the reviewer said that she gave due consideration to all the submissions received before she formulated her findings and recommendations, which are found later in the report. I turn to those relevant findings specifically, which can be found at page 186 of the reviewer’s report and which continue to be in part 2 of the report. After reading the 11 findings and eight recommendations, it is no wonder that the government wants to hide this information from us. It becomes clear that presenting it would be awkward for the government. I ask the government to put that awkwardness to one side, let commonsense prevail and support these important safeguards. In finding 1, the reviewer found — Despite prohibitions on commercial surrogacy and extraterritorial effect of laws in some jurisdictions, some Australians, including Western Australians, travel abroad to engage in commercial surrogacy. Other people who participated in the review reported that they would not enter into a commercial surrogacy arrangement. Some such people had or were considering seeking altruistic arrangements in other jurisdictions, while others were hoping Western Australian legislation would be amended so they may enter into a lawful altruistic arrangement in their home state.

2040 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019]

Members can understand the nexus with the comments made by the parliamentary secretary, who talked about the alleged benefit being a reduction in the impetus of people wanting to travel overseas. The reviewer’s second finding reads — The impact of Commonwealth citizenship and passport laws, lack of uniformity of extraterritorial prohibitions across the states, and the current Western Australian law which serves to exclude certain people from accessing altruistic surrogacy in Western Australia may lead some people who are seeking surrogacy to travel to other jurisdictions where: The reviewer at this point cites six different examples of what these places offer. The first is — • they are able to access surrogacy when they cannot in Western Australia The second is — • the commercial nature of surrogacy leads to greater availability of women willing to act as surrogate mothers Thirdly — • there are significantly fewer requirements placed on the intending parent(s) (or scrutiny) than in Western Australia (or other states of Australia or the Australian Capital Territory) Fourthly — • there is placement of the intended parent(s) names on birth-certificates (often whether or not there is a genetic relationship with the child) Fifthly — • contracts are enforceable (again with little or no judicial scrutiny of questions concerning the welfare of the child) And sixthly — • there is the ability to return to Western Australia with the child(ren) resulting from the surrogacy and apply for citizenship by descent and a passport for the child(ren), or an extended visa; and having no further requirements for scrutiny of the arrangement or to appear before a Court. Perhaps that explains why the government, quite rightly—I agree with it—has identified that some individuals seek to travel overseas to create a family; that is, for the reasons that have been encapsulated in the reviewer’s second finding. The reviewer goes on in finding 3 to identify that — It is misplaced to focus only on the issue of whether legal parentage should be granted once such people are in Western Australia with the child(ren) who were born as a result. Consideration must be given to: The reviewer then highlights three areas to which consideration ought to be given, in her respectful opinion. The first item for consideration is — • what has led the intended parent(s) to engage in commercial arrangements overseas Secondly — • what aspects of the regulation of surrogacy in Western Australia need amendment in order to address this Thirdly — • what has happened at a Commonwealth level to allow people to bring child(ren) back into the country following a commercial surrogacy arrangement. It would be good if the government could indicate its view on that finding and the three considerations that have been identified by the reviewer. Finding 4 states — The recommendations throughout this report, if implemented, will serve to increase access to altruistic surrogacy in Western Australia. In turn, such changes may serve to reduce the number of people from Western Australia who seek international commercial surrogacy. That finding seems to support the proposition put to us by the parliamentary secretary with regard to the alleged benefit of the reduction of the impetus to travel overseas. It appears that finding 4 seems to correlate with the government’s position, but I seek the government’s clarification as to whether that is, indeed, the case, or whether it is relying on any other findings or recommendations from the review. If it is, it would be rather ironic, because let us not forget that Minister Cook said that the report has nothing to do with the matters currently before the Parliament. It will be rather awkward for the government to then rely on any of these findings and recommendations, but if it is not relying on them, it must be relying on something to support the statements it asserted in the second reading speech.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019] 2041

We then move to finding 5, in which the reviewer indicates — Introducing provisions that provide for extraterritorial application of the law, consistent with New South Wales, Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory, would support the public policy position taken against commercial surrogacy and establish at law—before people enter into commercial surrogacy arrangements abroad and/or engage in other prohibited practices—that they would be committing an offence. It would also serve to harmonise Western Australia’s law to a greater degree with those jurisdictions. That is very interesting. I specifically draw finding 5 to the government’s attention and seek its view on it. Does the government agree with it or does it distance itself from finding 5, which is found on page 187 of part 2 of the report? This is really where the rubber hits the road. I encourage all members who want a bit more time to consider this report to specifically look at finding 5 on page 187. I encourage other members to suggest otherwise, but it strikes me that this finding effectively supports my amendment on the supplementary notice paper. I move to finding 6, which states — Discussion should be had with the Commonwealth government and other states and territories concerning the issue of the granting of citizenship, passports, and/or long-term visas to children born as a result of commercial surrogacy arrangements given the specific complexities that arise in relation to ART, donor-conception, and surrogacy, and the strong public policy position against commercial surrogacy taken in Australia. The Commonwealth, state and territory governments have called for ‘greater harmonisation of laws’. This may include “consideration of whether Commonwealth citizenship laws should be harmonised with all the other laws of this country” The government needs to tell us what discussions it has had with the commonwealth government on this issue. What has it done to progress discussions? On what dates did it have discussions? Who were involved in those discussions? Were any briefing notes provided during the course of those discussions? In which jurisdiction did those discussions take place? We would like to know that information so that we can satisfy ourselves that the government is making progress on the important issue that has been identified by the expert that the government commissioned at a cost of some $225 000 to the taxpayers of Western Australia. What is its position on this issue? While the government is contemplating its position on finding 6, I would also like it to indicate its position on finding 7, which states — Discussion with the Commonwealth should also be had about the provision of uniform information to the public concerning Commonwealth laws that ‘comprehensively criminalise. human trafficking, slavery and slavery-like practices, including servitude and forced labour’ noting the Australian Government’s response to its House of Representatives Standing Committee inquiry into surrogacy stated that ‘these offences have extended geographical jurisdiction and could apply to international commercial surrogacy arrangements that involve the exploitation of the surrogate mother or the child’. Again, I ask the parliamentary secretary to advise what discussions have taken place with the commonwealth government on this issue so that there can be provision of uniform information. It may well be the case that the government has the view that there should be no discussions with the commonwealth government, and the government of Western Australia would be quite entitled, in its own sovereign capacity, to not participate in such discussions. But if that is, indeed, the case, the government should provide on the public record an explanation of why that would be appropriate and why it has decided to not participate in discussions with the commonwealth government of Australia on that issue. I move to finding 8, where the reviewer states — The Western Australian Government should consider whether to require that all applicant parent(s) who are granted entry into Australia with a baby born as a result of an overseas surrogacy arrangement with whom they intend to reside in Western Australia, should be issued with notice that they must appear before the Family Court of Western Australia within a certain time (specified) to allow the Court to consider whether the granting of parenting orders is in the best interests of the child. This will still be important for the government even if this bill passes in its current form. The statement made by the parliamentary secretary in the second reading speech implies that there will still be people who travel overseas to create a family. The parliamentary secretary merely stated that there may be a reduction in the number of such people. A reduction is not necessarily an indication that the number of people going overseas will be nil. It simply indicates that the number will be lower than is currently transpiring. It will be necessary for the government to give due consideration to finding 8 because it will be relevant even if the bill passes in its current form. Members will be aware that my preference is that the bill be defeated. If that is the case, it will still be necessary for the government to consider finding 8. Hon Michael Mischin: Because you are far more familiar with the report than I am, does it give any figures of the current rates of travel overseas?

2042 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019]

Hon NICK GOIRAN: No. That is an excellent question from the learned shadow Attorney General. Unfortunately, I have to indicate to the honourable member that the view of the Department of Health is that there is not enough research in this area so there is a paucity of data. I have asked the parliamentary secretary to indicate what progress has been made on obtaining that information. I think the member made a very good point, because we do not know what we do not know. If the government has identified an area of weakness in its data collection, that is a good thing, but it has a duty to deal with it. As a responsible government, I suggest that it has a responsibility to articulate its response. It is one thing for the government to identify a problem; it is another for it to deal with the problem. But it should not deal with those problems in secret. It should let the people of Western Australia in on what it is doing, not the least reason for which is that the people of Western Australia elected its members to do their jobs in the first place. In finding 8, the reviewer also said that if the Western Australian government were to consider and implement the mechanism she has suggested involving the Family Court of Western Australia, it would achieve three things. Firstly, she states that it would — • avoid the current situation of people avoiding the courts altogether because they do not wish to incur further costs or scrutiny of the arrangement I pause to underscore that this would be necessary regardless of whether the bill is passed in its current form. Even though the government seeks to reduce the number of people, this might be necessary because some people will, perhaps understandably, want to avoid the courts altogether. The reviewer is saying that this needs to be addressed. I seek the government response to that identified problem. The reviewer also says that it would — • allow an appropriate order to be made to secure the child’s interests I think that is a very important point that has been made by the reviewer, because we must not forget that, at the end of the day, the primary act that this bill seeks to amend sets out certain guiding principles, which ought to be properly considered. Indeed, I note that the long title of the Surrogacy Act 2008 states that it is — An Act about arrangements for surrogate births and children born under those arrangements and for related purposes, and to make related amendments to — • the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1998; I pause to note that one of the orders of the day is a bill dealing with the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1998. It would be useful for the parliamentary secretary to indicate whether there is any overlap between these two pieces of legislation and whether amending one will have any necessary implications for the other bill that is presently before the house. In addition, the Surrogacy Act made amendments to the Children and Community Services Act 2004, the Family Court Act 1997 and the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990. I pause again because if I am not mistaken, the Administration Amendment Bill arrived in the house just yesterday. I again pose the question to the government whether that bill and any amendments in it will have any implications for the matters presently before the house and vice versa, so we can have a proper understanding of that before we pass the legislation. The Surrogacy Act also amended the Human Reproductive Technology Act 1991. We know that that is related because that is one of the acts the government is seeking to amend. Finally, it amended the Interpretation Act 1984. In finding 8, the reviewer identified the third area that would be enhanced if the government were to consider that issue. She said it would — • serve as another factor that may discourage people from engaging in such activity due to additional hurdles, scrutiny, and costs. I again implore the government to give serious consideration to finding 8. Let us not waste the $225 000 of taxpayers’ money that has gone from the government to the reviewer to produce this two-volume publication and find ourselves in the position of finding 8 being ignored. On the contrary, finding 8 sounds to me like a sound finding that is worthy of proper consideration by the government and a wholesome response so that members can be satisfied before we pass the current bill. Finding 9 states — The State Government should monitor ongoing discussion and outcomes concerning the work of The Hague Conference on Private International Law and the … (ALRC) on matters relevant to legal parentage. I again ask the government to do that and to indicate to what extent such monitoring has occurred. If there has been such monitoring, what has been the discussion and outcomes? Finding 10 states — As the reviewer of the Western Australian legislation I did not find agreement with the suggestion by the Family Law Council in 2013 (endorsed in the South Australian Law Reform Institute’s … review report) that the most appropriate way to protect the interests of children born to Australians of overseas surrogacy arrangements would be to enact a Commonwealth law to provide the Family Court with ‘a discretionary power to transfer parentage from the surrogate mother to the intended parents where certain ‘safeguards’ or criteria have been satisfied.’ The assumption that this would offer a ‘practical solution’ that would

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019] 2043

allow recognition of ‘properly regulated international surrogacy jurisdictions’ appears to lack foundation noting the many issues of concern that are discussed in this report relating to jurisdictions that permit commercial surrogacy. It begs the question of what criteria would be used to determine whether a jurisdiction that permits commercial surrogacy is ‘properly regulated’? Most importantly, it fails to recognise that such action would conflict with, and potentially undermine, the strong public policy stance taken against commercial surrogacy within the Western Australian law (and all states and the Australian Capital Territory). I find myself in agreement with the reviewer, that it really ought not be considered — The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon Martin Aldridge): Order, members! Many conversations in the chamber are now starting to stretch beyond whispers, some to the extent that I can actually hear them from the chair. Members could maybe restrain their conversations further or take them outside. Hon NICK GOIRAN: Thanks, Mr Acting President. I simply indicate to members that I am in agreement with the reviewer on this point. Effectively, the reviewer is saying that it is not really a solution to look at potential domestic regulation on this issue. That is what has been proposed by some. On the contrary, the better approach would be the prohibition method, which has been implemented in other jurisdictions. I remind members that we would not be going it alone in that respective area. The final finding that I refer to at this point is finding 11, in which the reviewer says — Commercial surrogacy is prohibited in Western Australia and the findings of this review do not support changing that. Altruistic surrogacy is permitted but only when criteria are met that are intended to ensure the psychological and sociological well-being of all parties involved, and that it is undertaken in a manner that sees the best interests of children as paramount. It would not be appropriate for the State to then endorse practices elsewhere that do not meet the standards agreed upon for citizens within the state or by those who choose to uphold the law rather than circumvent or breach it. I totally agree with the reviewer on finding 11. In effect, the reviewer is saying that if that is the standard that we expect in our own state, we should expect that same conduct when our residents go elsewhere and not encourage practices that seek to circumvent or breach the law of Western Australia. We do not do that out of a sense of a lack of compassion for people’s understandable desire to be a parent, but in this particular instance, as has already been identified, it is because in many instances people are exploited in these arrangements. I note that the reviewer on this same topic has then set out eight recommendations, which are found in chapter 9 of part 2 of the report— namely, recommendations 42 to 49. I draw those to the attention of members. Recommendation 42 states — That the Western Australian Government seeks to address matters that may lead some people to travel to other jurisdictions to engage in commercial surrogacy arrangements including, but not limited to: • the current Western Australian law which serves to exclude certain people from accessing altruistic surrogacy in Western Australia • the impact of Commonwealth citizenship and passport laws • lack of uniformity of extraterritorial prohibitions across the states via introducing necessary amendments to remove barriers to accessing altruistic surrogacy, consulting with the Commonwealth regarding laws that do not correspond to the public policy position taken in Australia and discussing with other jurisdictions the need for harmonisation regarding extraterritorial prohibitions relevant to commercial surrogacy. We need to know the government’s position on recommendation 42. No doubt the government’s position will be enthusiastic, as the reviewer has essentially backed the extension of categories of individuals who can access altruistic surrogacy. However, if the government were to be enthusiastic and rely on the views of the reviewer in that regard, that would be a further nail in the coffin of Hon , who said on 21 February this year that this report has nothing to do with the matters presently before the Parliament. I look forward to hearing from the government its position on recommendation 42. If it seeks to rely on recommendation 42 for the further passage of this bill, it can expect to hear much more from me on that issue and those false statements by Minister Cook. I move to recommendation 43, in which the reviewer states — That the Western Australian Government considers the recommendations in this report in light of the need to increase access to altruistic surrogacy in Western Australia which in turn may serve to reduce the number of people from Western Australia who seek international commercial surrogacy. That seems to me to be in line with what the parliamentary secretary said in her second reading speech, so I would not be surprised if the government was again enthusiastic about recommendation 43. We will see what it has to say in the fullness of time, because apparently the 12 weeks it has now had to consider this report is inadequate for it to provide a response. Hon Simon O’Brien interjected.

2044 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019]

Hon NICK GOIRAN: That is an excellent question by Hon Simon O’Brien. How are members supposed to respond, when I indicate to the member that today is in fact the two-week anniversary since these two weighty volumes were tabled in this place by the parliamentary secretary? The government has also had 12 weeks to consider this, and the relevant thing is not necessarily who has had the most time, but that after 12 weeks, the government still does not have a response to recommendations 42 and 43 but expects us to cast our conscience vote on this issue in these circumstances. I move to recommendation 44, in which the reviewer has suggested — That the Western Australian Government amends the Surrogacy Act 2008 (WA) to provide for extraterritorial application of the law—consistent with New South Wales, Queensland, and the Australian Capital Territory—which would make it an offence to enter into, or engage in, other practices related to commercial surrogacy arrangements abroad and/or other prohibited practices. If any member in this place is inclined to consider my amendment on extraterritorial application, I simply ask them to look at recommendation 44, because recommendation 44 from the reviewer effectively says that my amendment should be supported. I am paraphrasing, but I encourage members to look at recommendation 44 and identify for me how that would be inconsistent. Clearly, the reviewer wants the law to be changed so that we follow the law in New South Wales, Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory in this area, which is precisely what I have been saying. No wonder the government wanted to hide this report, wherein there is the nugget of gold that is recommendation 44. No wonder—we would not want anybody to know about that recommendation, because that would then no doubt influence members to possibly support that change! In recommendation 45, the reviewer states — That the Western Australian Government consults with the Commonwealth about the provision of uniform information to the public concerning the Commonwealth laws that ‘comprehensively criminalise human trafficking, slavery and slavery-like practices, including servitude and forced labour’ noting ‘these offences have extended geographical jurisdiction and could apply to international commercial surrogacy arrangements that involve the exploitation of the surrogate mother or the child’ (referred to by the Australian Government in its response to its House of Representatives Standing Committee inquiry into surrogacy). I ask the government to indicate its position on that. If it has embarked on consultation, what is the status and nature of the consultation, and might we be privy to what has arisen from that consultation process? Recommendation 46 states — That the Western Australian Government requires that all applicant parent(s) who are granted entry into Australia (on whatever basis) with a baby born as a result of an overseas surrogacy arrangement with whom they intend to reside in Western Australia, should be issued with notice that they must appear before the Family Court of Western Australia within a specified time to allow the Court to consider whether the granting of parenting orders is in the best interests of the child. As I indicated earlier, I ask the government to provide its response to that. Recommendation 47 deals with the matter to which I alluded in the earlier finding about the Western Australian government’s monitoring of ongoing discussions and outcomes concerning the work of the Hague Conference on Private International Law and the Australian Law Reform Commission on matters relevant to legal parentage. I simply ask the government to provide its response to that. Recommendation 48 states — That commercial surrogacy is prohibited in Western Australia and the findings of this review do not support changing that. Altruistic surrogacy is permitted, but only when criteria are met that is intended to ensure the psychological and sociological well-being of all parties involved, and that it is undertaken in a manner that sees the best interests of children as paramount. It would not be appropriate for the State to then endorse practices elsewhere (for example via recognition of legal parentage orders in cases of international surrogacy) that do not meet the standards agreed upon for citizens within the State or by those who choose to uphold the law rather than circumvent or breach it. As I indicated on the finding that is linked to that recommendation, I support the position that is articulated by the reviewer. The final recommendation, recommendation 49, states — That the Western Australian Government considers whether it is necessary to make explicit provision in the relevant legislation that the transfer of legal parentage is not available in circumstances in which a child has been born as the result of an international commercial surrogacy arrangement that offends the law in Western Australia. Again, I ask the government to respond and indicate what its position is on recommendation 49. We can see without a shadow of doubt that it is the view of the reviewer, who has put together a report at a cost of nearly a quarter of a million dollars to the taxpayer, that our law needs to change. The bill that we seek to pass

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019] 2045 looks to amend the Surrogacy Act 2008. The reviewer has said that the legislation should be amended to apply extraterritorial application. That is what my amendment seeks to do, and I seek members’ support for that. If members read nothing else with regard to that chapter, I encourage them to read recommendation 44 and to indicate why, in those circumstances, they would not support the amendment I put on the supplementary notice paper. Having dealt with the issue of extraterritorial application and the concerns as to what has gone on in other jurisdictions, including the high profile cases that occurred in those jurisdictions, and, indeed, the view of the reviewer on those matters—the view of the reviewer that was previously hidden from the Parliament of Western Australia—I move to undertake an analysis of what exactly is the current state of the law on surrogacy in Western Australia. Having looked at what the other jurisdictions have had to do, what is the situation in our state? I start with a person who has become quite famous in this debate, Sonia Allan, and her views on the state of play in Western Australia. Her website, Health Law Central, has a very helpful guide on the state of play in WA. She says that Western Australia has two pieces of legislation—the Surrogacy Act 2008 and the Human Reproductive Technology Act 1991. However, the guiding principles in those acts, in particular the Surrogacy Act, provide that in making decisions about a parentage order, the Family Court must have regard for the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration. That is the state of play in Western Australia. Of course, that is not inconsistent with the type of guiding principle that we have found in each of the other jurisdictions around the nation over the course of this second reading debate. It is presumed to be in the best interests of the child for the arranged parents to be the parents of the child unless there is evidence to the contrary. The default position in Western Australia is that for those who are the arranged parents, it is deemed that it will be in the best interests of the child for them to be the parents, unless somebody is able to demonstrate something of a contrary nature. I draw to the attention of members section 13 of the Western Australian legislation, the Surrogacy Act 2008. Altruistic surrogacy is permitted in this state provided that certain criteria is met. It is not a simple free-for-all— far from it. It is also possible in WA for reasonable expenses associated with achieving or attempting to achieve the pregnancy, or associated with the pregnancy, to be reimbursed. Those types of expenses include a reasonable medical expense that is not recoverable under any health insurance or other scheme. Another type of reasonable expense that could be reimbursed or provided between one of the parties and the other is the value of the earnings forgone because of leave taken. However, that should be for a period of no more than two months during which the birth occurs or was expected to occur, or at any other time for medical reasons arising during the pregnancy. Effectively, in Western Australia reasonable expenses can be reimbursed to the surrogate mother. Those expenses can be of a medical nature, but cannot be something that they can recoup from another organisation, such as Medicare or the like. In addition to that type of expense—I will call that a medical expense—there can also be a component for loss of earnings, but the loss of earnings needs to be limited to no more than two months. That two-month period has to include the period in which the birth took place or was expected to take place. There is a small scope for payment of lost earnings but that would be limited to any other time that medical reasons have been provided during the course of the pregnancy. The third type of reasonable expense that can be reimbursed during the course of the surrogacy arrangement in Western Australia is for psychological counselling. The fourth and final area relating to the reimbursement of an expense is for a premium payable for health, disability or life insurance that would not have been taken out if the surrogacy arrangement had not been entered into, and provides cover for a period during which an expense referred to in another paragraph of this subsection is incurred, or might be or have been expected to be incurred. The author of this website draws our attention to section 6 of the Surrogacy Act 2008. They are the four categories of expenses that can be reimbursed between the parties. However, I note the inclusion in one of the categories for reimbursement of a premium paid for health, disability or life insurance is restricted to circumstances in which it would not otherwise have been taken out if it were not for the surrogacy arrangement. That tends to tell me that surrogacy arrangements must be risky business. Why else would there be a provision to provide reimbursement for the taking out of insurance? That insurance can only be reimbursed if a person had not otherwise taken it. A person who ordinarily would have taken out insurance cannot be reimbursed for it; they can be reimbursed for insurance only if the sole reason for taking it out is the surrogacy arrangement. That would indicate that surrogacy arrangements are inherently risky; otherwise why get the insurance in the first place? This is one of numerous concerns that I have about surrogacy in general, but, nevertheless, it is a scheme that has been in place in our state for over a decade. As members will be aware, commercial surrogacy is prohibited in Western Australia, but members may not be aware that the applicable penalty for breaching that is a fine of up to $24 000 or two years’ imprisonment. If members need the reference for that, I draw their attention to section 8 of the Surrogacy Act 2008, which specifies those penalties. Section 8 specifically states — A person who enters into a surrogacy arrangement that is for reward commits an offence. That tends to rely upon the definition and interpretation of “reward” and whether the exchange of money or the exchange that has taken place could be described as a reward.

2046 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019]

The question then is: who in Western Australia is currently eligible to apply for a surrogacy arrangement? We know that the government wants to extend the category of individuals who can apply for a surrogacy arrangement, but who is currently eligible to apply? The Surrogacy Act 2008 provides that an eligible woman or couple can arrange an altruistic surrogacy arrangement, provided a comprehensive assessment and approval process has been undertaken by the Western Australian Reproductive Technology Council. Attention is drawn to sections 16 and 19 of the Western Australian legislation. It will then be necessary to understand the definition of “eligible couple”. It is one thing for the legislation to simply indicate that an eligible woman or an eligible couple can apply, but what is an “eligible couple” under Western Australian law at the current time? The act states — eligible couple means 2 people of opposite sexes who are married to, or in a de facto relationship with, each other … Members can see that the definition of eligible couple is not simply any two people in the state of Western Australia; it has to be two people of opposite sexes, and they have to be either married or in a de facto relationship with each other. That is not something that I have invented; that is the state of the law in Western Australia. That was the considered view of a majority of members sworn in to the Western Australian Parliament in 2008 when it passed through both houses. They were the ones who determined that that was an appropriate decision. One of the decisions made was that those couples had to be either married or in a de facto relationship. That would seem to indicate that what was in the mind of members at the time was that there needs to be a stable relationship between the intended parents of this particular child. The report goes on to also explain that “eligible couple” also means a couple that is “unable to conceive a child due to medical reasons” or “although able to conceive a child, would be likely to conceive a child affected by a genetic abnormality or a disease”. Reference is made to Western Australian law, in particular section 19. Members can see the types of categories of individuals who can apply for a surrogacy arrangement. I will have more to say about that on another occasion. It does strike me at this early stage as not being something that would be contrary to the commonwealth discrimination laws, notwithstanding the assertion made by the Western Australian government. That is of course a key driver behind the legislation. The government says that our laws are inconsistent with the commonwealth, but I will spend some time analysing that particular argument on another occasion, including looking at the various provisions of the commonwealth legislation that the government asserts we are contravening. I choose not to concur with that assertion; in fact, I strenuously disagree with it. I move on to contemplate what type of surrogacy is available in our state. It is indeed the case that both gestational or traditional surrogacy may be used. In terms of the criteria for the commissioning persons and what types of criteria they need to meet, it is true to say that they are quite extensive. I do not think we should be shy about the fact that the criteria available in Western Australia for someone who wants to access surrogacy are quite stringent. In fact it is the stringent nature of the current arrangements that lead me to the view that it should not be extended to other individuals. I will explain why in the fullness of time. For the time being, I note that the Western Australian Surrogacy Act provides that an eligible couple, or a woman, can arrange an altruistic surrogacy arrangement, provided a comprehensive assessment and approval process has been undertaken by the Reproductive Technology Council, and that the council needs to consider a number of things. The act states — eligible couple means 2 people of opposite sexes who are married to, or in a de facto relationship with, each other and who, as a couple — (a) are unable to conceive a child due to medical reasons … or (b) although able to conceive … would be likely to conceive a child affected by a genetic abnormality or a disease; That is one criterion that needs to be achieved by those seeking to apply to the Reproductive Technology Council here in Western Australia. The second criterion is that an eligible person means a woman who meets the same criterion or, if able to conceive, would be unable to give birth to the child for medical reasons. This is quite interesting, and we are going to spend a bit of time in due course looking at this concept of medical reasons, because the government is trying to change that quite radically with this proposed legislation by inserting this new concept of social reasons. At the moment, we are looking at a regime that is restricted on the basis of medical reasons, but the government wants to expand that to include this other category of social reasons. I hasten to add that the government does not want every Western Australian to be able to access it for social reasons—not at all. We will look at the categories of people who can access it for social reasons under the government’s regime in due course, and at that time I will highlight the hypocritical and discriminatory nature of that proposed amendment by the government, despite the fact that it suggests that its very motivation is to alleviate so-called discrimination—discrimination that I consider to be invented. Nevertheless, it is the case that these medical reasons for being unable to conceive a child cannot include a reason arising from a person’s age or a reason prescribed for the purpose of the Human Reproductive Technology Act.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019] 2047

A person cannot simply roll up to the Reproductive Technology Council and say, “Look, because of my age, I am not able to birth a child; therefore, I would like to apply under the surrogacy arrangements.” That is not one of the criteria. That is not considered to be one of the medical reasons that would be applicable. Interestingly, not only must the commissioning parents reside in Western Australia, but also at least one of the arranged parents must have reached the age of 25 years. I should perhaps in due course compare and contrast the nature of the bill that was originally presented in Parliament when the Labor Party was last in government with the bill that was presented by the Liberal government in 2008. To the best of my recollection, there was a Labor Surrogacy Bill in 2007 and then a Liberal Surrogacy Bill in 2008. It appears that they were not identical, because I note here that the law in Western Australia requires at least one of the arranged parents to have reached the age of 25. To the best of my recollection, without having that bill in front of me, I have a funny feeling that the previous bill might have had the age of 21, but I will look that up in due course and endeavour to report back to the house on that. That perhaps might be an issue on which the parliamentary secretary can advise the house during her reply, given that the government has massive resources, in contrast to the opposition. I draw members’ attention specifically to section 17 of the Surrogacy Act 2008, which deals with this issue of the criteria that must be met by the commissioning persons. It is true that at least three months before the Reproductive Technology Council gives approval to any such agreement, each of the arranged parents—the birth mother and her husband or de facto partner, if any, and any other person, such as a donor whose egg or sperm is to be used for the conception of the child, or who is the spouse or de facto partner of a donor—must have done certain things, including, at section 17(c) — (i) undertaken any counselling about the implications of the surrogacy arrangement that regulations under this Act require; and (ii) been assessed by a clinical psychologist and confirmed, in a written report provided to the Council, to be psychologically suitable to be involved in the surrogacy arrangement; and (iii) received independent legal advice about the effect of the surrogacy arrangement; and (d) … been assessed by a medical practitioner and confirmed, in a written report provided to the Council, to be medically suitable to be involved in the surrogacy arrangement … As I said at the outset, it is the case that the regime in Western Australia is quite extensive. The requirements are quite significant. They are encapsulated on the Health Law Central website, as authored by Sonia Allan. With regard to that criteria, I specifically draw to members’ attention section 17 of the Western Australian Surrogacy Act. Those are the criteria that need to be met by commissioning persons in our state, but what criteria need to be met by the surrogates? The Reproductive Technology Council must not approve a surrogacy arrangement in Western Australia unless it is satisfied of certain things with respect to the surrogate mother. The surrogate mother also must be at least 25 years of age and, except in exceptional circumstances, must have previously given birth to a live child. In Western Australia, one cannot be a surrogate mother and this be her first child, other than in exceptional circumstances. Indeed, it would be interesting to ask the parliamentary secretary whether any exceptional circumstances have been granted. Has there been a case in Western Australia in which a person has applied to be a surrogate mother, they have been at least 25 years of age, but this would be their first birth of a live child? It is clear that that is not what is intended in Western Australian law, but it does allow for exceptional circumstances. I am interested to know how many of those circumstances have occurred. Maybe it is nil; maybe there is some other number. What I do not want is any silliness from the parliamentary secretary saying, “Sorry, the number is too small; I cannot tell you.” I sometimes find that we ask the Department of Health a question like this and the response is that the number is under five so it cannot tell us. There is no reason lawmakers in Western Australia should not be told how many of these exceptional-circumstances cases have occurred over the last 10 years. I go on to indicate that the Reproductive Technology Council must also be satisfied of other things with regard to a surrogate mother. I notice that it is often referred to as a surrogacy agreement, but I prefer the word “arrangement” rather than “agreement”. The reason I say that is that “agreement” would seem to suggest a certain level of enforceability. I think “arrangement” would be better, because at the end of the day we know that the birth mother cannot be forced to give up the child that she has just given birth to. That is quite appropriate, I hasten to add; of course they should not be forced. However, if they cannot be forced, then it is a bit rich to call it an agreement. It is really more of an arrangement, because an agreement would imply some level of enforceability. Nevertheless, this surrogacy agreement or arrangement needs to be in writing and signed by all the parties, including the commissioning parents, the surrogate mother and her partner, if any, interestingly enough. It is interesting that in Western Australia, not only do we require the commissioning parents and the surrogate mother to sign off on this arrangement, but also, if the surrogate mother has a partner, that person must also sign off on the arrangement. The question for members to contemplate is: Why is that? Why do we have that provision in Western Australia? There must be some significant psychological impact on family members if we are saying that,

2048 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019] as part of the law of Western Australia, that person also has to sign the surrogacy agreement. It is also the case that the sperm or egg donor and their partners must sign this agreement or arrangement. A lot of parties can be involved in signing this agreement. The maximum number of people who could be involved is eight—that is, a maximum of two commissioning parents, thank goodness, the surrogate mother and her partner, and the sperm and/or egg donor, let us assume both are being donated, and their partners. Eight parties is the state of play in Western Australia at the moment. What could possibly go wrong with eight people with competing desires and interests signing off on an arrangement for the procreation of a child? In addition, the Reproductive Technology Council must not approve a surrogacy arrangement unless it is satisfied that each of the parties has undergone counselling about the implications of the arrangements, has been assessed by a clinical psychologist as being psychologically suitable for the arrangement, and has received legal advice about the general effect of the agreement at least three months prior to the arrangement. The Reproductive Technology Council makes its decision after considering the situation of the surrogate mother and must not approve the arrangement unless it is satisfied that the donor and the surrogate mother have been assessed as medically suitable to be part of the surrogacy arrangement. Lastly, the Reproductive Technology Council must not approve a surrogacy arrangement unless it is satisfied that the intended surrogate mother is not yet pregnant under the agreement. So we can see that there is no possibility of a retrospective surrogacy arrangement in Western Australia. In respect to all those provisions, I draw members’ attention to section 15 of the Surrogacy Act 2008 and the Surrogacy Regulations 2009. While we are considering the current scheme in Western Australia that the government is seeking to amend, it is worth contemplating whether advertising surrogacy is legal in our state. Members may recall that I referred to some conferences and seminars that have taken place, including in Western Australia in February this year. Advertising concerning a commercial surrogacy agreement is in fact prohibited. Section 10 of the Surrogacy Act states — A person commits an offence if the person publishes or causes to be published — (a) anything that is intended to, or likely to, induce a person to enter into a surrogacy arrangement that is for reward; or (b) anything to the effect that a person who is willing to enter into a surrogacy arrangement that is for reward is sought; or (c) anything to the effect that a person is or might be willing to enter into a surrogacy arrangement that is for reward. It might interest members to know that the penalty for that offence is a fine of up to $6 000. In contrast, advertising for altruistic surrogacy arrangements is legal in Western Australia. Maybe that is another area members would like to consider—namely, to contemplate the appropriateness or otherwise of that provision and whether further amendments should be considered, and, once again, contemplating what I said earlier about supply and demand. It is worth considering whether agents, intermediaries or other people can be involved in these arrangements in Western Australia. I already indicated that the arrangement or agreement could involve a maximum of eight people, as I see it. Although I do note the following: who will know whether the sperm or egg donor has multiple partners, so maybe eight is not in fact the limit? But for the purpose of this exercise, let us assume that eight is the maximum number of individuals involved in the signing of this arrangement. The question then becomes whether other parties in the form of agents or intermediaries can be involved in this scheme in Western Australia. There is a penalty of a fine of up to $12 000 or imprisonment for one year for an offence under section 9 of the Surrogacy Act, which states — (1) A person who receives, or seeks to receive, valuable consideration for introducing or agreeing to introduce persons with the intention that they might enter into a surrogacy arrangement commits an offence. I am interested to know how many times that provision has been enforced and whether there have been any complaints. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary can indicate to us whether that is the case, because it is utterly pointless to have these various penalties and the like if nobody is enforcing them. It makes a mockery of the whole system. All it does is provide pretence and short-term comfort for lawmakers while they pass a bill that they are concerned about only to find that the provisions are never enforced. I would like to know how many occasions section 9 of the Surrogacy Act 2008 with the penalty of a fine of up to $12 000 or imprisonment for one year has been breached. It is also an offence under section 11 of the Surrogacy Act of WA for a person to provide a service knowing that the service is to facilitate a commercial surrogacy arrangement except if that service is a health service provided to the birth mother after she becomes pregnant. The penalty in that instance is imprisonment for up to five years. There is also a summary conviction penalty of a fine of up to $12 000 or imprisonment for one year. Once again, I ask the parliamentary secretary in her reply to the second reading debate to indicate to the house whether that has been enforced in any way. Have there been any complaints or prosecutions brought under section 11 of that Western Australian statute? Indeed, if that is the case, on how many occasions has that occurred? Preferably, if the parliamentary secretary is in a position to do so, could she indicate how many times the provision has been

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019] 2049 enforced, the circumstances of those matters and whether they ultimately led to a conviction? Is there something that we need to be made aware of in order to strengthen these important penalty provisions? If it is after all our view that people should not be providing a service knowing that they really are encouraging, introducing or agreeing to introduce people for commercial surrogacy or facilitating the like, we should have a certain level of satisfaction that that is being done appropriately. In terms of enforceability of the agreement, it is the case, as I mentioned, that surrogacy arrangements are not enforceable in Western Australia; therefore, a birth mother or intending parent can change their mind. That is the current state of play in Western Australia and I would not want to see that change. To me, that is one of the key reasons why members should give strong consideration to not incorporating a larger category of individuals to be at the mercy of these unenforceable arrangements. The very fact that people are entering into these unenforceable arrangements should be reason enough for lawmakers to pause and ask, “Do we really want to roll out the scheme?” Why would we want to roll out a scheme that is unenforceable? Why would we put Western Australians through the heartache of going through this whole procedure to find out at the end of the day that the birth mother has changed her mind and says that she will not release the child to them? I hasten to add again that under no circumstances should my comments be interpreted to suggest that the birth mother should have the child removed from her—under no circumstances am I suggesting that. I am simply suggesting that that is a possible outcome of an arrangement like this, because our law says that these things cannot be enforced. Why would we put people through this in the first place? Why would we put someone through the misery of an arrangement like this and all the counselling, various criteria and so on with no guarantee at the end of the day, knowing that the other person could change their mind? It seems to me to be almost cruel for those people to do so. Nevertheless, that is the arrangement that currently exists in our own state of Western Australia. It is my view that heartache should not be put upon more individuals, given the unenforceable nature of the surrogacy arrangements or, as some people like to call them, agreements. However, interestingly, to the extent that there is any enforceability with these arrangements or agreements, there is an obligation to pay or reimburse medical expenses; if there is such an undertaking or agreement, that is enforceable. If we like, really we have a contract. We have a surrogacy contract in Western Australia with some terms being enforceable and some terms not. Interestingly enough, the most important term out of the whole thing, which is the provision of the child, is the one that is not enforceable. We are quite happy to have an arrangement and a scheme in Western Australia that says to people that to get involved they are going to have to have up to eight people signing the contract, they are going to have to have clinical psychologists involved, certain people have to be over the age of 25, other people have to have proven they are medically suitable to have the procedure and other people have to provide evidence that they have good medical reasons that they cannot give birth to the child. It is saying, “We are going to do all those things and let you enforce any reasonable expenses you have incurred along the way, but the one thing we are not going to let you do to is enforce the final product.” To me that is a classic example of a contract that should not be allowed in the first place. The contract should be invalid from the get-go if its key component, the final outcome, the most desired outcome of the whole thing, the thing that drove people to involve themselves in the first place, cannot be enforced. If that cannot be enforced, why would we have the state facilitate that type of arrangement? It seems to me to be cruel and something that I cannot support as a legal practitioner . I turn to the issue of parentage orders. Commissioning parents, and there could be one or two, may apply to the Family Court of Western Australia for parentage orders. That is true. There are a number of provisions we need to consider when looking at the Western Australian legislation, the Surrogacy Act 2008, particularly section 13, but also sections 21 and 22. Starting with section 13, it is the case that in making a parentage order the court is to recognise that the best interests of the child are paramount. It is being presumed to be in the best interests of the child for the arranged parents to be parents of the child unless there is evidence to the contrary. That is what is stated in section 13. But before making the order, the court must also be satisfied that the birth parents and the commissioning parents have made a written plan, which includes details of the amount of time and communication that the child will have with the birth parents and the balancing of the child’s long-term welfare. The relevant provision is section 21(2)(f) of the Surrogacy Act 2008, when read in conjunction with section 22. That is what the court needs to be satisfied about before it makes one of these parentage orders. It needs to be satisfied that the birth parents and the commissioning parents have a written plan to ensure that time and communication will be allowed with the child, which is part of our scheme that I certainly support. That is the only way this type of thing could be regulated, albeit I do not think this should be happening in the first place. The Family Court must also consider other things when looking to make a parentage order here in Western Australia. If the birth mother is not the child’s genetic parent and at least one arranged parent is the child’s genetic parent or the birth mother cannot be found, is deceased or incapacitated, the legislation permits the court to dispense with the requirement for the birth parent to have received counselling and legal advice to consent to the making of a parentage order or to have agreed to an appropriate plan. Specific reference is made to section 21(3) of the Western Australian legislation. At this point, I indicate that I have suggested to members that we could add additional safeguards into the parentage order arrangement and the parentage order application process. I think there remains a case for the Western Australian Family Court, when considering these parentage orders, to receive an affidavit from the

2050 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019] relevant parties to confirm that there has been no exchange of money and that commercial surrogacy has not happened in secret. Interestingly, we have identified that there could be up to eight parties to this contractual arrangement; there could be eight parties signing a surrogacy arrangement and agreement. What is to stop one of those partners from providing a little bit of money in a brown paper bag for somebody else who is one of the eight? What is to stop that from happening at the moment in Western Australia? How would that be monitored and enforced? I think it would be very, very difficult. The reality is that we do not know whether that would be happening. One way we can at least try to lift the level of integrity with regard to these matters is to ensure that all those—let us say eight—people who have signed the surrogacy contract need to provide enough data to the Family Court when considering a parentage order. That would be worthwhile considering. I have asked the parliamentary secretary to specifically get advice on that and to indicate to the house the government’s position on that proposition. Lastly, on this issue of the status quo in the Western Australian legislation, I want to look at the issue of access to information for children. I note regarding parentage orders that birth parents and commissioning parents must make a written plan that includes details of the amount of time and communication the child will have with both parents, and that this is about balancing the child’s long-term welfare. In addition to that, people in Western Australia conceived under donor gametes after 2004 may access identifying information about the donor when they reach 16 years of age. Information is held on the reproductive technology register maintained by the WA Department of Health. That in itself is a particularly interesting area that I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary some more questions about in due course, because it seems to me that we really need to have justification on the part of the parliamentary secretary about why the current law in Western Australia allows the provision of the information only when the child turns 16 years old and not at some other age. Why does the law of Western Australia not allow it at 15 years of age? Why has 16 years been chosen as the age when this important information is available to children? Firstly, I would like a justification for that from the parliamentary secretary; and, secondly, I would like an indication from the parliamentary secretary whether the government is considering any further amendments to that regime in which the arbitrary age limit has been determined at 16 years. Is the government taking advice on whether that should be the case or whether it should be some other age? I look forward to the parliamentary secretary providing that information to the house in due course. One of the acts that the government is seeking to amend is the Human Reproductive Technology Act 1991. The government has quite helpfully provided a blue bill for both the Human Reproductive Technology Act and the Surrogacy Act 2008. I thank the government, the advisers and all those involved in the decision to make these documents available, and I give credit where credit is due. They are quite helpful documents to have at our disposal. I thank the government for making them available. I wish it had been just as accommodating on a range of other issues but, unfortunately, this is one of the few times that I can give it some credit in its handling of this legislation. Nevertheless, the government provided us with the blue bill, and I draw to members’ attention the changes to the Human Reproductive Technology Act in the event that we agree to the bill currently before the house. Very significantly, what the government is trying to do, amongst other things, is amend the preamble of the Human Reproductive Technology Act. If members have the blue bill, they will see paragraph A of the preamble. Paragraph B of the preamble reads — Parliament considers that the primary purpose and only justification for the creation of a human embryo in vitro is to assist persons who are unable to conceive children naturally due to medical reasons or whose children are otherwise likely to be affected by a genetic abnormality or a disease, to have children, and this legislation should respect the life created by this process. That is how paragraph B of the preamble reads at the moment. The government wants to change that version by deleting “unable to conceive children naturally due to medical reasons or” and use “likely to be unable to conceive or give birth to children naturally due to medical reasons, or” and insert a new category “or who are unable to conceive children naturally due to social reasons and are parties to a lawful surrogacy arrangement,”. The government is seeking to make a very significant change to the Human Reproductive Technology Act in just the preamble alone. Let us not forget that Minister Cook said that this review has nothing to do with the matters currently before Parliament—nothing at all, yet part 1 of the report, which is the volume that I have yet to get to, deals with the Human Reproductive Technology Act, the very act that the government is seeking to significantly change by changing its preamble and inserting the concept of surrogacy being available for social reasons. I intend to spend a bit of time unpacking that in due course, but I encourage members, if they have not already done so, to avail themselves of the opportunity with the Clerk, one of the Clerk Assistants or one of the hardworking staff in the chamber to obtain a copy of the blue bill. I think it will be very instructive moving forward in the consideration of this bill. I intend to refer to the blue bill at some length over the course of the debate and in the event that this bill passes the second reading and reaches the Committee of the Whole House, members will certainly need it if they are to make any sense of the various amendments sought to be made by the government and others, including me. Debate interrupted, pursuant to standing orders. [Continued on page 2062.] Sitting suspended from 4.15 to 4.30 pm

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019] 2051

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AUTHORITY — GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS — BRIEFINGS 307. Hon PETER COLLIER to the Minister for Environment: I refer to question without notice 284 answered on 3 April 2019. (1) Will the minister confirm that at no time during the briefing with the chairman of the Environmental Protection Authority was he informed that the EPA intended to amend the guidelines to include a requirement to fully offset all scope 1 emissions from projects emitting over 100 000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions per annum? (2) Did the minister receive any briefings or advice from the Department of the Premier and Cabinet or the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation regarding the proposed changes to the EPA guidelines prior to the briefing on 21 February 2019, or the announcement by the EPA on 7 March 2019? (3) If yes to (2), on what date did he receive the briefings or advice, and who provided the briefings or advice? (4) If yes to (2) will the minister table the briefings; and, if not, why not? (5) On what date did the minister first become aware of the EPA’s decision to amend the guidelines to include a requirement to fully offset all scope 1 emissions from projects emitting over 100 000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions per annum? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question. An answer cannot be provided in the time available. An answer will be provided to the honourable member on Tuesday, 9 April 2019. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AUTHORITY — GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS — BRIEFING NOTES 308. Hon PETER COLLIER to the Minister for Environment: I refer to question without notice 285 answered on 3 April 2019. (1) Will the minister confirm that the Conservation Council of Western Australia, the World Wildlife Fund, the Wilderness Society, the Environmental Defender’s Office, the Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand, the Environmental Consultants Association, and Natural Resource Management WA were consulted on the EPA’s decision to amend the guidelines to include a requirement to fully offset all scope 1 emissions from projects emitting over 100 000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions per annum? (2) Were any formal documents prepared to guide the consultation process, and were they provided to the stakeholder reference group? (3) If yes to (2), will the minister table the documents; and, if not, why not? (4) Was the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation, the minister’s office or the Premier’s office consulted in the preparation of the revised guidelines prior to the briefing on 21 February 2019? (5) If yes to (4), who was consulted and on what dates did the consultation take place? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question. (1) I am advised that the Environmental Protection Authority’s revised greenhouse gas guidelines, including the requirement to fully offset all scope 1 emissions from projects emitting over 100 000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions per annum, were discussed at the 27 February 2019 stakeholder reference group meeting. The Conservation Council of Western Australia, the Wilderness Society, the Environmental Defender’s Office, the Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand, the Environmental Consultants Association, and Natural Resource Management Western Australia attended that meeting. In addition, other attendees included the Chamber of Minerals and Energy, the Pastoralists and Graziers Association, the Western Australian Local Government Association, the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies and the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association. The World Wildlife Fund did not attend that meeting. (2)–(3) I am advised by the EPA that no revised guidelines or other documents outlining the requirement to fully offset all scope 1 emissions from projects emitting over 100 000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions per annum were provided to the stakeholder reference group.

2052 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019]

(4)–(5) The details regarding the timing of meetings of my office with the EPA on the draft greenhouse gas guidelines are outlined in my response to Hon Dr Steve Thomas’ motion on this issue on 14 March 2019. I table the attached Hansard extract. Questions relating to the Department of the Premier and Cabinet or the Premier’s office should be referred to the Premier. [See paper 2562.] DOUBLEVIEW PRIMARY SCHOOL COMPLEX — OPENING 309. Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN to the Minister for Education and Training: I refer to the minister’s answer to my question without notice 286 of 2 April 2019 regarding the opening of Doubleview Primary School. Given that the minister routinely in media releases announcing the opening of school infrastructure also provides an opportunity for local members of Parliament to make comments that can be attributed to them, why will she not allow a similar opportunity to Hon Liza Harvey, MLA, the member for Scarborough? Hon replied: I am not sure that the honourable member realises that some people are in government and some people are not. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon SUE ELLERY: When the government issues a media release, it is on behalf of the government. I am not sure what it is that the member does not understand, after two years, about why he is over there and why we are over here, but it is because we are in government and he is not. The PRESIDENT: I give the call to Hon Donna Faragher. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: You might want to show your colleague some respect and be quiet, and let her take the call and actually ask the question, because you are chewing up her time. VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING — VETIS CONSULTING SERVICES 310. Hon DONNA FARAGHER to the Minister for Education and Training: I refer to the minister’s answer to question without notice 288, asked yesterday, in which the minister stated, “All schools delivering qualifications that TAFE cannot auspice have been assisted to find alternative private registered training organisations to partner with for the delivery of these qualifications.” (1) Will the minister provide more detail on the actual assistance that has been provided to schools? (2) Are any schools still seeking an alternative private registered training organisation to partner with? (3) If yes to (2), will the minister list these schools and the relevant qualifications? (4) Can the minister confirm that the Department of Education will meet the costs for those schools that are required to use an alternative provider to TAFE? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. This response refers to the qualifications delivered to year 11 and 12 students in public schools. (1) The department has provided a list of private registered training organisations that other schools already have a partnership with for the specific qualifications, provided a list of schools partnering with those RTOs for the impacted schools to consult with to inform their selection, and reviewed the contracts provided by the private RTOs. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) Yes. FAMILY AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 311. Hon NICK GOIRAN to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Prevention of Family and Domestic Violence: I refer to the minister’s answer to question without notice 175, asked in the other place on 20 March 2019, to which the minister advised that the government is establishing a second residential behaviour-change program for perpetrators. (1) What is the name of the second program? (2) Is the second program identical to or modelled on another program? (3) If yes to (2), what is the name of that program?

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019] 2053

(4) Where is the second program being established? (5) When will the second program be operational and commence its behaviour-change work with individuals? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) It is called Communicare Breathing Space. (2) Yes. It will replicate the existing Breathing Space service model. (3) It is called Communicare Breathing Space. (4) The second Communicare Breathing Space will be located in the Perth metropolitan area. (5) It is anticipated that operations will commence in July 2019. MENTAL HEALTH — FLY IN, FLY OUT CODE 312. Hon JACQUI BOYDELL to the minister representing the Minister for Mines and Petroleum: I refer to the recently released Western Australian code of practice to help promote and maintain healthy workplaces for fly in, fly out workers in the resources and construction industries. (1) Considering that this code of practice is not regulation, how does the government intend to ensure that the code is adopted? (2) Does the government intend to track employer breaches of this code of practice? (3) If yes to (2), how does the government intend to track all reports or psychosocial hazards, considering that types of reporting can include text messages and verbal discussions, and can be addressed either formally or informally? (4) Through the release of this code of practice, does the government admit that if workers lived in the regions, it would in fact alleviate the psychosocial hazards brought on by FIFO work? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question. I know that she knows a lot about fly in, fly out work. The following information has been provided to me by the Minister for Mines and Petroleum. (1) The Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety will continue to be the regulator. The McGowan government has worked with unions and employers through the Commission for Occupational Safety and Health and the Mining Industry Advisory Committee, and we hope to work with them in the future to ensure that the code creates a positive outcome. We believe that this Australian-first code sets a benchmark for good practice and is the right step forward. Codes of practice are admissible in court proceedings. Courts may regard a code of practice as evidence of what is known about a hazard, risk or control, and may rely on the code of practice in determining what is reasonably practicable in the circumstances related to the code. (2) The Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety will act and keep records of reported failures to apply the code and comply with related legislation. (3) Employers and management have the primary duty to provide and maintain a working environment in which employees are not exposed to hazards. The code of practice provides advice and information about the standards of occupational safety and health required under legislation. (4) The government expects employers to provide a genuine choice to production staff about whether they want to do FIFO. Production workers should be able to choose between residential and FIFO work arrangements, and should be able to do FIFO from regional centres if that suits their personal situation. TAB — PRIVATISATION 313. Hon COLIN HOLT to the minister representing the Treasurer: I refer to the proposed sale of the WA TAB. (1) When will enabling legislation come before Parliament, given that the Treasurer’s media statement dated 9 October 2018 said that it would be “early in 2019”? (2) Have there been delays in drafting the enabling legislation? (3) If yes to (2), what are the reasons for the delays? (4) When will the Treasurer introduce the legislation and provide certainty to the industry? (5) Can the Treasurer guarantee that the WA TAB will be sold before the 2021 state election? (6) Referring to question without notice 41 asked on 13 February 2019, has the probity plan now been adopted and will the Treasurer please table it?

2054 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019]

Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) On current time lines, the enabling legislation is expected to be introduced in May 2019. (2)–(3) The drafting of legislation has taken time due to the need to consult industry and the complexities of amending existing legislation to allow for a new wagering licence regime. Although the government’s careful approach to consulting with the racing industry has taken time, this has been important to help resolve the uncertainty created by the former government’s failure to properly consult the industry when it considered the matter. (4) See answer to (1). (5) The government’s objective is to sell the TAB before the 2021 election; however, this will depend on a range of factors, including timely passage of the enabling legislation. (6) The probity plan has been adopted. It is an internal governance document for the project and tabling it could compromise the sale process if it were made available publicly. This would be against the racing industry’s interests. We look forward to the opposition’s support for the quick passage of this legislation to provide the certainty for the industry the member is seeking. FARM WATER REBATE SCHEME — LAKE GRACE 314. Hon RICK MAZZA to the minister representing the Minister for Water: I refer to concerns over a lack of water in the Lake Grace region. (1) Will the state government consider reinstating the farm water rebate scheme? (2) How regularly are farmers in the Lake Grace region being consulted by the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation to keep them updated about their local water supplies? (3) What is being done in the short and long term to assist Lake Grace farmers in their water shortage plight? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question. The Minister for Water has provided the following information. (1) The farm water rebate scheme was in place for 24 years. The scheme provided a rebate to support water infrastructure; it did not subsidise water. A significant number of farmers in the Shire of Lake Grace took advantage of the scheme, and a total of $622 437 was invested in rebates as part of that scheme from January 2009. Despite this investment, farmers in the area are still experiencing significant shortages in water due to the severity of the season. Reinstating the scheme will do nothing to assist farmers deal with the immediate impacts of the dry season. (2) The Department of Water and Environmental Regulation is providing farmers with weekly updates through local shires. (3) The government, through the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation, is working closely with the Shire of Lake Grace, the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development and the Water Corporation to understand farmers’ water needs and to provide water supply information. Emergency water supplies and farmers’ water carting requirements are being monitored weekly. Four new supplies for farmers in the Shire of Lake Grace have been brought online recently, and two additional supplies for the Shires of Jerramungup and Esperance will be available shortly. The Water Corporation is already bringing water to the area to bolster existing town supplies. The government is liaising with other commercial water users to direct sourcing of water from outside the current areas of high demand. The department has spoken with shires in dryland areas to ensure that each knows the requirements of the water deficiency declaration process. The McGowan government has sought commonwealth funding to improve emergency water supplies across the state. TAXIS — PLATES — BUYBACK SCHEME 315. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE to the minister representing the Minister for Transport: I thank the minister for her answer to question without notice 293 asked yesterday. In an attempt to better understand the regulatory gatekeeper unit’s role in decisions such as the taxi plate buyback legislation, I ask the following. (1) If the modelling undertaken by the Department of Finance in early 2017 informed, but did not reflect, the final reforms adopted by the government, and if, as the minister said, subsequent modelling was considered by the government, was that subsequent modelling assessed by the regulatory gatekeeper unit within the Department of Finance? (2) If yes to (1), will the minister table the RGU’s advice on that subsequent modelling; and, if not, why not? (3) If no to (1), why was the RGU not consulted on the subsequent modelling given the changes that had been incorporated into it?

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019] 2055

Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1)–(2) The impact of the 10 per cent levy was considered by members of government as part of its consideration of the taxi plate buyback scheme. (3) The Department of Transport has advised that the regulatory gatekeeping unit was aware that different surcharge values were being considered. Given the direct relation between the size and duration of the levy, the 10 per cent levy did not add any new areas of impact to the industry or consumers compared with the eight per cent assessed in the 2017 regulatory impact statement. POLICE — POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER — SUICIDES 316. Hon CHARLES SMITH to the minister representing the Minister for Police: I refer to the suicide of Darren Igglesden in October last year at Cockburn Central Police Station and the recent suicide of my friend Dave Curtis in Kalgoorlie. (1) What is the government doing to address post-traumatic stress disorder issues for our operational police officers? (2) Is the government considering any new operational procedures to tackle PTSD for currently serving police officers? (3) Is the government considering any new legislation to reduce the stigma associated with mental health conditions for our police? (4) If no to (3), why not? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The following information has been provided to me by the Minister for Police. (1)–(4) It would appear from the preamble that the honourable member has chosen to link the deaths of two serving officers to post-traumatic stress disorder. If the honourable member would like to ask the questions without the preamble, the minister will be more than happy to provide an update on initiatives being taken by the Western Australia Police Force to address PTSD. FORESTRY — LEWANA PLANTATION — FIRE 317. Hon DIANE EVERS to the minister representing the Minister for Forestry: I refer to the recent fire in the Lewana plantation near Nannup which affected 3 336 hectares, including 1 700 hectares of Forest Products Commission pine. (1) What caused the fire? (2) Who will bear the costs of — (a) fighting the fire; and (b) the state’s lost timber supply? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question. The Minister for Forestry has provided the following information. (1) The cause of the Lewana plantation fire is currently under investigation by the Department of Fire and Emergency Services’ fire investigation unit. (2) (a) Subject to the release and the findings in the fire investigation report, the Forest Products Commission will cover the costs of the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions’ firefighting effort, estimated at 80 per cent of the government firefighting effort. The Department of Fire and Emergency Services will cover the balance. Private timber industry support was also utilised and will cover their own costs. (b) The Forest Products Commission will cover the cost of salvage and replanting of the fire-affected areas. There will be cost recovery for a portion of the fire-affected material where the market exists. Fire salvage efforts will be concentrated on recovering high-value timber products in the first instance. The loss of timber assets will be borne by the Forest Products Commission. YOUNG PEOPLE WITH EXCEPTIONALLY COMPLEX NEEDS PROGRAM 318. Hon ALISON XAMON to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Child Protection: I refer to my question without notice 1226 of 27 November 2018 regarding the Young People with Exceptionally Complex Needs program. (1) Has the department now considered the recommendations of the review? (2) If no to (1), why not?

2056 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019]

(3) If yes to (1) — (a) will the minister please table the review report; and (b) will any changes be made to the program? (4) If yes to (3)(b), what changes will be made and when will they be made? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes, the Department of Communities has considered the review and its recommendations. (2) Not applicable. (3) (a) I am advised that the report has now been finalised; however, I have not been briefed on it yet. Once this occurs I will be happy to provide the member with a briefing on the report. (b) A workshop is being held in May 2019 between the Department of Communities and senior staff from other state government partner agencies to discuss the review’s recommendations and potential implementation. (4) Implementation, including potential changes to the program and time frames, will be identified following the workshop mentioned in (3)(b). ELDER ABUSE — NATIONAL PLAN 319. Hon TJORN SIBMA to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Seniors and Ageing: I refer to the “National Plan to Respond to the Abuse of Older Australians [Elder Abuse] 2019–23”, released by the commonwealth Attorney-General last month. (1) Noting that the plan was endorsed by the entire Council of Attorneys-General, CAG, which includes the Western Australian Attorney General, Hon John Quigley, MLA, does the minister also endorse the national plan? (2) What was the “significant contribution” the minister is recorded as making to the national plan? (3) Will the minister table a copy of that contribution; and, if not, why not? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes. (2) The minister is the policy lead within the Western Australian government for elder abuse. As part of the minister’s portfolio, the Department of Communities co-chaired with the commonwealth government on the Protecting the Rights of Older Australians working group, which developed the national plan. (3) Not applicable. The minister’s engagement occurred through the working group, involving liaison between officers from the Department of Communities and the commonwealth over an ongoing period during the development of the national plan. METRONET — SOIL CONTAMINATION 320. Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS to the minister representing the Minister for Transport: I refer to my questions without notice 226, asked Wednesday, 20 March 2019, and 276, asked Tuesday, 2 April, on PFAS-contaminated soil excavated from the Forrestfield–Airport Link. (1) Which Metronet projects, apart from the Forrestfield–Airport Link project, have produced an excess of earth or soil that exceeds the immediate need of that individual project, and what is the volume of each excess? (2) Which Metronet projects are expected to produce during construction excess soil or earth that can be moved to other projects, sold or will need to be disposed of as waste, and in what volumes? (3) To which Metronet projects has the minister or the Public Transport Authority been advised that the landfill levy could potentially apply? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The following information has been provided by the Minister for Transport. (1) Nil. (2) The only Metronet project expected to produce excess fill is the Yanchep extension. (3) The landfill levy will apply only to excess fill that cannot be beneficially re-used and is disposed of at a licensed landfill site.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019] 2057

“WHEATBELT REGION PARKS AND RESERVES DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN” 321. Hon MARTIN ALDRIDGE to the Minister for Environment: I refer to the “Wheatbelt Region parks and reserves draft management plan”. (1) What specific consultation has occurred with local government, not-for-profit organisations and others that have land vested under their control that are intended to form part of the Conservation and Parks Commission? (2) When vesting is subject to consultation with the appropriate organisation in control of the state land, when is it intended that this consultation will occur? (3) Is the minister aware that local governments have not been directly made aware of the plan and the related public comment period that closes on 5 April 2019? (4) Will the minister extend the public comment period and more widely advertise the opportunity for public comment in light of these failings? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The consultation process for this draft management plan has been occurring with the community and local governments for several years. In November 2017, all local governments covering the planning area were advised of the preparation of the draft management plan and invited to provide comment by contacting the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions. Local governments were advised by letter on 15 February 2019 about the release of the draft management plan for public comment, as required under section 59 of the Conservation and Land Management Act. (2) Further consultation with individual landholders about implementation of proposed tenure changes will be undertaken after I have approved the final management plan. (3) Refer to answer (1). (4) The release of the draft plan was advertised in two issues of The West Australian and Farm Weekly to satisfy the requirements of the CALM act, and also through the distribution of letters to a wide range of stakeholders throughout the state, including relevant local governments. The public comment period opened on 5 February 2019 and closes on 5 April 2019. Individual stakeholders are encouraged to contact DBCA if they require an extension for their submission. MENTAL HEALTH — FLY IN, FLY OUT WORKERS 322. Hon ROBIN SCOTT to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Health: (1) Is the minister’s department presently conducting any study of health issues involving fly in, fly out workers? (2) Is the minister aware of any recent or current study of suicides and/or suicidal tendencies among FIFO workers, especially studies comparing FIFO workers with other workers including Australian Defence Force personnel; and, if so, will the minister table any relevant report? Hon ALANNA CLOHESY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The Western Australian Department of Health system manager is not presently conducting any study into the health issues of FIFO workers. (2) Yes. On 5 December 2018, the Minister for Health; Mental Health announced the release of the research report, “Impact of FIFO work arrangements on the mental health and wellbeing of FIFO workers”. The report was funded by the Mental Health Commission and conducted in partnership with industry, unions, and more than 3 000 FIFO workers and their families, with researchers from Curtin University’s— formerly the University of Western Australia’s—Centre for Transformative Work Design. The research found FIFO workers experience higher levels of psychological distress, and higher levels of burnout than non-FIFO workers and are likely to be at greater risk of suicide. The report is publicly available—I will provide the member with a copy—and can also be sourced on the Mental Health Commission website. YARA PILBARA NITRATES — TECHNICAL AMMONIUM NITRATE PLANT 323. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE to the Minister for Environment: I refer to amendment notice 1 of licence number L7997/2002/11, licence holder Yara Pilbara Fertilisers Pty Ltd and Yara Pilbara Nitrates Pty Ltd. (1) Will the minister table all the works approvals, licences to operate and amendment notices for the Yara Pilbara fertiliser plant, formerly Burrup fertiliser plant, and the Yara technical ammonium nitrate plant? (2) What is the reasoning for amendment notice 1 of licence number L7997/2002/11? (3) If no to (1), why not?

2058 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019]

Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) I table the active works approvals, licences and amendment notices issued to Yara Pilbara Fertilisers Pty Ltd and Yara Pilbara Nitrates Pty Ltd for the Yara Pilbara fertiliser plant: L7997/2002/11, amendment notice 1, 2 April 2019; L7997/2002/11, amended licence, amended 29 June 2018; and L7997/2002/11, amended licence and decision report, amended 29 June 2018. Due to the limited time available to table all non-active works approvals, licences and amendment notices for the Yara Pilbara fertiliser plant—formerly the Burrup fertiliser plant—and the Yara technical ammonium nitrate plant, I ask the honourable member to put this question on notice. [See paper 2563.] (2) Amendment notice 1 was issued by the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation to amend condition 18 of licence L7997/2002/11. The amendment relates to extending that date for an emission limit for total nitrogen and total phosphorous to apply for discharges from the wastewater treatment plant to infiltration basins at the premises. The date was extended from 1 April 2019 to 30 November 2019 and given to allow improvements to the wastewater treatment plant to be completed. (3) See answer to (1). NORTH STONEVILLE DEVELOPMENT 324. Hon TIM CLIFFORD to the Minister for Environment: The proposed North Stoneville development—structure plan 34, Shire of Mundaring—includes the construction of a private wastewater treatment plant, with limited information provided to date as to the operation, costings and public health and environmental assurances. (1) Will the minister please provide details of any meetings held between the developer, Satterley Property Group, and the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation, as well as the Environmental Protection Authority? (2) Will the minister please provide details of any meetings or correspondence between the minister’s office or the minister and Satterley on this matter? (3) What assessments are required for the approval of the structure plan; have these assessments been completed; and, if so, will the minister please table any relevant documentation? (4) What level of assessment was undertaken to give advice on this site in the past, and in what year? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) I am advised that the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation met with Satterley on 5 March 2019. (2) There have been no meetings or correspondence between the Minister for Environment and Satterley on the North Stoneville development. (3) The structure plan does not require assessment or approval under the Environmental Protection Act 1986. Structure plans are assessed and approved by the Western Australian Planning Commission in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, which fall under the portfolio responsibilities of the Minister for Planning. The Department of Water and Environmental Regulation may be requested to endorse a local water management strategy at the structure planning stage in conjunction with the local government and in accordance with the Better Urban Water Management guidance. I am advised that the department has not yet endorsed a local water management strategy for the North Stoneville development. If a private wastewater treatment plant is required, a works approval will need to be issued by Department of Water and Environmental Regulation under part V of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The Department of Water and Environmental Regulation has not received a works approval application for this proposal. (4) In April 2000, the Environmental Protection Authority determined that metropolitan region scheme 1019/33 did not require formal assessment under the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The EPA provided advice on flora, vegetation, fauna, and surface water quality. In February 2016, the former Office of the Environmental Protection Authority also provided correspondence to the Western Australian Planning Commission on the proposed lifting of urban deferment, noting a wastewater treatment plant will be required, and provided advice on protecting priority flora.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019] 2059

ALBANY RING-ROAD — FEDERAL FUNDING 325. Hon JIM CHOWN to the minister representing the Minister for Transport: The commonwealth’s $140 million funding for the Albany ring-road is contingent upon the state submitting the required paperwork. (1) Has the business case and relevant paperwork been accepted by the commonwealth to release the $140 million funding for the Albany ring-road? (2) If no to (1), why not? (3) What is the state government’s financial contribution to this critical road investment? (4) What is the time frame for commencement of construction? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The stage 3 submission has been submitted to Infrastructure Australia for assessment. (2) Not applicable. (3) I table the attached documents. [See paper 2564.] (4) The federal government has written and advised that its recent budget has not provided funding for the project until the 2021–22 financial year. POLICE — CRIME RATES — BROOME 326. Hon KEN BASTON to the minister representing the Minister for Police: I refer to today’s Broome Advertiser article titled “Petition calls for more action on crime sprees”, which described the recent significant increase in crime currently occurring in Broome. (1) Has the minister met with any Kimberley-based organisations, government agencies or members of the Kimberley district police force to discuss these recent events? (2) If yes to (1), with whom did the minister meet and what was the outcome of these meetings? (3) Has the minister offered additional resources and support to Broome police during this period? (4) What actions is the minister taking to address this crisis? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The following information has been provided to me by the Minister for Police. (1)–(2) The minister, with the Commissioner of Police, has previously met with the following groups and others in the Kimberley to discuss juvenile crime and related community safety issues: Kimberley district police, including Superintendent Allan Adams; Broome PCYC, Annie Dann, centre manager; Broome Youth Creative Projects; Loretta Bin Omar, Kimberley regional manager, Australian Red Cross; Broome Youth and Community Hub, William Gee, program coordinator; Kimberley Night Fields coordinator, Eamon Rice; Beagle Bay community and Professor Harry Blagg, with Deputy Commissioner Dreibergs; Milliya Rumurra Aboriginal Corporation’s alcohol and other drugs rehabilitation centre, with Deputy Commissioner Dreibergs. Further, the Minister for Police will continue to meet with the Commissioner of Police and the Assistant Commissioner for Regional Western Australia to discuss community safety in the Kimberley. (3)–(4) As the honourable member should be aware, the allocation of staff and resources is at the direction of the Commissioner of Police based on operational requirements. The Commissioner of Police has allocated additional funding to support operational activities, focusing on strategies to reduce the incidence of juvenile offending and antisocial behaviour in the Kimberley. A greater emphasis has been given to the introduction of youth crime intervention officers throughout the Kimberley. The Western Australia Police Force are members of the Kimberley juvenile justice working group, with outcomes including increased diversion of young people and the use of elders as part of the juvenile justice team process. Kimberley police continue to work with local Aboriginal leaders to develop co-designed approaches to historical police-related issues.

2060 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019]

HARDSHIP UTILITY GRANT SCHEME Question without Notice 302 — Answer Advice HON SUE ELLERY (South Metropolitan — Leader of the House) [5.05 pm]: I would like to provide an answer to Hon Colin Tincknell’s question without notice 302 asked yesterday. I seek leave to have it incorporated into Hansard. Leave granted. The following material was incorporated — Answer (1)–(3)

Month Requests made Requests granted Value of grant approved Jan-17 2,778 2,655 $1,051,824 Feb-17 3,009 2,902 $1,199,095 Mar-17 4,315 4,227 $1,806,925 Apr-17 2,594 2,547 $1,068,582 May-17 5,175 5,033 $2,054,824 Jun-17 8,337 8,125 $3,174,524 Jul-17 10,989 10,697 $4,020,042 Aug-17 6,697 6,640 $2,754,285 Sep-17 8,266 8,198 $3,238,007 Oct-17 9,693 9,541 $3,641,132 Nov-17 5,606 5,505 $1,974,872 Dec-17 5,723 5,568 $1,910,221 Jan-18 5,507 5,290 $1,962,417 Feb-18 1,316 1,183 $538,868 Mar-18 771 704 $351,161 Apr-18 438 406 $201,619 May-18 839 700 $342,684 Jun-18 759 606 $296,506 Jul-18 952 786 $414,330 Aug-18 1,303 913 $486,652 Sep-18 1,399 1,183 $637,854 Oct-18 1,087 943 $506,471 Nov-18 1,771 1,600 $845,104 Dec-18 1,453 1,298 $683,596 Jan-19 1,257 1,109 $590,930 Feb-19 1,002 895 $475,230 Mar-19 1,397 1,212 $644,879 Total 37,197 42,826 $35,813,425 (4)–(5) The Department of Communities neither collects nor collates data pertaining to either debts written off by specific utility providers or the number of bankruptcies where household consumer accounts may appear as part of individual Statements of Affairs. I would encourage the Member to ask the individual Ministers responsible for each utility for which people are eligible for a HUGS grant to help with payment for this data.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE 1888, 1891 AND 1892 Papers Tabled Papers relating to answers to questions on notice were tabled by Hon Sue Ellery (Minister for Education and Training).

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019] 2061

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AUTHORITY — GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS — BRIEFINGS Questions without Notice 259 and 284 — Correction of Answer HON STEPHEN DAWSON (Mining and Pastoral — Minister for Environment) [5.06 pm]: On 2 and 3 April 2019, I provided responses to questions without notice 259 and 284 to Hon Peter Collier in relation to the Environmental Protection Authority’s greenhouse gas guidance. In the answer to (3), I stated “No” to the question regarding whether my office had received notes or advice in relation to the meeting. I have since been advised that on the morning of the briefing, my office did receive an email from EPA services as background to the meeting. I table these documents and apologise to the house for the error. [See paper 2568.] SANDALWOOD HARVEST Question without Notice 265 — Answer Advice HON ALANNAH MacTIERNAN (North Metropolitan — Minister for Regional Development) [5.06 pm]: I would like to provide an answer to Hon Colin Holt’s question without notice 265 asked on Tuesday, 2 April, in my capacity as minister representing the Minister for Forestry. I seek leave to have the response incorporated into Hansard. Leave granted. The following material was incorporated — Answer I thank the Honourable Member for some notice of the question. (1) Contracts were awarded to: • Dutjahn Sandalwood Oils Pty Ltd: 100 tonnes of sandalwood per annum. • Mount Romance Australia Pty Ltd: 400 tonnes of sandalwood per annum. (2) Yes. (3) The contract with Mount Romance Australia Pty Ltd was terminated by mutual agreement in May 2018. (4) No. (5) Yes.

SHARKS — HAZARD MITIGATION — DRUM LINE TRIAL Question without Notice 99 — Supplementary Information HON ALANNAH MacTIERNAN (North Metropolitan — Minister for Regional Development) [5.07 pm]: On behalf of the Minister for Fisheries, who advised in an answer to Hon Jim Chown’s question without notice 99 on 20 February that a contract and tender evaluation report will be provided once they have been reviewed, I can inform the member that I now have those documents, which I will table. [See paper 2569.] HOSPITALS — EMERGENCY DEPARTMENTS — CONSULTANT PSYCHIATRISTS Question without Notice 231 — Answer Advice HON ALANNA CLOHESY (East Metropolitan — Parliamentary Secretary) [5.07 pm]: I provide an answer to question without notice 231 asked by Hon Jim Chown on 20 March 2019. I seek leave to have it incorporated into Hansard. Leave granted. The following material was incorporated — ANSWER: I thank the Honourable Member for some notice of the question. (1) I am advised the number of Consultant Psychiatrists on duty for the month of February 2019 in the respective Emergency Department’s was as follows: • Armadale Hospital: A Consultant Psychiatrist was on duty Monday to Friday, 8:30am to 4:30pm; On-call Monday to Friday 4:30pm to 8:30am and 24 hours Saturday/Sunday. • Fiona Stanley Hospital (FSH): A Consultant Psychiatrist was rostered on between 8.30am to 4.30pm Monday to Friday for each day of February 2019. On the weekend (Saturday and Sunday) there was 24 hour Consultant Psychiatrist on call. • Joondalup Health Campus: A Consultant Psychiatrist was on duty in the Emergency Department Monday to Friday, during business hours 8:00am to 5:00pm. Outside of business hours and on Saturday and Sunday a Consultant Psychiatrist was available on-call.

2062 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019]

• King Edward Memorial Hospital: A Consultant Psychiatrist was available via the Psychiatric Medicine Clinic between business hours 8:30am to 5:00pm. A Consultant Psychiatrist was available on-call to attend the Emergency Department outside of these hours. • Peel Health Campus: There was a consultant psychiatrist rostered on for four hours per day, Monday to Friday for each day of February 2019. On the weekend (Saturday and Sunday) there was 24 hour consultant psychiatrist on call cover 24 hours a day—the on-call psychiatrist covers both Rockingham General Hospital ED and Peel Health Campus ED. • Perth Children’s Hospital: Consultant Psychiatry cover is provided 24/7 by a Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) Psychiatrist. The Consultant provides telephone and face to face cover, as required. • Rockingham General Hospital (RGH): A consultant psychiatrist was rostered on between 8.30am to 4.30 pm Monday to Friday for each day of February 2019. On the weekend (Saturday and Sunday) there was 24 hour consultant psychiatrist on call cover 24 hours a day—the on-call psychiatrist covers both Rockingham General Hospital ED and Peel Health Campus ED. • Royal Perth Hospital: A Consultant Psychiatrist was on duty Monday to Friday, 8:30am to 5:00pm; On-call psychiatrist Monday to Friday 5:00pm to 8:30am and 24 hours Saturday/Sunday. • Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital: A Consultant Psychiatrist was available in the Emergency Department 7 days per week from 8:30am to 2:00pm. A Consultant Psychiatrist was available on-call outside of these hours. • St John of God Midland Public Hospital: A Consultant psychiatrist is on-call 24 hours, 7 days a week. (SJGMPH has a Registrar Psychiatrist on duty 24 hours a day, 7 days a week).

HUMAN REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY AND SURROGACY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2018 Second Reading Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting. HON NICK GOIRAN (South Metropolitan) [5.08 pm]: I am pleased to continue my remarks on the Human Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Legislation Amendment Bill 2018. Prior to the interruption of the debate for the taking of questions without notice and the ordinary suspension of the house at 4.15 pm as is customary and as permitted under the standing orders on a Thursday, I was indicating to members that a few helpful documents had been provided by the government to assist in the facilitation of the passage of this bill. I indicated to members that one of those documents is the blue bill the government has prepared on the Human Reproductive Technology Act 1991 that incorporates the amendments proposed by the bill before us. The PRESIDENT: I do not know whether it is your very soft voice or the microphones are not loud enough or there is too much other noise with chat in the chamber, but I am finding it really difficult to hear what you are saying, so you might speak up a little bit, please. Hon NICK GOIRAN: Sorry, Madam President. It is not customary for me ever to be told that I cannot be heard. If that is indeed the case this afternoon, Madam President, I will endeavour to exercise my voice in a more robust fashion. Prior to the interruption of the debate at 4.15 pm on a Thursday, as per the standing orders, and then the taking of questions without notice, as is customary at 4.30 pm each day, I was taking members through a couple of helpful documents that the government has prepared, which I think will assist in facilitation of this bill. The government has prepared a blue bill on the Human Reproductive Technology Act 1991. The cover page of the blue bill states, “Incorporating the amendments proposed by the Human Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Legislation Amendment Bill 2018, Pt.2, (Bill No. 88–1)”. I encourage members to get a copy of that blue bill and make it available, because it will be useful as we continue to consider what the government is proposing; in particular, the existing state of the law, and how it will change once we insert the words proposed by the government. The second document the government has usefully provided to us is the blue bill on the Surrogacy Act 2008, which looks to incorporate the amendments proposed by the bill before the house. I encourage members to access and become familiar with the combination of those two documents, and to have them available as we continue to consider each of the clauses and provisions, and the policy of the bill. Having said that, in addition to those documents—of course, the government has had to provide the bill, the explanatory memorandum and the second reading speech, which we will look at in detail in due course—there are a number of documents that the government has not provided that would be helpful in the passage of this legislation. Members would be aware that for a time the government was not willing to provide the two volumes of the independent review. That has now been addressed, and the government provided that review in March. We can add that review to the group of documents that will be helpful for the passage of the legislation. But there are a number of other documents that I call upon the government to release and table when we resume, because, regrettably, I do not think we will be able to finish the debate on this bill this afternoon. That means we will have to have another occasion for debate. The benefit of that delay is that it will give the government the opportunity to obtain those documents and place them on the table of this chamber. When we next consider this bill, I would like to see the review submissions, which will assist in the facilitation and expedient passage of this bill. I remind members, and Madam President would be aware, that—I may even have raised a point of order in another context on this matter—the government said on 14 March 2018 that it would table those review submissions.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019] 2063

I look at the table in front of me and those submissions are still not there. When we return to this chamber and Madam President next calls for the tabling of papers, as is customary, which I anticipate will happen on Tuesday next week, it would be of assistance to the house and the passage of this bill if the parliamentary secretary would rise and at that particular point table those submissions that the government, and the parliamentary secretary in this chamber on 14 March last year, promised to table. We are entitled to have those submissions. They are entitled to be tabled in this place. That was a commitment given by the government not this year, but last year, and it should fulfil that commitment. That will assist us in the consideration of these clauses in the bill that is before the house. I have no doubt that some of those submissions will deal with the very issues that we are currently contemplating. The second thing that would assist the passage of this bill is the government’s response to the review recommendations. I hope that the government would be so good as to consider, over the short adjournment that will take place over the next few days, tabling its response in the house next Tuesday. The government has had 12 weeks to consider that. The rest of us who are not government members have had two weeks. I am asking for government to table its response to the review next Tuesday so that we can facilitate the passage of this bill; otherwise, it will be necessary for us to continue to do this using our limited resources. We do not have the massive resources that government has. We do not have the empire that government has with all the people at its disposal. We do not have that. We just have a very small team of research and electorate officers to assist us. We are simply asking the government to put on the record and table in this Parliament its response to this review. That is not unreasonable after the government has had 12 weeks to consider the review and it has given us a mere two weeks to consider it. The third thing that would be useful is if the government would be so kind as to table next Tuesday the legal advice that it says it is relying upon in respect of this matter. Hon Tjorn Sibma has been vigorously pursuing this matter with the government for some time. I support him in his pursuit of this information. I understand that the government may not be willing to release the precise legal opinion that it has received, but it certainly could provide a precis or a summary document of what that legal advice says without necessarily providing the full legal advice. Of course, that would be preferable and it is certainly not without precedence. I note that in the passage of some bills during this fortieth Parliament, the government has, on occasion, tabled advice from the Solicitor-General, amongst other people. I am simply asking for the government to do that next week. In summary, I hope that the government will have the decency next Tuesday to finally take a different approach with this bill. Clearly, the approach that it has been taking has not been working. Instead, it could be transparent and table the documents that we are entitled to have so that members in this place are no longer expected to blindly cast their conscience votes. If the government could provide the review submission that it promised on 14 March last year, as well as its response to this review, which it has been considering for the last 12 weeks, and, thirdly, the legal advice, I would be fairly confident at that point that we could make some useful progress in the passage of this bill. But if the government continues, as usual, to be arrogant and take either a deceptive or bullying approach to this bill, I will not countenance that for one moment. Then we will have to continue with our consideration in the best way that we can as members without the massive resources of government, to review all the documentation presently on the public record. Some of those things that we will need to consider are the assertions made by the government in its explanatory memorandum. I will foreshadow what I intend to look at next by drawing members’ attention to the explanatory memorandum. If members have that readily available before them, I refer to page 5 of the explanatory memorandum and the government’s reference to “the rights to an egg”. I want to have a look at this issue of rights and who has the right to be a parent. Indeed, is this a conversation about rights at all, or is this actually a conversation about desires? There is a difference between somebody’s understandable desire to be a parent and the view that there is a right to be a parent. I hold the view that it is understandable for a person to have a desire to be a parent, but they may not necessarily have a right to be. I would like to spend some time looking at that when we next appear and consider this bill. I would ask members to be familiar with those documents, and I would call upon the government to table those documents that I have requested so that we can make good progress on this matter when the bill next appears in the chamber. Debate adjourned, pursuant to standing orders. CITY OF PERTH — SUSPENSION Statement HON ALISON XAMON (North Metropolitan) [5.20 pm]: I want to raise my concerns about the ongoing lack of elected representation for the residents of the City of Perth. I want to be very clear: I am certainly not here to suggest that there were no issues with the City of Perth, and I am not suggesting that the minister did the incorrect thing by suspending the council, but it has been over a year since the Perth city council was suspended on 2 March 2018 and the three commissioners were appointed. Of course, these commissioners have the authority to operate as the council and hold the same decision-making authority. The commissioners have been appointed for the period of suspension and inquiry. The terms of reference for the inquiry originally expected a reporting date of 2 May this year; however, on 5 December last year—that is, after the public hearings were held in November last year—this reporting date

2064 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019] was amended to 20 January 2020. Obviously, there is a lot to unpack in the investigation of the previous council. However, I have been contacted by a number of constituents who are concerned that they currently have no elected representation on council, and are not going to look at even having an elected council until 2020. The residents of the City of Perth are right to raise this as a concern. The commissioners have to walk a very fine line. They have to remember that, of course, they have not been elected; they have nevertheless been appointed to be the final decision-makers on all council matters. However, these residents have not had a say in electing these commissioners, and they are not going to have a say in how and when elections are finally going to take place. I think this is a really uncomfortable place for the residents to have to inhabit, especially as the city is currently working through some very large community engagement projects, such as the draft city planning strategy, which is effectively going to shape the face of the city over the next 10 to 15 years. We know that the current commissioners are more than capable of developing town planning strategies and schemes, but it is valid for people to be concerned about the impact that these—I remind members—unelected officials will have on the city over the course of a two-year, or possibly even longer, appointment. The fact remains that our local government authorities are supposed to be run by elected representatives, so this situation needs to be resolved sooner rather than later. I am calling on the minister to provide additional resources to the inquiry to ensure that it is completed as quickly as possible, which will then open the way for council elections to be held as soon as possible and for elected officials to once again represent the people of the City of Perth. I think the current situation is highly dissatisfactory, and if this drags on unnecessarily, it raises very grave issues around the issue of democracy at the local government level. 2019 CEO SLEEPOUT Statement HON PIERRE YANG (South Metropolitan) [5.24 pm]: It is that time of year again. I would like to inform the house that I will be taking part in the 2019 CEO Sleepout. This morning, I attended an event organised by the St Vincent de Paul Society to launch this year’s CEO Sleepout. This will be my third year participating in the event, but I met a few people who have been doing it for a very long time. A couple of people will be doing it for the tenth time. I want to extend my congratulations and thanks to them for their long-lasting dedication to the cause. Members, with your support, we raised $6 600 in 2017 and over $6 000 in 2018. Please forgive me because I will be coming to you in the next few weeks to ask for your support. MENTAL HEALTH — FLY IN, FLY OUT CODE Statement HON TIM CLIFFORD (East Metropolitan) [5.25 pm]: I would like to make a few remarks in light of the recent announcement about the fly in, fly out workers’ code of practice. I will not go into the nuts and bolts of what has been proposed but I would like to say that it is well overdue. I spent the better part of early 2006 to late 2010 as a FIFO worker. At a minimum, I spent the majority of that time working on a four-and-one roster—four weeks on and one week off. Sometimes it was six weeks on and one week off. Sometimes we rolled 13-day fortnights for months on end in the construction phase of a project before it went into the production phase. I am sad to say that it was a pretty crushing time in my life. I had a mortgage. I was away for a long period. I had to work away. My father worked away as well and when my dad worked away, it was to get ahead in life. When I worked away, it became the norm for a lot of people in this state, basically, in order to pay the mortgage. That was me for a long time. It was very tough. It was not only about me, but also the other 20 guys who worked under me; I had to worry about not only my mortgage. Even though people say FIFO workers are on huge incomes and they should be doing well for themselves, it was really hard because the housing boom meant incomes pretty much stayed the same but mortgages were at a peak. As well as dealing with the issues I had at home, a lot of my workmates had relationships that were falling apart. We did not have access to adequate communications. When I first started working away in 2006, I was working on the Ravensthorpe nickel project, and during that time we had only dial-up internet for months on end. Can members imagine trying to get on the internet when 150 to 200 guys were also trying to get online on a dial-up connection down in Ravensthorpe? It was pretty difficult. Communications were limited. There was no Skype. Under the employer I worked for, we had to work from 6.00 am to 6.00 pm every day with only half an hour dedicated to lunch. We had no smoko. Having time to get on the phone to loved ones at home was very difficult. Sadly, it is still the same today. A lot of what we used to call tin-pot construction companies are operating in this state that do not necessarily respect any codes or any sort of guidelines that might encourage them to enforce better conditions for their workers. Sadly, that seems to be the norm. My respect goes out to all the people in families who continue to work away from home. I still have a lot of friends who do it. In fact, some people who do not know I am standing in this place now occasionally call me to ask whether I know where there is another job coming up. All my respect goes out to FIFO workers in this state and to all the people who have to leave their families in

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019] 2065 order to put bread on the table. I hope discussion keeps going regarding the code of practice and that we have enforceable guidelines and laws in this state to protect the people who dedicate so much of their lives to not only supporting their families, but also contributing to the wellbeing of the state’s economy. Statement HON ROBIN SCOTT (Mining and Pastoral) [5.29 pm]: I started in the fly in, fly out industry in the early 1980s. I did more than three decades in the industry and I enjoyed every single day of it. When I started, there were no mobile phones or internet connections. You had to queue up behind maybe 20 guys to use the dial-up telephone and you had to have a pocket full of $1 coins and were allowed a maximum of 10 minutes. In those days it was very, very uncomfortable. If you were lucky, you got a chair in your donga so you could hang your clothes over it. There were no fridges, telephones or televisions. It was very, very basic. But it is a lifestyle that you choose. Most of the guys I know who got divorced in the FIFO industry got divorced because they spent their two weeks on site every night drinking, living the life of luxury. When they went home, they just did the same thing. They went home and just drank. They did not pay too much attention to their families. That is why they got divorced, not because they were doing FIFO. Regarding this idea of FIFO destroying marriages, the guy would have got divorced if he was working at Woolies or Coles. It is an absolute disgrace that the FIFO industry is being blamed for suicides and break-ups of families and marriages. Madam President, I can assure you that I enjoyed my time very much and I was well rewarded for it. I could have got out any time I wanted. I could have got out of it 15 years ago. I could have retired 15 years ago. That was my plan, but I enjoyed it, and that is why I will always back the FIFO industry. I would much rather that people were living in towns near mine sites, but there are mine sites in our state that are too far away from anywhere. They have to have FIFO and that is why they have FIFO. It would be much better if the government got rid of certain taxes to encourage companies near towns to set up their workers and their families so they can be home every night. Statement HON KYLE McGINN (Mining and Pastoral) [5.31 pm]: I just need to say that what I heard there was an absolute load of rubbish! Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon KYLE McGINN: Fly in, fly out workers have mental health issues right up this coast. There have been 3 000 workers surveyed on this. Are you telling me that they are all liars? Are you saying that their marriages are falling apart because they are alcoholics? Let us have a look at the facts. They have four weeks on and one week off in some of these FIFO industries. It is an absolute disgrace. Hon Robin Scott: Leave, leave! Hon KYLE McGINN: Leave, when they get financially up to the hilt? That is what they do. You might have been financially stable to take away from it, member. You might have had enough money in the bank, but a lot of people do not, because hardships at home and raising a family are harder than they used to be. I have to say, you make those type of comments, and you might know FIFO workers who are happy doing four and one, but I know plenty of workers — Hon Robin Scott: I know more FIFO workers than you! Hon KYLE McGINN: Do you really? Is that right, member? Hon Robin Scott: Yes! Hon KYLE McGINN: Okay, how many do you know? Do you want to start measuring dick size now? The PRESIDENT: Order! Several members interjected. Hon KYLE McGINN: Bullshit! Withdrawal of Remark The PRESIDENT: Order! Do not use that kind of language! Hon Kyle McGinn: Sorry. The PRESIDENT: You can retract that and you can apologise. It is unparliamentary. Hon KYLE McGINN: I retract it. Hon Robin Scott: I apologise. The PRESIDENT: And apologise. Hon KYLE McGINN: I apologise.

2066 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019]

Statement Resumed The PRESIDENT: Hon Robin Scott, you had your say. It is really, really hard for Hansard to hear the member on their feet if people are yelling at each other across the chamber. Hon KYLE McGINN: Thank you, Madam President. It is not about who knows more FIFO workers. I have talked to FIFO workers who are struggling out there. It has been a well-known thing that has been highlighted in Western Australia. I believe that there are definitely issues. We know that from the two inquiries that have taken place. We know that there are issues and reasons for the suicides up there. I genuinely believe that if we had equal-time rosters and short-shift rosters, we would see a better state of mental health in the FIFO industry. I also believe that residential employment should come first. That is definitely what I stand for. I think all these towns should definitely have that. It is not that everyone should be FIFO, it is just the reality that FIFO is going to be there because of the massive influx that comes with construction work. TAXATION ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT BILL 2018 Receipt and First Reading Bill received from the Assembly; and, on motion by Hon Stephen Dawson (Minister for Environment), read a first time. Second Reading HON STEPHEN DAWSON (Mining and Pastoral — Minister for Environment) [5.34 pm]: I move — That the bill be now read a second time. This bill rounds out the measures in the Revenue Laws Amendment Bill 2018 and contains amendments to the Taxation Administration Act 2003 that improve the administrative and enforcement arrangements for the state taxes. Under the Constitution Acts Amendment Act 1899, bills imposing taxation must deal only with the imposition of tax. For this reason, changes to the administrative arrangements for the assessment and collection of tax must be contained in a different bill from one that imposes tax. The key amendments in this bill strengthen the Commissioner of State Revenue’s powers to recover unpaid tax. This includes modernising the recovery powers so that they apply to unpaid tax resulting from dishonoured electronic payments, not just from dishonoured cheques. The commissioner can register a memorial against land or mining tenements in certain cases to secure unpaid duty. In most cases, for transfer duty, there is usually no need to use a memorial in recovery proceedings, as duty must be paid before the property can be transferred to the purchaser. However, when the purchaser’s liability is reassessed after the property is transferred, the commissioner is unable to secure any unpaid duty resulting from the reassessment. Amendments in the bill allow the commissioner to register a memorial on property in these cases. The commissioner may make an interim transfer duty assessment for a transaction when it will take more than six months to determine the full duty payable. Interim assessments are made only for complex, high-value transactions that have protracted assessment time frames due to the need to resolve difficult legal and valuation issues. When an interim assessment is paid, the commissioner may release transfer documents to allow the property to be registered in the purchaser’s name. However, the commissioner has no ability to secure any unpaid duty from the final assessment. For this reason, the commissioner releases transfers only in exceptional circumstances, with most purchasers required to wait until the final assessment is paid to receive duty-endorsed transfers. Some industry advisers have expressed concern that this limits a purchaser’s ability to conduct their business operations. To address this, the bill will allow the commissioner to lodge a memorial against property that is transferred after payment of an interim transfer duty assessment. Importantly, the commissioner must obtain the taxpayer’s consent before registering a memorial in these circumstances. This ensures any potential consequences for the taxpayer as a result of the memorial are considered before the transfers are released and the memorial is registered. The commissioner is able to recover from a taxpayer legal costs associated with recovery action and the costs of lodging a memorial. The bill includes an amendment to also allow the commissioner to recover the costs of withdrawing a memorial. The commissioner can approve a tax payment arrangement to allow a person extra time to pay their tax, including any penalties, or to pay it by instalments. An amendment in the bill allows legal costs associated with recovery action and costs to lodge and withdraw a memorial to be included in a tax payment arrangement. The rest of the bill contains minor amendments to correct small technical issues and to remove red tape. The associated explanatory memorandum contains further details of the bill. Pursuant to standing order 126(1), I advise that this bill is not a uniform legislation bill. It does not ratify or give effect to an intergovernmental or multilateral agreement to which the government of the state is a party; nor does this bill, by reason of its subject matter, introduce a uniform scheme or uniform laws throughout the commonwealth. I commend the bill to the house and I table the explanatory memorandum. [See paper 2570.] Debate adjourned, pursuant to standing orders.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019] 2067

REVENUE LAWS AMENDMENT BILL 2018 Receipt and First Reading Bill received from the Assembly; and, on motion by Hon Stephen Dawson (Minister for Environment), read a first time. Second Reading HON STEPHEN DAWSON (Mining and Pastoral — Minister for Environment) [5.37 pm]: I move — That the bill be now read a second time. The Revenue Laws Amendment Bill 2018 contains a package of amendments to address significant duty leakage, ensure certain taxpayer exemptions and concessions apply correctly, and improve the efficiency of the state’s taxation legislation. The bill is complemented by the Taxation Administration Amendment Bill 2018, which contains amendments to improve the administrative and enforcement arrangements for the state’s taxes, together with consequential amendments from this bill. The measures in this bill to address duty leakage are the most comprehensive changes to the Duties Act 2008 since it replaced the Stamp Act 1921 on 1 July 2008. These amendments close loopholes and clarify the law for complex, high-value transfer duty and landholder duty transactions. They do not represent an increased tax burden on the community, but are aimed at making sure the correct amount of duty is paid on these transactions in the same way that most Western Australian families and business owners pay duty when purchasing their homes or businesses. Tackling these issues is another demonstration of this government’s strong commitment to budget repair and responsible management of the state’s finances. Landholder duty applies to the indirect acquisition of land through the purchase of a majority interest in a company or unit trust scheme that is entitled to land, including mining tenements, of $2 million or more. An entity may be entitled to land through a linked entity. However, even with the transition to the Duties Act in 2008, the linked entity provisions have not been significantly modified since they were introduced in 1987. As a result, the provisions do not properly reflect modern corporate structures, which are becoming substantially more complex. Unfortunately, this has allowed some taxpayers to reduce duty on a landholder acquisition by using a combination of subsidiary entities to dilute the interest a landholder has in other entities that hold land. As a result, these entities cannot be linked to the landholder. This has the effect of reducing the value of land to which the landholder is entitled. In one case, a purchaser ultimately acquired 100 per cent of a landholding company. However, after a contrived series of acquisitions to transfer interests in the landholding company to subsidiaries that could not be linked to the target entity, the purchaser did not pay duty on the full value of the land. This resulted in revenue loss for the state of nearly $10 million. Duty applies to the value of land and chattels held by a landholder. However, if land is acquired indirectly through a landholder and the chattels are acquired directly, duty does not apply to the chattels. Some taxpayers have deliberately structured their transactions to achieve this outcome. In one case, a purchaser acquired mining tenements indirectly through a landholder but purchased the related equipment directly. Revenue of $4 million was forgone on the value of the equipment. To address these issues, the bill broadens the linked entity provisions to ensure landholder duty applies to modern corporate structures involving an entity that is entitled to land through a combination of direct and indirect interests in another entity. The bill also introduces new grouping provisions that will apply to certain acquisitions and transactions that form substantially part of one arrangement. Duty will apply to acquisitions in two or more entities with a combined majority interest in the same landholding company, as well as acquisitions in a landholder and another entity that only holds chattels. The provisions also mean that landholder duty will apply correctly to acquisitions that are deliberately structured as separate direct and indirect transactions to defeat the landholder threshold or to reduce duty. Under the Stamp Act 1921, duty applied to landholder acquisitions regardless of whether the seller and purchaser were related or unrelated. An unintended outcome of the transition from the Stamp Act to the Duties Act is that acquisitions between related persons are not always subject to duty. The bill restores the correct duty treatment for these acquisitions and ensures landholder duty applies fairly, regardless of whether or not the acquirer is related to the seller. The duties exemption for tightly controlled corporate groups is intended to promote more efficient group structures. The basic concept is that duty applies when assets are transferred into and out of a corporate group, but an exemption is available for transfers between members of the group. Unfortunately, there have been multiple occasions where the exemption has been blatantly used to package business assets in an entity for sale to a third party without duty applying. Over the past five years, this has resulted in revenue loss for the state of approximately $10 million. When the Duties Act was introduced, duty on business assets was due to be abolished. This would have meant there was no duty payable on either a direct or an indirect acquisition of business assets. As such, the post-association requirement in the Stamp Act for property to remain in the group for five years after an exemption was removed. However, with business assets remaining in the base, it is unfair to allow some taxpayers to acquire these assets without paying duty while other purchasers must. The bill addresses this issue by introducing an automatic

2068 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019] revocation of exemption when the transferee entity is sold to a third party within three years after the exemption was granted and it still holds some or all of the property that received an exemption. This preserves the policy intent of the exemption to allow a corporate group to streamline its structure, and is consistent with the post-association requirements in most other jurisdictions. There are a range of other minor amendments to the landholder duty and connected entities exemption chapters that improve how the provisions work and provide certainty for taxpayers. Things on land that are common law fixtures, such as buildings and infrastructure, are part of the underlying land, and duty applies to the value of the fixtures when the land is transferred. If things on land are not fixtures, duty applies only if they are acquired with the land. Currently, major infrastructure assets can be transferred without duty applying because of a statutory severance that specifies the item is not a common law fixture. These clauses are commonly included in enabling legislation for the construction or sale of major infrastructure, such as gas pipelines, and allow the assets to be dealt with separately from the land. The result of a statutory severance is that the item is a chattel rather than part of the land as a fixture, and transfer duty will not apply if the infrastructure is acquired without the underlying interest in freehold land. For landholder duty, the value of the infrastructure cannot be included when determining whether the landholder threshold is met. Although transactions involving this sort of infrastructure are infrequent, the value of the assets means significant revenue is forgone. For example, the state lost approximately $70 million as a result of the WestNet case in 2013, which involved the indirect acquisition of the state’s rail freight network. To overcome this problem, the bill introduces a fixed-to-land model into the Duties Act. This applies duty to direct and indirect acquisitions of things fixed to land, regardless of whether they are common law fixtures or whether the thing is acquired separately from the land to which it is fixed. In cases in which infrastructure is fixed to land but is not a fixture, duty will apply if a person acquires the infrastructure without also buying the underlying land. However, if a person acquires the underlying land but does not acquire the infrastructure, duty will only apply to the land. Rights that allow people to control or access fixed infrastructure are also included for duty purposes, together with statutory licences authorising the ownership, operation or control of infrastructure. These assets are included to ensure that duty applies when a person effectively acquires ownership, operation or control of fixed infrastructure through a licence or contractual arrangement rather than through an outright purchase. This also prevents the value of fixed infrastructure being allocated to these rights or licences in an attempt to reduce duty. The fixed-to-land model will also reduce complex, protracted legal arguments about whether other items of substantial infrastructure, such as large fixed items of mining equipment, are fixtures or chattels and ensure duty applies when these assets are purchased. The changes are not intended to impact the purchase of residential homes or investment properties, as these transactions do not usually involve items of fixed infrastructure. In addition, the longstanding exemption for chattels used in a farming business will apply to things fixed to farming land that are not common law fixtures. Another matter in the bill deals with circumstances in which the holder of a mining tenement grants another person rights to explore for and mine specific minerals on the holder’s tenement. Until a Court of Appeal decision in 2014, these rights were considered to be dutiable as interests in a mining tenement, and were also included as land for landholder duty purposes. The bill restores the intended duty treatment of these rights. Duty will apply to transactions involving these rights in the same way that duty applies to transactions involving an interest in a mining tenement. These rights are also included as land assets for landholder duty to ensure they are taken into consideration when determining whether the landholder threshold is reached and for the purposes of calculating duty. The other amendments in the bill are largely of a housekeeping nature, with most of these changes benefiting taxpayers. The most significant amendments involve the duties family farm exemption. When the exemption was introduced in 1994, its purpose was to remove the financial barrier created by stamp duty to transfer the family farm to a family member without having to wait for it to be transferred upon the farmer’s death. The exemption means farm ownership can be more easily passed to the family members undertaking most of the work. It also provides ownership certainty so that children are more likely to improve the property and introduce new and efficient farming techniques. However, the legislation has not kept pace with modern farming practices. In particular, a number of farmers and farming industry advisers have expressed concern over the last few years that the exemption does not allow the progressive transition of a farm to a family member. The amendments in the bill address these concerns and enable the exemption to better accommodate modern farming business structures and succession planning arrangements in which a farmer gradually retires from the business. The bill also retrospectively restores the exemption for vehicle licence transfers between spouses or de facto partners, which was inadvertently removed by amendments to the Road Traffic Act 1974 in 2014. As part of the 2015–16 budget, the former government announced it would introduce a duty exemption for certain transfers of property under the Associations Incorporation Act 2015. I am pleased to advise that this exemption is included in the bill, and will allow not-for-profit associations to restructure through amalgamation, winding-up or transfer of incorporation without incurring duty.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019] 2069

The bill ensures that a number of duties concessions operate correctly. This includes prescribing the requirements for transfers to and from a bare trustee, and transfers to facilitate a subdivision, to prevent a duty concession being available in broader circumstances than intended. Other amendments make sure that land tax residential exemptions apply to land that is subdivided during an assessment year, and allow an exemption when a person with a disability lives in a home owned by their child. The remainder of the housekeeping amendments improve how a number of provisions operate and address minor technical issues. The associated explanatory memorandum contains further details of these amendments. Pursuant to standing order 126(1), I advise that this bill is not a uniform legislation bill. It does not ratify or give effect to a bilateral or multilateral intergovernmental agreement to which the government of the state is a party; nor does this bill, by reason of its subject matter, introduce a uniform scheme or uniform laws throughout the commonwealth. I commend this bill to the house and table the explanatory memorandum. [See paper 2571.] Debate adjourned, pursuant to standing orders. House adjourned at 5.48 pm ______

2070 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019]

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Questions and answers are as supplied to Hansard.

SCHOOLS — DISTRICT HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 1888. Hon Martin Aldridge to the Minister for Education and Training: I refer to District High Schools in Western Australia, and I ask: (a) what is the name of each school; (b) what are the 2019 enrolments by year group; (c) what is the current employment level of the Principal at each school; (d) how does the department determine and review the appropriate employment level which applies to each schools Principal position; (e) how does the department transition a school between Principal employment levels as schools transition in size and classification; (f) are there any District High Schools with a Principal employed at a higher level than their school is classified; and (g) if yes to (f): (i) please identify the schools and appropriate employment and ordinary classification levels; and (ii) how is a school budget compensated arising from the higher employment costs of the school Principal? Hon Sue Ellery replied: (a)–(c) [See tabled paper no 2565.] (d) The Teachers (Public Sector Primary and Secondary Education) Award 1993 links the salaries of principals to the school type for high schools and senior high schools, and both school type and student enrolments for primary schools, agricultural colleges, district high schools and education support centres. (e) When a principal position becomes vacant, the position classification is reviewed against current enrolment levels, trends and projections and aligned to the Award. In addition, enrolments are reviewed following the February census to identify current principals classified at levels lower than that indicated in the Award. In these circumstances, principals will receive an allowance in recognition of enrolments being above the classification level of the principal. Adjustments are not made in circumstances where enrolment levels fall below that indicated for the principal’s classification level. (f) Yes. (g) (i) [See tabled paper no 2565.] (ii) There is no compensation provided to the school budget from the higher employment costs of the principal. Schools are funded based on the student and school characteristics. This provides sufficient funding to cover the needs of the students and operational costs of the school, including the principal’s salary. SCHOOLS — DOUBLEVIEW PRIMARY SCHOOL 1889. Hon Michael Mischin to the Minister for Education and Training: I refer to my questions since April 2018 regarding an official opening for the Doubleview Primary School, which has been operating since this time last year, and I ask: (a) has the school contacted the Minister’s office regarding an official opening date and ceremony; (b) has a date been set: (i) if yes to (b), what is that date; and (ii) if no to (b), why not; and (c) if the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary are too busy to hold an official opening ceremony, is the Minister prepared to deputise the local Member, the Hon Liza Harvey MLA, to open it on her behalf? Hon Sue Ellery replied: (a) No.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019] 2071

(b) Doubleview Primary School has engaged in a digital technologies program that supports the McGowan Government’s priority to increase participation in STEM. I requested to visit the school to see how the program is used in a classroom. The school was invited to organise an official opening while I was visiting. (i) Tuesday 9 April 2019. (ii) N/A. (c) No. HEALTH — INDUCED ABORTIONS 1890. Hon Nick Goiran to the parliamentary secretary representing the Deputy Premier; Minister for Health; Mental Health: For the calendar year from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2018, what was the number of: (a) induced abortions; (b) induced abortions over 12 weeks gestation; (c) induced abortions for women under the age of 20; (d) approvals given by the Ministerial Panel for abortions at 20 weeks or later; and (e) induced abortions at 20 weeks gestation or later? Hon Alanna Clohesy replied: I am advised: For the calendar year, from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2018, there were: (a) 7793 induced abortions. (b) 580 induced abortions over 12 weeks gestation. (c) 606 induced abortions for women under the age of 20. (d) 86 approvals provided by the Ministerial Panel for abortions at 20 weeks or later. (e) 83 induced abortions at 20 weeks gestation or later. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITIES — 2017–2018 ANNUAL REPORT — RESPECTFUL RELATIONSHIPS TEACHING SUPPORT PROGRAM 1891. Hon Nick Goiran to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Child Protection; Women’s Interests; Prevention of Family and Domestic Violence; Community Services: I refer to the answers to additional questions arising from the 2017–2018 Annual Report Hearings (Department of Communities Annual Report), and I ask: (a) who were the “various stakeholders” that met with the Department of Communities at the “regular meetings” in the planning of the Respectful Relationships program; (b) were any documents created for or as a result of these meetings: (i) if yes to (b), will you table them; and (c) how much of the allocated $1 million funding has been spent on this program to date? Hon Sue Ellery replied: (a) In planning for the Respectful Relationships Program, the Department of Communities (Communities) met with the Department of Education and the School Curriculum and Standards Authority of Western Australia. Communities also met with White Ribbon Australia and Starick Services Incorporated after these organisations were identified as suitable service providers to deliver a program tailored to the unique needs of WA schools. (b) A Business Case was developed, in addition to an Expression of Interest form for schools to complete. (i) Yes, I am pleased to table the Business Case and Expression of Interest document at [See tabled paper no 2566.] and appreciate the interest of my parliamentary colleagues in this important initiative, an initiative that reflects WA’s shared commitment to respectful relationships education under the National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and Children 2010–2022. (c) To date, $260,000 has been spent in the 2018–19 financial year.

2072 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019]

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITIES — 2017–2018 ANNUAL REPORT — RESPECTFUL RELATIONSHIPS TEACHING SUPPORT PROGRAM 1892. Hon Nick Goiran to the Minister for Education and Training: I refer to the 2017–2018 Annual Report Hearings (Department of Communities Annual Report), and the tabled document Business Case: Respectful Relationships Teaching Support Program, and I ask: (a) which schools have implemented the program in 2019; (b) which schools have signed up but not yet implemented the program; (c) has a program delivery partner been decided upon: (i) if yes to (c), who is it; and (d) are the teaching and learning objectives of the program available: (i) if yes to (d), will you table that document? Hon Sue Ellery replied: (a) Ten schools have commenced implementation of the Respectful Relationships Teaching Support Program pilot. Teacher training for the schools commenced on 18 March 2019. These schools are: Ballajura Community College Belridge Secondary College Currambine Primary School John Butler Primary College Koorana Primary School Maida Vale Primary School Pinjarra Primary School Safety Bay Senior High School Swan View Senior High School Wirrabirra Primary School (b) The program will be rolled out over a number of stages. The ten schools listed volunteered to pilot the program in Semester 1, 2019. An evaluation of the Western Australian program will be undertaken to ensure it is meeting the needs of WA schools. (c) Yes. (i) The provider is White Ribbon Australia, which is delivering the program in conjunction with Starick. (d) Yes. (i) [See tabled paper no 2567.] ENERGY — STANDALONE POWER SYSTEM 1893. Hon Martin Aldridge to the minister representing the Minister for Energy: I refer to your media statement on 21 February 2019 titled ‘WA companies to lead $8.8 million power system rollout’, and I ask: (a) who are the companies that have been selected to deliver round 1 of the Stand-alone Power System (SPS) rollout; (b) where is each of the companies identified in (a) located; (c) how many jobs will be created by this $8.8 million investment and where will those jobs be located; (d) if no regional companies have been selected to deliver this project despite the fact that all of the SPS units are in regional Western Australia, how does this decision support the governments mantra of local jobs; (e) what is the approximate location, design size (kwh) and approximate cost of each of the 57 SPS units; (f) does Western Power have the regulatory backing to generate and distribute power in Western Australia; and (g) will Western Power decommission parts of their network and disconnect customers once these SPS units are deployed so as to avoid and offset future network maintenance costs?

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019] 2073

Hon Stephen Dawson replied: (a) Hybrid Systems Pty Limited BayWa r.e Solar Systems Pty Ltd Optimal Energy Projects Pty Ltd t/a Optimal Group Australia (b) Hybrid Systems Pty Ltd: Kewdale WA BayWa r.e. Solar Systems Pty Ltd: Cockburn Central WA Optimal Group Australia: Mulgrave VIC (c) In addition to existing directly employed staff, Hybrid Systems Pty Ltd and BayWa r.e. Solar Systems Pty Ltd have collectively nominated over 25 West Australian based subcontractors to assist with delivery of work packages and components for the projects. (d) The vendors are suppliers of services provided in Western Australia and Australia, supporting Western Power’s alignment to the Western Australian Jobs Act 2017. Annual Western Australia Industry Participation plan reporting will be required from the vendors. (e) Site locations: Mullewa, Pindar, Tardun, Elachbutting, Bodallin & South Bodallin, Holleton, Newdegate/Dunn Rock, Gairdner, Tambellup, Lake Muir, Mount Barker, Mokup, Moodiarrup, Kendenup, Doodlakine (Water Corporation), Ravensthorpe (Water Corporation) Design size: <5kWh, 10kWh, 20kWh, 30kWh, 40kWh, 50kWh The cost of each of the 57 Units remains commercial in confidence. (f) Under current legislation, Western Power’s principal functions include the management, planning, development, expansion, enhancement, improving and reinforcing of transmission and distribution services within the South West Interconnected Network. Current principal functions do not include the generation of power. Western Power is installing SPS as an alternative to traditional network solutions and is not recovering generation costs. The existing overhead distribution lines connecting SPS customers to the Western Power network will remain in place, but be de-energised. The existing retailer arrangements will not change, with Synergy retaining responsibility for billing and other account management activities. (g) Western Power will de-energise the network supplying the 57 sites and will retain the assets, ensuring customers are still ‘connected’ to the Western Power network until such a time as regulation change allows decommissioning of the network. CHILD PROTECTION — OUT-OF-HOME CARE — NON-GOVERNMENT SCHOOL FEES 1894. Hon Nick Goiran to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Child Protection; Women’s Interests; Prevention of Family and Domestic Violence; Community Services: (1) For children in out-of-home care, what obligation does the Department have towards funding education provided by Non-Government schools? (2) Are there outstanding Non-Government school fees for children in out-of-home care? (3) If yes to (2), what is the total amount outstanding? Hon Sue Ellery replied: (1) The Department of Communities (Communities) is responsible for all non-voluntary education related costs for children in out-of-home care, including fees for education provided by Non-Government schools. (2) Communities is unaware of any outstanding school fees for children in out-of-home care. (3) Not applicable. WA COUNTRY HEALTH SERVICE — STAFF 1895. Hon Nick Goiran to the parliamentary secretary representing the Deputy Premier; Minister for Health; Mental Health: I refer to the answer provided as Supplementary Information C6 in the 2017–18 Annual Report Hearings for the Department of Communities, in which the Committee was informed that an individual was for a short time employed by the Department of Health’s WA Country Health Service, but had ceased work by the time a negative notice was issued, and I ask: (a) what responsibilities of that employee required a Working With Children Check; and (b) did the employee come into contact with any children during their time in the position?

2074 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 4 April 2019]

Hon Alanna Clohesy replied: I am advised that: (a) The employee was engaged as a cleaner at Kununurra Hospital. Cleaners are required to have Working With Children checks as they may have contact with children when they are cleaning hospital wards. (b) The employee worked one 6.5 hour shift on 25 October 2016. Initial shifts for employees involve supervised site orientation; therefore, it is unlikely that a cleaner on their first day of work would have had any unsupervised contact with any patients or a child. ______