Legislative Council
Wednesday, 14 August 2002
THE PRESIDENT (Hon John Cowdell) took the Chair at 4.00 pm, and read prayers. BILLS Assent Messages from the Governor received and read notifying assent to the following Bills - 1. Criminal Code Amendment (Corruption Penalties) Bill 2002. 2. Prostitution Amendment Bill 2002. 3. Royal Commission (Police) Bill 2002. 4. Stamp Amendment (Budget) Bill 2002. 5. Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill 2002. 6. Appropriation (Consolidated Fund) Bill (No. 1) 2002. 7. Appropriation (Consolidated Fund) Bill (No. 2) 2002. 8. Totalisator Agency Board Betting (Modification of Operation) Amendment Bill 2002. 9. Betting Legislation Amendment Bill 2001. 10. Mining Amendment Bill 2001. 11. Mines Safety and Inspection Amendment Bill 2001. 12. Hospitals and Health Services Amendment Bill 2002. 13. Labour Relations Reform Bill 2002. 14. Criminal Investigation (Exceptional Powers) and Fortification Removal Bill 2001. HON GARRY KENNETH KELLY Condolence Motion HON KIM CHANCE (Agricultural - Leader of the House) [4.05 pm]: I move without notice - That this House expresses its deep regret at the death of Hon Garry Kenneth Kelly, a former member of the Legislative Council for the South Metropolitan Region and places on record its appreciation for his long public service and tenders its profound sympathy to his wife and members of his family on their bereavement. It is with great regret and sadness that I rise to speak to this motion to commemorate the passing of our friend Hon Garry Kelly. After being elected in a by-election, Garry Kelly represented the then South Metropolitan Province from 13 March 1982 before becoming a member for the South Metropolitan Region from May 1989 to 1993. I understand that Mr Kelly was an excellent chairman and a sound organiser, and that his capacity for quiet and effective work was demonstrated through his contributions to committee deliberations in this place. I mention just some of the roles that Garry undertook. He was a member of the Joint House Committee and Standing Orders Committee from 1989. He was also Chairman of the Standing Committee on Legislation from 1990 and Chairman of Committees. Born in Subiaco in May 1948, Hon Garry Kelly was educated in a number of country high schools before finishing a Bachelor of Science degree at the then Western Australian Institute of Technology and gaining a teachers certificate from the University of Western Australia. He went on to be a science teacher at a number of high schools in metropolitan Perth, including Armadale and Applecross Senior High Schools. Garry Kelly was a stalwart of the Australian Labor Party. He joined the University of Western Australia branch in 1966 and served in a number of roles, including as the foundation president of the Western Australian Institute of Technology branch in 1979. He continued his active participation in the Australian Labor Party even after he was no longer a member of the state parliamentary party. Perhaps the true testimony to the achievements of his life rests in his record of community service. After sustaining a head injury at work in 1980, Garry went on to play a key role in the formation of the Head Injured Society of Western Australia. I understand that he played a key role in supporting what is now Headwest in its formative years. Garry was a founding member of the Palmyra community association, and was founding president of that association from 1981 to 1984. As part of Garry’s community involvement, he helped in the election to the Melville City Council of local people strongly linked to their communities. He was also a board member of the Christian Brothers’ College in Fremantle for
[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 14 August 2002] 29 six years, and a very active member of the Citizens Advice Bureau of Western Australia in Fremantle, where he was a volunteer coordinator and a volunteer counsellor. My personal recollections of Garry Kelly go back a very long way. In a sense, that reflects the nature of his commitment to the community and to the Australian Labor Party. I first met Garry Kelly in Merredin. Although it would seem from his activity in his adult life at least that his community involvement was by and large metropolitan, Garry Kelly was a very strong supporter of the then rural Labor movement, and he was a great contributor to rural Labor meetings in various parts of non-metropolitan Western Australia. I recall Garry as being one of the real drivers in linking country communities to metropolitan communities, by establishing common bonds and striving for common goals. He was a great advocate for the community and the Australian Labor Party. Our thoughts are with his family. Garry was a man who participated actively in the community and did his utmost to represent the interests and concerns of the community in everyday life. HON NORMAN MOORE (Mining and Pastoral - Leader of the Opposition) [4.10 pm]: I second the motion. I join with the Leader of the House in expressing regret at the passing of our former colleague, Hon Garry Kelly. He was a most dedicated member of the Australian Labor Party. He joined the party shortly after he left school and started university. He was the son of a school caretaker and was educated at Northam, Manjimup and Melville Senior High Schools. He graduated as a teacher from the University of Western Australia and earned a degree in physics at the Western Australian Institute of Technology. For 11 years he was a science teacher at Armadale and Applecross Senior High Schools. Garry Kelly demonstrated his commitment to politics the hard way by standing as a candidate in seats that his party could not realistically hope to win. It takes a dedicated person to do that. At the age of 22 he was the ALP candidate for Metropolitan Province in the Legislative Council in the 1971 election. The province consisted mostly of the western suburbs of Perth, and Garry did very well to win over 40 per cent of the final vote. Three years later he stood for South Perth against Bill Grayden and achieved 40 per cent of the vote. In 1977 he contested the new seat of Murdoch for the ALP and was defeated by only 800 votes. He recontested the seat at the 1980 election but was defeated by 1 500 votes in what was then the State’s second-largest electorate. It seems fitting that in February 1982, when Hon Howard Olney resigned his South Metropolitan Province seat, Garry Kelly was given the opportunity to enter Parliament. The province then consisted of the Assembly seats of Fremantle, Cockburn, Melville and East Melville. Garry was elected at the March by-election with 62.5 per cent of the vote and a significant majority of 12 000 votes. In 1986 he was re-elected with an impressive 70 per cent of the vote. The province then consisted of the Assembly seats of Fremantle, Cockburn, Melville and Rockingham. As the last general election fought under the old province system, it represented the largest winning margin of any candidate. When elections were held in 1989 for this House under proportional representation, Garry Kelly headed the ALP ticket for the South Metropolitan Region. The ticket secured three of the five seats available. His career ended in 1993 when he was unable to secure re-election from the third position on his party ticket. Garry Kelly was a very successful and active member for his constituency. The Leader of the House has indicated a number of things that he was involved with during his life. Garry showed great determination in supporting his party. During his time in Parliament he was a well-respected member of this House. He was also a very popular Chairman of Committees. When the vote for that position was held I was the candidate for my side of the House, and although we had more numbers than Garry’s side, he won. That demonstrated his popularity with at least one of my colleagues, who will remain nameless. After his election I said that I thought he would make an excellent Chairman of Committees, and that proved to be correct. He was excellent in that role. On behalf of the Opposition I extend our sincere sympathies to Garry’s family. They can be consoled by knowing that he was a fine parliamentarian and a much respected and admired citizen of Western Australia. HON JIM SCOTT (South Metropolitan) [4.14 pm]: I got to know Garry Kelly quite well as I assumed his office when I was first elected. I had a consistent, but not close, relationship with him for some time. I know the difficult time he had coming to terms with losing his seat and the illness of his wife. He struggled to manage his family. During that time I was aware of what a good person he was. Because of the troubles he experienced, I used to feel a bit guilty that I ended up with his seat in Parliament. He was never angry with me about that as he accepted it as part of politics. It was a terrible shock to hear of his death. I found out only by reading the newspapers. I would like to have acted more quickly in extending my condolences to his family. From my experience of him, and from what I have read, I know him to have been a very honourable member of Parliament. He always strived to do what was best for the community. On behalf of the Greens (WA) I extend our sympathy to his family. We agree with the sentiments expressed by the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition. Garry Kelly was a very fine person and deserves to be recognised as such by this House. HON PETER FOSS (East Metropolitan) [4.16 pm]: I join with other members in expressing my regret at the passing of Garry Kelly. He was a very good Chairman of Committees and was the inaugural Chairman of the Legislation Committee. It was a challenging task to establish that committee, and he established it very well. The committee has since performed a very important role in this Parliament. During his time as chairman he took several brave stands against his own party, which was not easy. It was quite novel at the time. He established a degree of independence for
30 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 14 August 2002] the committee that has stood it in good stead for many years. As every member who has served on such a committee knows, a degree of rapport and friendship grows that is much stronger than normal friendships across the Chamber. We had many good times together and I greatly valued his friendship. The time we grew closest was when we travelled. The Legislation Committee did not travel very much, but it did travel to New Zealand. During that time we drove from place to place with our doughty chairman as our driver. It was quite interesting, especially when our car was impounded. When we tried to retrieve it one morning we found that Garry had parked it outside the Morman church next door and it had been towed away. During that trip he told me of “the three rules for an old man”; however, I will not repeat them in the House. I thought they were very funny at the time. I do not find them quite so funny these days. Nevertheless, they are true. He had a very good sense of humour and was a great companion. One reads many death notices in the newspapers and is not affected very much, but when I read of Garry’s death I felt a real pang of loss and some guilt that I had not followed up my association with him. It is very easy not to show one’s friendship to one’s friends. When a member leaves this place it is easy to lose contact, which is very regrettable. We had some good times together and I had great respect for him. It is a very sad ending to his career. I extend my condolences to his family, as I am sure they feel his loss greatly. HON DERRICK TOMLINSON (East Metropolitan) [4.19 pm]: I wish to associate myself with the condolence motion. Two phrases have been used to describe Hon Garry Kelly. One was by Hon Kim Chance, who described him as “a stalwart of the ALP”. The other was by Hon Jim Scott, who described him as “a good person”. In my experience, Garry Kelly was both of these things, which proves that the two are not mutually exclusive. I learnt very early in my interest in politics from a remark made by the then Senator Reg Withers that you have no friends in politics. Although I believe that to be true, there are people whom I like in politics and people on the other side whom I like and have liked in politics. One of the things that one learns after working in this place is that the people on the other side are not necessarily enemies. Garry Kelly was a person whom I would like to have called a friend but certainly he was one politician whom I liked. I recall the early debates in which I participated when I had the temerity, because I was green in judgment, to make some remarks about the dismissal of the Whitlam Government. Of course, the Leader of the Government of the day was Hon Joe Berinson who had been a minister in that particular Government. Hon Joe Berinson took me to task as only he can, and it became a familiar experience. What really impressed me was Garry Kelly who rose shortly after I sat down and gave a learned and well-informed treatise on the dismissal of the Whitlam Government. I then saw him through different eyes. He was a stalwart of the Australian Labor Party but he was a thinking stalwart. His commitment was more than an emotional commitment; it was an intellectual commitment and for that I admire him deeply. As the initial chairman of the Legislation Committee, it was very largely he and his chairmanship that gave the mark of that committee as one in which issues could be progressed in a bipartisan way. He was a stalwart of the ALP but he was a thinking man and was prepared to listen to argument, advance argument and accept argument even though, on occasions, the arguments that he accepted were contrary to the position of his party. He was indeed a good person. I deeply mourn his passing and I join with my colleagues in sending deep condolences to his family. THE PRESIDENT (Hon John Cowdell): I associate myself with the comments of honourable members in supporting this motion. The shock and tragedy of Garry Kelly’s death was brought home to me by the headline in the Fremantle Herald, “Kelly dead at 54”. This was amplified by the photo that accompanied the article. It is more tragic to know that Garry leaves Glen, his wife of six months, and his children Matthew, Tom and Sam, who are all teenagers, and two step-children. Garry overcame personal adversity to arrive here. In his maiden speech on 30 March 1982 recorded in Hansard he said - On 15 April 1980 after spending most of the day in the sun at an interschool swimming carnival, I collapsed and fell heavily in the science staffroom at the Applecross Senior High School. I fractured my skull and was admitted to Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital where I underwent emergency surgery the same evening. I was in a coma and remained in that coma under intensive care for the following three weeks, during which time I came very close to death. During the early part of my recovery I was confined to a wheelchair; I could not keep my balance and had to learn to walk all over again. Within two years Garry had succeeded not only in making a substantial recovery but in defeating ALP party president Tom Butler for pre-selection to the South Metropolitan seat and being elected at a by-election in March 1982 to this Chamber. Garry’s advocacy here was based on his own personal experience, his commitment to his electorate and adherence to Labor ideals. In his maiden speech he referred to his accident and made a special plea for support for the work of the Head Injured Society of WA. He also took up the issue of education funding relying on his experience as a teacher in the state system and as a member of the State School Teachers Union of Western Australia. In 1982 he argued “surely education and health should be first cabs off the rank when we are allocating funds. What in the world is a Government in power
[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 14 August 2002] 31 for if it cannot meet these basic needs of a civilised society? Certainly the health of our people and the education of our children deserve a high priority.” He argued for public transport and in particular, the reopening of the Perth to Fremantle rail line, which had recently been closed. He made the point that democracy is a dynamic thing and it is not just going to the polling booth once every three years, as it then was. Garry worked hard for parliamentary reform. He argued for the transition of this Chamber into a genuine House of Review, for the introduction of proportional representation and he supported the development of an extensive committee system. It is fitting that he should have served as inaugural chairman of the Legislation Committee and as fifteenth Chairman of Committees of this House. Garry overcame adversity in 1980 and we benefited. His parliamentary career, as has been mentioned, was brought to an end with the anti-Labor swing of 1993 when only two of Labor’s three sitting members were returned in the South Metropolitan Region. He fought adversity again nursing his beloved wife Cheryl for five years before she died of cancer in 1998 and raising his young family. Garry continued to serve his family, his party and the Fremantle community until the end. Adversity has finally triumphed but as Hon Mark Nevill said in his eulogy at Garry’s funeral, “We remember you Garry with affection, with joy and with thanks because we enjoyed and shared the warmth of your friendship.” Before asking members to signify their support for this motion by rising and standing in silence for one minute, I indicate to the House that, as is the usual practice, I will ensure that the comments made in this condolence motion are passed on to the family of the late Garry Kelly. Question passed, members standing. SOUTH WEST METROPOLITAN RAILWAY MASTER PLAN Statement by Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure HON GRAHAM GIFFARD (North Metropolitan - Parliamentary Secretary) [4.30 pm]: When the State Government announced the fast, direct route for the south west metropolitan railway in July 2001, the preparation of a supplementary master plan commenced. The plan develops and refines the elements of the direct route and confirms its engineering feasibility and urban planning benefits. The master plan shows significant gains in patronage, with modelling that uses current land use data showing all-day, weekday boardings from Mandurah to Perth for 2006-07 of 24 950. There will be 3 500 additional weekday boardings at the station at Spencer Road, Thornlie - a total of 28 450 - which is a massive increase of 58 per cent over the patronage expected under the Kenwick deviation. Given the current land use projections, the patronage projection for the Kenwick route would be 17 980 in 2006. The current patronage model shows that for the section of railway common to both the Kenwick and direct routes - that is, from Glen Iris southward - the Kenwick deviation would attract 11 290 boarders a day, while the direct route will attract 15 890 boarders a day, an increase of 40 per cent. Because the direct route is approximately 11 kilometres shorter than the Kenwick route, this will be achieved by using 20 per cent fewer trains and with 50 per cent greater efficiency of the railcars. The total all-day, weekday passenger trips on the urban rail network is expected to grow by 66 per cent, from 101 395 in 2001 to 170 500 in 2006-07 when all the current extensions are completed. There are significant environmental benefits from the direct route. The new patronage figures represent up to 20 000 fewer cars using the freeway each day. In the morning peak hour in 2006, the new rail line will carry the equivalent of two to three lanes of freeway traffic. The impact on Perth's air quality will be significant, with a reduction in exhaust emissions of up to 96 tonnes a year just on the 12-kilometre stretch between Murdoch and the Narrows Bridge. The original south west metropolitan railway master plan was based on a peak-hour service of two trains an hour from Mandurah and eight trains an hour from Waikiki. The service now proposed is six trains an hour from Mandurah and 12 trains an hour from Thomsons Lake to Perth. The works associated with the direct route and the remainder of the Perth urban rail development project will be contained within the approved budget of $1 419 million. In real money terms, this is an increase of only $33 million over the Kenwick deviation for a vastly superior system. The master plan reconfirms the following timetable - Clarkson, Greenwood and Thornlie by the latter half of 2004; Rockingham and Waikiki by the end of 2006; and Mandurah by the end of 2007. The Clarkson extension is well under way and work on the river foreshore and the Thornlie spur line is expected to commence by mid-2003. To minimise disruption, construction on the foreshore will be completed in time for the opening of the convention and exhibition centre in 2004. Strengthening and expansion of the Narrows and Mount Henry bridges is expected to begin early in 2004, as would work on the main Waikiki, Rockingham to Narrows Bridge section. Approximately $90 million will be spent on the infrastructure upgrades on the Perth to Kenwick section of the project and the Thornlie spur, including a grade separate crossing at Spencer Road.
32 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 14 August 2002]
The master plan was developed in consultation with the local authorities and communities along the route, and I acknowledge their very important role in the process. I also thank the Perth Urban Rail Development project team for its dedication and hard work in preparing this plan, which will be tabled in both Houses of Parliament. Consideration of the statement made an order of the day for the next sitting, on motion by Hon Bruce Donaldson.
METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT NO 1040/33, TAPPER ROAD, BANJUP Statement by Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure HON GRAHAM GIFFARD (North Metropolitan - Parliamentary Secretary) [4.33 pm]: This metropolitan region scheme amendment is to transfer a 1.5 hectares strip of land approximately 25 metres wide, reserved for parks and recreation in the MRS and also a Bush Forever site to the urban zone to allow for the extension of Tapper Road southwards from its current point of termination as provided for in structure planning for the area. The loss of the parks and recreation reservation is considered to be acceptable in this case due to the relatively small area of land involved - 1.5 hectares of bush compared with the total 46-hectare area of the parks and recreation reservation. All the vegetation types in the amendment area are present in the adjoining Jandakot Regional Park. The Environmental Protection Authority has chosen not to assess the amendment and the road will form a suitable hard edge to the parks and recreation reservation and Bush Forever site for park management purposes consistent with Western Australian Planning Commission policy. Bush Forever practice note No 14 allows the WAPC flexibility in dealing with Bush Forever sites if this will achieve broader conservation, community and planning outcomes. Bush Forever practice note No 18 identifies the need to recognise road proposals where the structure planning process has been completed. Both the practice notes apply in this situation. The Bush Forever Office has agreed to the amendment, in view of the circumstances outlined above. The amendment was advertised for submissions for three months as required by legislation and persons lodging submissions were given the opportunity to be heard before a subcommittee of the WAPC. Sixteen submissions were received. Six supported the amendment, nine provided comments only and one submission objected on the grounds of loss of bushland. Only one submission, in support of the amendment, was heard. The extension of Tapper Road is an integral part of the road system for the growing Atwell-Banjup urban area. Although a 1.5 hectare area of parks and recreation reservation Bush Forever site is required to be transferred to the urban zone to allow for construction of the road, the Commission, Department of Environmental Protection and Bush Forever Office are prepared to agree to the amendment on the basis that the area of bushland lost is not substantial and there are important planning reasons for the MRS amendment. The amendment has been considered by Cabinet and approved by the Governor and is now tabled in each House of State Parliament. Consideration of the statement made an order of the day for the next sitting, on motion by Hon Bruce Donaldson.
METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 1041/33, SOUTH WEST DISTRICTS OMNIBUS (NO 5) Statement by Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure HON GRAHAM GIFFARD (North Metropolitan - Parliamentary Secretary) [4.36 pm]: The south west districts omnibus (No 5) amendment to the metropolitan region scheme includes 17 proposals, varying in size and significance, in the cities of Fremantle, Melville, Cockburn, and Rockingham and the town of Kwinana. The majority of the proposals involve rationalising various MRS zones and reserves, for example to align with cadastral boundaries or correct MRS classifications that are inappropriate or no longer required. Four proposals involve creation of small areas of parks and recreation reservation. The amendment was advertised for public submissions for three months as required by legislation and persons lodging submissions have been given the opportunity to present their submissions to a subcommittee of the Western Australian Planning Commission. No persons who lodged submissions took the opportunity to have their submissions heard. Eighteen submissions were received on the amendment. Six supported various proposals in the amendment, nine provided comments only and three contained a mixture of support, comment and objection to various proposals in the amendment. There was only one objection to a proposal in the amendment. This involved proposal 17 - rationalisation of the urban zone and parks and recreation reservation boundaries on the south east shore of Lake Richmond, Shoalwater, in the city of Rockingham. The objection was that the land being transferred to the urban zone should remain in the parks and recreation reservation because parks and recreation reservation is preferable to urban development. However, the proposal is in accordance with, and implements, an Environmental Protection Authority bulletin. The amendment contains 17 proposals in the south west districts of the Perth Metropolitan Region. It does not contain any significant proposals and this is reflected in the fact that there was only one objection to a proposal and that no
[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 14 August 2002] 33 hearings before a subcommittee of the WAPC were requested. The amendment has been considered by Cabinet and approved by the Governor and is now tabled in each House of State Parliament. Consideration of the statement made an order of the day for the next sitting, on motion by Hon Bruce Donaldson. METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT NO 1039/33, VICTORIA QUAY, PORT OF FREMANTLE Statement by Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure HON GRAHAM GIFFARD (North Metropolitan - Parliamentary Secretary) [4.38 pm]: This metropolitan region scheme amendment is to reassign the western end of Victoria Quay from the port installations reservation to the public purposes (special uses) reservation. This change in the reservation acknowledges the relocation of the majority of port uses formerly in this area to other parts of the port, which gives rise to opportunities for some diversification of non-port uses, such as retail, education and tourist uses. At the same time it recognises the retention of some port uses in the area and the possibility of new port functions being required in the future. The diversification of uses will provide increased connectivity between the Fremantle central business area and the waterfront. This will provide an excellent opportunity for both the local community and tourists to positively engage with the working port, which is fundamental to the character of Fremantle. The amendment was advertised for public submissions for three months as required by legislation, and persons lodging submissions have had the opportunity to have their submissions heard by a subcommittee of the Western Australian Planning Commission. The thrust of the amendment is supported by the City of Fremantle. The City of Fremantle was of the view that the western end of Victoria Quay should have been rezoned central city area in the metropolitan region scheme, so that the city could have development control over the area through its local scheme. However, it is considered that the development control should remain with the WAPC - as it currently is - to acknowledge the significance of the port to the State and to maintain state government control over development. This is achieved by retaining the quay as an MRS reserve. A small part of railways reservation is proposed to be transferred to the port installations reserve to allow for a new access road to the quay to be constructed in the new area of port installations reserve. The amendment will provide the western end of Victoria Quay with a more appropriate MRS reservation. The proposed public purposes (special uses) reservation acknowledges the Fremantle Port Authority’s plans to expand and diversify non-port uses on the western end of Victoria Quay - such as retail, education and tourism - while protecting remaining port infrastructure and allowing for any additional infrastructure that may be required in the future. The amendment has been considered by Cabinet and approved by the Governor and will be tabled in each House of Parliament. Consideration of the statement made an order of the day for the next sitting, on motion by Hon Bruce Donaldson.
STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE, INQUIRY INTO APPOINTMENT OF ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER Motion HON NORMAN MOORE (Mining and Pastoral - Leader of the Opposition) [4.40 pm]: I move - That the Standing Committee on Public Administration and Finance be required to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the appointment of the Electoral Commissioner with a view to determining whether or not the appointment was made in accordance with appropriate and proper procedures, and to report back to the House on or before 17 October 2002. I make it absolutely clear that, at this point in time, I am not making any allegations. Rather, in an attempt to determine the processes surrounding the appointment of the Electoral Commissioner and whether they were carried out in an appropriate manner, I want the matter to be referred to the committee. I seek such information because of the conflicting advice that I and others in the community have received. I refer to the appointment of Ms Lyn Auld, a former Acting Commissioner and a former Deputy Commissioner of the Electoral Commission. I am concerned about the decision to appoint Ms Auld and the decision not to reappoint the former Electoral Commissioner, Dr Ken Evans. Initially, there was doubt about whether Dr Evans had been a candidate for the position. Some people expressed views about Ms Auld’s appointment on the assumption that Dr Evans had not reapplied for the position. However, Dr Evans reapplied for the position and was effectively removed by virtue of the processes of appointment and a decision of Cabinet. When a contracted office holder in government came to the end of his or her contract under the coalition Government, the process of reappointment was to declare the position vacant and to advertise it. Of course, the incumbent was welcome to reapply. As an automatic process of government, and as part of the previous Government’s policy, once a contract expired the position would be advertised and a selection panel would be formed to determine the successful applicant. In retrospect, I do not know whether that was a good policy for all situations because, at times, it gave the impression that the incumbent was not doing a good job and that somebody else should be appointed to the position. Be that as it may, I can only assume that this Government is adopting a similar policy, or, that in this
34 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 14 August 2002] particular instance, it decided to advertise Dr Evans’s position after his contract expired. I would like to know whether that is the Government’s policy across the board, because such information would be useful in this debate. If it is not, the facts of the matter are that the position was advertised, applications were invited and both Ms Auld and Dr Evans applied for the appointment. The process of appointment begins after the Premier - the minister responsible for appointments across government - nominates a selection panel. The panel calls for applications, shortlists potentially successful candidates, conducts interviews and makes a recommendation to the Premier. The Premier would then consult with the appropriate minister and the matter would be taken to Cabinet. In the past, selection panels have made their recommendations in two ways. On some occasions they would say, for example, that three candidates - Joe Blow, Mary Smith and Tom Jones - are all suitable applicants. That recommendation would go to the Premier. The Premier might say that he thinks that Mary Smith is the most appropriate person to have the job. He would discuss it with the appropriate minister, take it to Cabinet and, if the Cabinet agreed, that person would be appointed. The role of the selection panel was basically to give the Government of the day a number of options for who could be appointed to the position. The second way in which a selection panel could make its report to government would be to say who are the suitable candidates but recommend that a certain person be appointed because the selection panel believed that person to be superior to the others. It would then be up to the Government to make a decision on whom it would appoint. I want to make it absolutely clear that as far as I am concerned the Government has every right to make whatever decision it wishes to make in the context of whom it chooses from suitable applicants even if the Government chooses a person who is not the most highly recommended by the selection panel. However, I do add the proviso that if a selection panel has said that one candidate is better than the others and that person is not chosen, the Government owes the community an explanation as to why it has taken that course of action. When Dr Evans was appointed to the position of Electoral Commissioner five years ago, a selection panel and a head hunter were used, if my memory serves me right, to find people to apply for the job. The selection panel recommended three suitable applicants but did not recommend any ahead of the others. I know from material that I have that Ms Auld was a candidate five years ago and was not one of the three recommended applicants. That was interesting at the time from my point of view, because although Ms Auld had been the acting Electoral Commissioner, when the selection panel five years ago made its recommendations to government, she was not one of the three recommended applicants but was considered to be inferior to the other three, one of whom was Dr Evans. The Government of the day chose Dr Evans. I repeat, the selection panel did not say that Dr Evans was superior or that any other candidate was superior to the others; it simply said that those were the three suitable candidates, and the Government chose one. I presume that the selection panel that was set up to make the current appointment went through the same processes as previous selection panels and made recommendations to the Government. It could have done one of three things. It could have made a recommendation on the basis that there were three suitable candidates and that the Government should make its own judgment on whom it would want to appoint, it could have said that there were three candidates ranked in a particular order or it could have said that one candidate was superior to the others. I do not know what happened on this occasion, although I must say I was a little surprised when the announcement was made that Ms Auld was getting the job and Dr Evans was not. I was surprised because I knew the circumstances of the previous appointment five years ago. I was also surprised because Dr Evans had spent five years doing the job and Ms Auld had spent the five years working in another government agency. It seemed to me that one would hardly turn things around dramatically over five years and get a different result five years later. However, I repeat my view that the Government has the right to appoint whomever it wishes, but it must accept the consequences of that. An interesting article appeared in The West Australian on Friday, 28 June 2002 which raised my interest in this matter. The heading reads “Cabinet dumps election chief”. The article reads - The West Australian understands that Dr Evans had reapplied for his position - which was advertised as a public service formality - and was put on top of the selection panel’s short-list of three. This was the understanding of The West Australian, not my understanding. The West Australian has been known to get things wrong, and I am the first to acknowledge that. To find out whether that article was correct, I asked a question in the Parliament. It was question 1565, but I do not have the page number in Hansard or the date. I asked - I refer to the selection process undertaken recently regarding the position of Electoral Commissioner, and ask - (1) Who were the three applicants short-listed by the selection panel? (2) Which applicant received the panel’s highest preference? I asked other questions apart from those, but the answer to those questions was combined and was - (1)-(2) The selection and recruitment processes for all public sector positions are treated as confidential, particularly as applications are submitted by individuals on the basis that their details will not be disclosed. In other words, the Government said that it would not tell me whether there was a pecking order. Again, the Government claimed that the information was confidential, and it may wish to continue to argue that case. Having
[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 14 August 2002] 35 asked the question of the Government, following the report in The West Australian and rumours that Dr Evans had been recommended ahead of the other candidates, I have decided to bring this matter to the House because I believe it is important that we know what happened. It is obvious to me that there is no point in my asking any more questions about it because I will not get an answer. The Government will continue to argue that it is a confidential matter. Therefore, I have brought this motion to the House requesting that one of the committees that deal with public administration be given the job of checking this out by taking evidence and letting us know what happened one way or the other. Is the West Australian newspaper’s understanding correct or is it wrong? The reason for doing it is not for some vindictive purpose; it is because we are entitled to know whether the best candidate did not get the job. We are talking about a pretty significant job in the State’s administration. In a sense the person who is the Electoral Commissioner should at least be seen to be at arm’s length from the Government. It is obviously an important position in the context of politics. It is important that the community feel comfortable with the processes that have been adopted to appoint the Electoral Commissioner. I argue that we agree to this motion and give the committee the capacity to ask a couple of questions that need to be asked. Once they are answered we will know once and for all. The questions could be asked in camera. Who were the three recommended applicants? Was one of those persons ranked ahead of any of the others? Once we know the answers to those questions, we might thank the Government very much, say that it has done the right thing and forget all about it. However, if it turns out that one applicant was ranked ahead of the others and was not appointed, I believe it is incumbent upon the Government to tell us why it made that decision. In the past five years, the former Electoral Commissioner, Dr Evans, did a pretty good job. I do not know that he did anything wrong. Perhaps if he did, the Government will tell us. I thought that he was doing a pretty reasonable job in a difficult appointment. The Electoral Commissioner, whoever it may be, will face a difficult time, because the redistribution must be done - that is a serious burden - and the election must be held. I do not think I have met anyone who thinks that Dr Evans did not do a good job. The Government may think he did not and that Ms Auld is vastly superior, and it is entitled to that view. However, we are entitled to know why Dr Evans has been replaced. Debate interrupted, pursuant to standing orders. [Continued on page 43.] QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE DERBY REGIONAL HOSPITAL, RELOCATION OF SPECIALIST STAFF 10. Hon NORMAN MOORE to the Minister for the Kimberley, Pilbara and Gascoyne: (1) Does the minister support the decision by his colleague the Minister for Health to relocate specialist staff from Derby Regional Hospital to Broome District Hospital? (2) If so, why? (3) If not, what is the minister doing to persuade the Minister for Health to abandon his plans? (4) Will the minister support the request of the Shire of Derby for the proposal to be put on hold until such time as the Derby community has had an opportunity to put an alternative proposition? (5) If not, why not? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (1)-(5) My responses as Minister for the Kimberley include being the advocate for people within the region that I serve. I continue to do that, including with the Minister for Health.
DERBY REGIONAL HOSPITAL, RELOCATION OF SPECIALIST STAFF 11. Hon NORMAN MOORE to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Health: I refer to the Minister for Health’s decision to relocate specialist staff from the Derby Regional Hospital to the Broome District Hospital, and ask - (1) Will the minister reconsider his decision in view of the outrage being expressed by the Derby community? (2) If not, why not? . Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: On behalf of the parliamentary secretary to the Minister for Health, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) The decision has been made for sound clinical and strategic reasons that will have long-term benefits for the population of the Kimberley. The three specialists in question provide a visiting service to the entire region, and that will be more easily accommodated using the superior transport linkages offered through Broome. For over a decade, the Kimberley health region has encountered significant difficulties in recruiting specialist staff
36 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 14 August 2002]
for Derby. The worldwide shortage of nurses and many medical specialists, the attractiveness of city-based private work and the medical indemnity crisis have all created a climate in which, more than ever, the Kimberley must position itself to be able to provide sustainable services well into the future. LEWANDOWSKI AFFIDAVIT, PREMIER’S LATE-NIGHT TELEPHONE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 12. Hon PETER FOSS to the Leader of the House representing the Premier: In the Premier’s late-night telephone discussions with the Attorney General on Thursday, 6 June and Friday, 7 June 2002 - (1) Did the Attorney General advise the Premier that the Solicitor General had met with him earlier that same evening and provided the Attorney General with a copy of Assistant Commissioner Kucera’s transcript of evidence in the 1998 Mickelberg appeal and a copy of Assistant Commissioner Kucera’s affidavit-in-chief? (2) If yes, did the Premier ask the Attorney General why the Solicitor General had provided him with those documents? If so, what was the answer? (3) If not, when did the Premier become aware that the Solicitor General had provided the Attorney General with those documents? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(3) The Attorney General advised the Premier that the Solicitor General had that day made him aware of the Lewandowski affidavit. To the best of his recollection, there was no discussion of the transcript of evidence or the affidavit of the then Assistant Commissioner of Police. The Attorney General advised the Premier that the transcript of the evidence and the affidavit referred to in the question were not provided to the Attorney General by the Solicitor General on Thursday, 6 June. FREIGHT NETWORK REVIEW, FREMANTLE EASTERN BYPASS 13. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure: (1) Why was the freight network review congress directed to exclude the Fremantle eastern bypass route in its consideration of future road infrastructure? (2) Who gave that direction? (3) In view of the failure of the congress to identify an acceptable alternative, will the Government now refrain from selling off the bypass land until an alternative is developed by some other process? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: (1)-(3) In establishing the freight network review, the minister made it clear that a Labor Government would not build the Fremantle eastern bypass. That is in keeping with election commitments made by Labor in 1990, 1993, 1996 and 2001. Construction of the bypass would cause unacceptable social, environmental and planning consequences, particularly for the communities within the City of Fremantle. These concerns relate to the severing of established residential areas, such as White Gum Valley and Beaconsfield, and potential impacts on the environmentally sensitive Clontarf Hill area. It would also signal unfettered growth of road transport. Far from failing to consider acceptable alternatives, the freight congress developed a detailed package of strategies to deal with projected growth in the freight task. Not only were 21 different road network configurations considered and subjected to a public and transparent multi-criteria analysis, but logical and planning mechanisms for improving transport efficiency were developed. These include: increasing by tenfold the percentage of freight carried by rail from Fremantle port - three per cent to 30 per cent; better coordination of truck movements to ensure that the number of empty vehicles entering the port precinct is minimised; extending the working hours of the port, resulting in better utilisation of infrastructure and a reduction in the number of trucks on the road network during peak periods; and establishing a container park in the Kewdale- Welshpool area to reduce truck movements in the Fremantle area. The Government has an obligation to meet its undertaking to the electorate to remove the Fremantle eastern bypass, and the process for formally deleting the reservation, by way of an amendment to the metropolitan region scheme, is proceeding. MARGARET RIVER, WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION’S INQUIRY BY DESIGN 14. Hon CHRISTINE SHARP to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure: I refer to the Western Australian Planning Commission’s process of inquiry by design at Margaret River and ask -
[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 14 August 2002] 37
(1) What is the scope of this inquiry? (2) How will it work? (3) When will it take place? (4) Will the community be allowed full input into the entire process? (5) Could the inquiry consider a population cap for the Margaret River area? (6) Will the result of the process include statutory outcomes? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: (1) The east Margaret River inquiry by design workshop will be similar to urban design workshops held in other regional centres such as Kalgoorlie, Esperance and Karratha, as well as a number of metropolitan locations. The principal outcome of the workshop will be design elements for the east Margaret River area, which is the main urban growth area of the town, as the basis for an agreed overall structure plan for east Margaret River. The workshop scope will involve environmental, social and economic considerations aimed at sustainable urban development consistent with the character of Margaret River. (2) The east Margaret River inquiry by design workshop will include sessions on - (a) raising awareness and application of the livable neighbourhoods district structuring and traditional neighbourhood design principles and mixed-use development principles, particularly in relation to the Margaret River town centre and the East Margaret River development area; (b) clearly understanding the issues pertaining to the Margaret River district structure in terms of neighbourhood planning, town centre development and access between these areas; and (c) applying traditional neighbourhood design and mixed-use development principles, including commercial viability. It is proposed that a reference group be formed to ensure accountability of the process and appropriate input from all parties. It will be chaired by the shire president and comprise community representatives. The main workshop will be attended by approximately 80 people comprising 20 stakeholder representatives, 20 technical specialists, 20 residents selected at random, and 20 residents selected from respondents to an advertisement. The proposed arrangements for the workshop have been forwarded to the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River for consideration by the shire council. (3) It is proposed that the east Margaret River inquiry by design workshop be conducted over three consecutive days from 23 to 25 October 2002, with a visioning workshop scheduled for 20 September 2002. (4) Yes, as above. (5) It is unlikely that a population cap will be considered as part of the workshop at Margaret River. Such caps have not been successfully applied in other parts of the world. (6) The outcome of the workshop may lead to the preparation of a non-statutory structure plan for east Margaret River, which would be a framework for statutory changes to the town planning scheme and planning applications.
RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL ON DRILLING PLATFORMS 15. Hon JOHN FISCHER to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for State Development: (1) What is the current volume of radioactive material stored on drilling platforms that must be disposed of? (2) What is the nature of the material? (3) What kind of ionising radiation is involved? (4) What is the strength of the radiation? (5) What is the rate of decay of the various components of the radioactive material? (6) Who is responsible for determining the future storage of the material? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I am advised - (1) 1 010 litres. (2) The material is liquid waste composed of water and barium sulphate scale. (3) There are traces of radium 226 and 228 in the scale.
38 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 14 August 2002]
(4) The scale has an activity measure ranging between 22 and 51 becquerels per gram. Material is considered radioactive above 30 Bq/gm. Note: a standard household detector or emergency exit sign emits more radiation than this scale. (5) Radium 226 - uranium series - and radium 228 - thorium series - have half lives of 1 620 years and 5.8 years respectively. (6) The Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources is responsible for the management of naturally occurring radioactive material related to offshore petroleum exploration and production activity in commonwealth waters. The Radiological Council of Western Australia and the Department of Environment and Water Catchment Protection are responsible for storage arrangements onshore in Western Australia. Note: radium is widespread in the environment and trace amounts are found in many foods. The average dietary intake is estimated to be 15 Bq a year by the 1996 Australian drinking water guidelines. NOALIMBA ACCOMMODATION AND CONFERENCE CENTRE, SALE 16. Hon BARRY HOUSE to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Sport and Recreation: (1) When will the State Government put the Noalimba accommodation and conference centre in Bateman on the market? (2) How much does it expect to raise from the sale? (3) Will all the money from the sale be spent on upgrading the Department of Sport and Recreation’s other camps, as announced by the minister in February 2002? (4) If no to (3), where will the money go? (5) What arrangements has the Government made to provide alternative budget accommodation for the many groups, including country sporting teams and schools, that use Noalimba when they are visiting Perth? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) A due diligence report is being undertaken by LandCorp and is scheduled for completion by 30 November 2002. The Recreation Camps and Reserve Board will prepare a strategy for the sale of the centre based on the due diligence report outcomes. (2) No firm indication of value is available pending outcome of the due diligence investigation. Estimates range between $6 million and $12 million. (3) The Recreation Camps and Reserve Board is preparing a capital investment plan, including the level of funds required to develop the remaining camps, for consideration by the Expenditure Review Committee. (4) This will be a decision of the Expenditure Review Committee following consideration of the requirements contained within the capital investment plan being prepared by the Recreation Camps and Reserve Board. (5) Scope exists to provide alternative budget accommodation at the remaining four Perth metropolitan camps managed by the Recreation Camps and Reserve Board, especially at Woodman Point recreation camp. Accommodation is also available at various other metropolitan facilities such as Beatty Lodge and Jewel House. BROOME DISTRICT HOSPITAL 17. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Health: I refer to the level of staff-patient ratios and bedding at Broome District Hospital. (1) What is the staff-patient ratio at Broome hospital - (a) during an average tourist season; and (b) during the summer months? (2) How does the ratio compare with metropolitan and regional averages? (3) On overflow from the Broome hospital, where are the patients transported to? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The ratios are calculated as nursing hours per patient day. The figures are unavailable, as these measures have been recorded only since the beginning of this calendar year and therefore do not reflect a full tourist season compared with a full summer.
[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 14 August 2002] 39
(2) The Broome hospital adjusts its roster according to the number of patients and their acuity. These figures have not been collected for a full year and, as such, comparisons with other metropolitan and regional hospitals are unavailable at this stage. (3) Derby Regional Hospital. PERTH ENTERTAINMENT CENTRE 18. Hon BARBARA SCOTT to the Leader of the House representing the Premier: The Government of Western Australia seems to be satisfied to do a Pontius Pilate in relation to the Perth Entertainment Centre. Hon Tom Stephens: Have you read the standing orders lately? Hon Derrick Tomlinson: No, but she’s read the Bible. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! Although members may suspect an infringement of standing orders, the member is about to get to the question. Hon BARBARA SCOTT: If a question was directed to me, Mr President, I did not hear it. (1) Does the Government intend to take any responsibility for the preservation of Perth’s largest performing arts centre? (2) If yes, will the Leader of the House inform the Parliament of any actions taken by the Government to save the Perth Entertainment Centre for all Western Australians? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. To that part of the question that is within the standing orders, I respond - (1)-(2) The Perth Entertainment Centre is a privately owned and managed facility and its future is a matter for its owners. The Government recognises that Perth needs a large entertainment venue and notes that the Burswood Dome is one such venue. The Government intends to ensure that the Burswood Dome remains available in accordance with the obligations of the owners of the Burswood Resort Casino. The Government does not propose to put public money into purchasing the Perth Entertainment Centre. The Government has also proceeded with an investment of $121 million in the new convention centre. In addition to its primary function as a world-class facility for large exhibitions and similar events, the convention centre’s design includes the capacity to host up to 2 500 concertgoers in its plenary hall. Hon Peter Foss: What a forward-looking Government. Hon KIM CHANCE: A forward-looking Government; I thank Hon Peter Foss very much. CROWN LAND, BETWEEN LOTS 246 AND 257 LIGHTS ROAD, DENMARK 19. Hon GEORGE CASH to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure: (1) What is the current status of the crown land located between lots 246 and 257 Lights Road, Denmark? (2) In whom is the land vested and for what purpose? (3) Has the minister or the Department of Land Administration authorised the use of the land for other than a pedestrian access way; and, if so, what is the justification for such authorisation? (4) Is the minister aware of claims that the land is being used for grazing purposes; and, if so, what action, if any, has been taken to ensure the land is used for its lawful purpose? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The land is freehold, held in certificate of title volume 1713, folio 618. (2) The land is held by the State of Western Australia for the designated purpose of pedestrian access way. The Shire of Denmark has care, control and management subject to section 3.53 of the Local Government Act 1995. (3) Neither the minister nor DOLA has provided approval to use the land for any other purpose. (4) As a result of this question, the minister has learnt how the land is being used and has asked for a report to be prepared on the issue.
40 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 14 August 2002]
INSTITUTIONAL BIOSAFETY COMMITTEE 20. Hon DEE MARGETTS to the Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries: With regard to the Department of Agriculture’s Institutional Biosafety Committee, which is responsible for ensuring that all licence applications to deal with genetic material by the Department of Agriculture are completed and scrutinised and for ensuring that all the conditions which the Office of Gene Technology Regulator may attach to the licence are fully complied with - (1) Will the minister provide a list of the members of the Institutional Biosafety Committee, including details of whether any members have currently or formerly been employed in academic departments or by biotechnology companies or companies directly involved in marketing or releasing genetically modified crops into the environment; and, if so, what is the nature of their involvement? (2) How many of the members have qualifications and experience in ecology or environmental impact assessments, and who are they? (3) Does the minister believe that there is a conflict of interest in some members of the committee being employed by the Department of Agriculture, particularly with ensuring the completion and scrutiny of licence applications lodged by the Department of Agriculture and compliance with licence conditions? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) The departmental members of the committee are Dr Sue Sutherland, chair; Mr Dave Hodgson; Mr Clive Robartson; Mr David Bowran; Dr Mark Sweetingham; Dr Darryl Hardie; Dr Reg Lance; Mr Ross Ramm; Dr Martin Barbetti; and Mr Richard Wheater, secretary. The community members are Professor Jonathon Majer, Curtin University of Technology; and Mr Mark Taylor, the environmental manager for the City of South Perth. I request that the other issues raised be placed on notice as it will be necessary to contact the members to obtain this information. (3) There is no conflict of interest. The Office of the Gene Technology Regulator sets the conditions of licence and scrutinises compliance. It is a condition of the Gene Technology Regulator that any organisation wishing to conduct genetically modified trials must establish an internal institutional biosafety committee. Organisations are required to ensure their staff are trained in and familiar with the protocols and requirements for compliance with licence conditions set by the Gene Technology Regulator. WATER CRISIS 21. Hon FRANK HOUGH to the minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage: I refer to the water crisis faced by Western Australia. (1) When will the Government make mandatory the installation of rainwater tanks for all new homes, business premises and public-use buildings? (2) What rebate will the Government provide to owners of existing homes, business premises and public-use buildings for the installation of rainwater tanks? (3) What plans does the Government have for drafting an environmental building code that encourages the building of water and energy-efficient homes? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question, which I am answering in a representative capacity for the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. Hon Barry House: You are still responsible for it. Hon TOM STEPHENS: Yes. Hon Barry House: Do not forget that. The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister is trying to deliver what looks to be a lengthy answer. Hon TOM STEPHENS: The answer is as follows - (1) The water crisis that much of the State is now experiencing has demonstrated that we need to use water more efficiently. On 1 August 2002 the Premier released the draft state water conservation strategy for comment. The strategy makes recommendations on how we can use water more efficiently. A number of forums are to be held across the State to encourage debate on the strategy and how we can best conserve our water supplies. It is important that we engage the community in developing solutions and improving water-use efficiencies. The installation of rainwater tanks is an issue that should be discussed at these forums.
[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 14 August 2002] 41
I understand Hon Nick Griffiths would have something to say on this question if given the chance. The PRESIDENT: This is not the chance. Hon TOM STEPHENS: I continue - (2) The draft strategy also recommends the implementation of a rebate or bounty system for allocating funds for waste water reuse, efficiency projects and alternative supply systems such as rainwater tanks. Such a system would operate on the basis of a certain number of dollars for each megalitre of water saved. Recommendations from the forums will need strong community acceptance if they are to be successful. After full community discussion, the Government will implement strategies that reduce demand and improve efficiencies. (3) The draft strategy recommends that building codes are developed to ensure water efficiency in new developments and refurbishments. CITY OF BELMONT INQUIRY 22. Hon DERRICK TOMLINSON to the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development: When the Department of Local Government and Regional Development inquiry into the City of Belmont commenced in January, the city council was advised that it would be completed in six weeks and that a report would be presented in March. (1) Can the minister tell the House why the inquiry has continued for seven months without the department being able to decide whether the City of Belmont has a case to answer or advise the minister on any necessary further action? (2) Does the minister expect an early report from his department on this inquiry, and if not, why not? (3) When can the City of Belmont anticipate a report or action by the minister? Hon Tom Stephens: Who originally provided that advice to the City of Belmont? Hon DERRICK TOMLINSON: Officers of the minister’s department. Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (1)-(3) I was not aware of the time line about which the honourable member spoke. I will make fresh inquiries with my department about this matter. I triggered an inquiry along similar lines at the beginning of the week when I saw some media reference to it. I have sought advice from my department about where and when this issue is going. Members would appreciate that these matters of an investigative nature are handled at considerable length from the minister to the point - Hon Derrick Tomlinson: Certainly of considerable length. Hon TOM STEPHENS: “Distance” was the word I was looking for. Hon Peter Foss: You were right the first time. It’s called a Freudian slip. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: We understood what he meant. Hon TOM STEPHENS: I think it is only appropriate that such an investigation be carried out at considerable distance from me. Hon Peter Foss: Unlike the awarding of contracts. The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister is trying to complete his answer to Hon Derrick Tomlinson’s question. Hon Derrick Tomlinson: Shall I complete it? He does not know. Hon TOM STEPHENS: That is what I was endeavouring to say to the member: I do not know. It is appropriate that I not know. However, now that these questions have been asked, we will see what the answer is. These are investigative matters over which I do not exercise control. PROPOSED DONNYBROOK WOODCHIP MILL 23. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure: The Premier was presented with a five-page document relating to the viewpoint of the majority of Donnybrook citizens that outlined the necessity for the proposed woodchip mill to be built in the area. When will the Government make a decision on the proposed woodchip mill in Donnybrook? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The answer that was provided has been sent back to the minister for clarification. I am happy for the member to put it on notice or ask it tomorrow; however, I do not have an answer today.
42 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 14 August 2002]
FREMANTLE-ROCKINGHAM CONTROLLED ACCESS HIGHWAY 24. Hon JIM SCOTT to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure: (1) Is the minister aware that the previous State Government made a commitment to delete the section of the Fremantle-Rockingham controlled access highway that cut through Beeliar Regional Park, Cockburn? (2) Is the minister proceeding with this proposed deletion? (3) What stage has the proposed deletion reached? (4) Was this section of the highway to form part of the link to the now to-be-deleted Fremantle eastern bypass? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) Yes. (3) The matter was referred to the April meeting of the Western Australian Planning Commission. The commission has requested further technical work. It is anticipated that it will be referred to the commission in September 2002 with a request to initiate a metropolitan region scheme amendment to delete the portion of the Fremantle-Rockingham controlled access highway from the scheme. (4) Yes. NUCLEAR WASTE, LOOPHOLES IN LEGISLATION 25. Hon GIZ WATSON to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Health: In respect of the Australian Labor Party’s pre-election commitments to keep Western Australia nuclear free – (1) Is the Government aware that the Nuclear Waste Storage (Prohibition) Act does not prohibit - (a) the transport of nuclear waste across Western Australia to a facility in another State or Territory; and (b) the importation of high level nuclear waste into Western Australia provided a proponent could demonstrate that a further “beneficial use is envisaged” for what would otherwise be considered to be nuclear waste? (2) Is the Government also aware that under the Act - (a) section 41A of the Radiation Safety Act is unable to address the problem outlined at (1)(b) because there would be no relevant “authorisation relating to nuclear waste” to trigger the parliamentary process; and (b) it does not clearly prohibit the storage of waste generated overseas from Australian-sourced uranium? (3) Will the Government move to close these loopholes? (4) If so, how? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: (1) (a) Yes. However, provision is dependent on the circumstances of transport and any related storage. (b) Radioactive substances for which the Radiological Council is satisfied that a beneficial use is envisaged are not defined as nuclear waste under the Nuclear Waste Storage (Prohibition) Act. (2) (a) Yes. However, the answer to (1)(b) also applies. (b) It should be noted that the Act prohibits the storage in Western Australia of waste radioactive substances imported into Australia. (3) No. (4) Not applicable. DERBY REGIONAL HOSPITAL, TRANSFER OF SPECIALIST STAFF TO BROOME 26. Hon NORMAN MOORE to the Minister for the Kimberley, Pilbara and Gascoyne: Specialist staff have been moved from the Derby Regional Hospital to Broome. (1) Was the minister involved in that decision? (2) Does the minister support the views of the Minister for Health in an answer given today that “the decision has been made for sound clinical and strategic reasons that will have long-term benefits to the population of the Kimberley”?
[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 14 August 2002] 43
Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (1)-(2) The allocation of resources in the Kimberley to provide good health services in that region lies ultimately with the Minister for Health. He was kind enough to indicate to me the direction in which he proposed to go. I advised him on those issues. Hon Norman Moore: Will you explain? Hon TOM STEPHENS: I am happy to say that I see my task as advocating on behalf of the people in my region, whom I represent as the Minister for the Kimberley. I have done that. TIMBER MILLS, BUSINESS EXIT ASSISTANCE 27. Hon PETER FOSS to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for State Development: Further to question without notice No 1047 – (1) How many mills have sought business exit assistance since the implementation of the Government’s old- growth forest policy? (2) Concerning each mill (a) what is its name? (b) what volumes of each grade of karri, marri and jarrah did the mill take and have contracted annually? (c) what amount was sought and paid for by way of business exit assistance? (d) what amounts have been denied? (e) how many remain outstanding? (f) when will the outstanding claims be dealt with? (3) Is any amount being withheld for site clean-up? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. It has not been possible to provide the information in the time available. The Minister for State Development is happy to provide information either directly to the member or in answer to a question on notice. WESTERN AUSTRALIAN NATIVE TITLE WORKING GROUP, ATTENDANCE AT ALP STATE CONFERENCE 28. Hon FRANK HOUGH to the minister representing the Deputy Premier: (1) Will the minister advise if taxpayers’ money was used to pay the $1 450 per head fee for three Western Australian Aboriginal Native Title Working Group representatives, Glen Kelly, Brian Wyatt and Wayne Bergmann, to observe the Western Australian Labor Party state conference? (2) Will the minister explain why an organisation such as the Western Australian Aboriginal Native Title Working Group would need to pay for access to the Western Australian Labor Party? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (1) No Western Australian Government funds were used for this purpose. (2) The question of who pays for observer status at ALP state conferences is a matter for the ALP and not the State Government. DERBY REGIONAL HOSPITAL, TRANSFER OF SPECIALIST STAFF TO BROOME 29. Hon NORMAN MOORE to the Minister for the Kimberley, Pilbara and Gascoyne: I refer the minister to the answer he gave to my last question in which he said that he gave information and advice to the Minister for Health about the Derby Regional Hospital. Will the minister tell the House what advice he gave? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I could and I might. I am waiting for further advice. When I have received it I will tell the Leader of the Opposition whether I will give him an answer. STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE, INQUIRY INTO APPOINTMENT OF ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER Motion Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting. HON NORMAN MOORE (Mining and Pastoral - Leader of the Opposition) [5.37 pm]: I have almost completed my comments on this motion. I will indicate to the House why it should support this motion. In the process of appointing people to positions such as that of the Electoral Commissioner, specific procedures are undertaken. While I am the first
44 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 14 August 2002] to acknowledge that Governments are entitled to appoint whomever they wish, it is important for us to know whether a person appointed to such a position was one of a number of suitable applicants from whom the Government could choose or whether one applicant was recommended ahead of others. It is important to know this because Governments can make appointments as they wish but if a selection panel recommends one applicant over others it is incumbent upon a Government to advise the public of its decision. This is particularly relevant with positions such as the Electoral Commissioner, which is a very important job that must be seen to be at arm’s length from the Government. The Standing Committee on Public Administration and Finance is the most appropriate committee to look at this matter. My motion calls for a report on or before 17 October 2002; it is quite a short time frame. It would be within the capacity of that committee to meet quickly and, if necessary, in camera. I have no objection to that. It must talk to the people who made the decision to determine what were the selection panel’s recommendations. The House will then be able to come to a conclusion on this matter. If it turns out that the Government has appointed someone who was not at the top of the list of applicants, it will be incumbent upon the Government to explain why. If, on the other hand, there was a list of three applicants in no particular order and the Government made its own decision, the matter should rest. If one looks at the way Dr Evans was appointed and how the selection process has changed so dramatically in five years, the whole issue appears extraordinary. As I said earlier, I am not making allegations. I want to know what happened and the public is entitled to know. The best way to find out is to have a committee of inquiry. Alternatively, if the Government wants to answer a question similar to the one I asked without saying that details are confidential, the problem would be solved. I have only one simple question that requires an answer. We are all entitled to know the answer to the question. I strongly commend the motion to the House. HON JOHN FISCHER (Mining and Pastoral) [5.40 pm]: I support this motion in the context that the position of Electoral Commissioner should be seen to be totally bipartisan. Taking into account the concerns that have been raised, public interest would be best served by eliminating all disputable matters. These concerns will be best abolished by this issue going in camera to a committee. One Nations supports this motion. HON CHRISTINE SHARP (South West) [5.41 pm]: The Greens (WA) have considered the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition and, after some thought on the matter, we have decided to support the motion. However, I make one point very clear. The Greens (WA) do not wish to express any preference for the individuals involved in this case, nor do we say that for some reason, the Electoral Commissioner, Ms Lyn Auld, is anything but an excellent Electoral Commissioner. During the past year, the Greens worked extremely well with the previous Electoral Commissioner, Dr Ken Evans. Therefore, the following issue has nothing to do with the calibre of the individuals involved. The Greens consider that with the office of Electoral Commissioner it is particularly necessary that appointments be seen to follow procedural fairness and that this position, above all positions, should not be politically manipulated. The decision made on this appointment has not been entirely clear because the process has not been transparent. The Greens - me in particular - were contacted by the Premier prior to the appointment and we replied to support the appointment of Ms Auld as Electoral Commissioner. However, the Greens subsequently wrote to the Premier expressing concern that when he wrote to us and asked for our opinion, as is required under the legislation, it was not clear from his correspondence that the then Electoral Commissioner, Dr Evans, was also applying for the post. Therefore we assumed that the current commissioner was retiring, which was why he was being replaced, and that the Government’s preference was for Ms Auld, which we supported. When we subsequently found out that Dr Evans was not intending to retire, we were surprised and again wrote to the Premier to ask for a further extension of time to consider our position due to our surprise at the Government’s removing a serving commissioner. We accept that the Government has every right to apply its discretion in appointments to public office but it is also important that when Governments exercise this discretion, they are transparent in their reasoning. If the Government considered that Ms Auld would make the best commissioner, as it clearly did, it needed to explain in a public way how it came to that decision and be fully accountable for the exercise of its discretion. The reason for the Government’s choice has not been explained transparently and instead we have been subjected to rumours and innuendo. The Greens do not think that any Electoral Commissioner should have their appointment undermined by rumours and innuendo. It is important that the selection process be squeaky clean, that it demonstrate absolute procedural fairness and that the reasons for the final appointment be transparent and defensible. This motion refers the matter to the Standing Committee on Public Administration and Finance and we understand that it is the practice of that standing committee to consider matters as they relate to more systemic activity of government. The standing committee may be able to provide the House with further advice about the nature of this appointment process in a more general sense and whether there are precedents that have been followed in this case or whether it is an isolated incident. These are important matters that need to be cleared up. Notwithstanding the fact that Ms Auld would make an outstanding commissioner, it is nevertheless important that these matters are aired and that a report is placed on the public record about the process behind the appointment. Debate adjourned, on motion by Hon Tom Stephens (Minister for Housing and Works).
[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 14 August 2002] 45
LAPSED BILLS Restoration to Notice Paper - Assembly's Message Message from the Assembly received and read requesting the Council to resume consideration of the following Bills at the stage they reached in the previous session - Volunteers (Protection from Liability) Bill 2002 Home Building Contracts Amendment Bill 2002 Planning Appeals Amendment Bill 2001 Family Court Amendment Bill 2001 Criminal Law (Procedure) Amendment Bill 2002 Public Interest Disclosure Bill 2002 National Crime Authority (State Provisions) Amendment Bill 2002 Occupational Safety and Health Amendment Bill 2002 Iron Ore Processing (Mineralogy Pty. Ltd.) Agreement Bill 2002 Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Bill 2002 Electronic Transactions Bill 2001 Law Reform (Contributory Negligence and Tortfeasors’ Contribution) Amendment Bill 2001 Child Support (Adoption of Laws) Amendment Bill 2001 Yallingup Foreshore Land Bill 2002 Offshore Minerals Bill 2001 Offshore Minerals (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2001 Offshore Minerals (Registration Fees) Bill 2001 First Home Owner Grant Amendment Bill 2002 Fire and Emergency Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2001 Conservation and Land Management Amendment Bill 2002 Gene Technology Amendment Bill 2001 Gene Technology Bill 2001 Child Welfare Amendment Bill 2001 Pay-roll Tax Assessment Bill 2001 Pay-roll Tax Bill 2001 Taxation Administration Bill 2001 Taxation Administration (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2001 Taxation Administration (Consequential Provisions) (Taxing) Bill 2001 Debits Tax Bill 2001 Debits Tax Assessment Bill 2001 Land Tax Bill 2001 Land Tax Assessment Bill 2001 Animal Welfare Bill 2001 Prisons Amendment Bill 2002 Transfer of Land Amendment Bill 2001 Censorship Amendment Bill 2002 Coroners Amendment Bill 2001 Corporations (Consequential Amendments) Bill (No. 2) 2001 Corporations (Consequential Amendments) Bill (No. 3) 2001
46 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 14 August 2002]
Boxing Control Amendment Bill 2001 Trustees of Western Australia Limited (Transfer of Business) Bill 2002 Regional Investment Fund Bill 2001. HON KIM CHANCE (Agricultural - Leader of the House) [5.51 pm]: I move without notice - That the request of the Legislative Assembly contained in Message No 1 be agreed to, except insofar as it relates to the following Bills - Volunteers (Protection from Liability) Bill 2002 Home Building Contracts Amendment Bill 2002 Yallingup Foreshore Land Bill 2002. I understand that the Opposition would prefer that this motion now be adjourned, until tomorrow at least, to provide the opportunity to examine the list of Bills. If that is the wish of the Opposition, the Government will be pleased to support it. HON NORMAN MOORE (Mining and Pastoral - Leader of the Opposition) [5.52 pm]: I have been hearing all day that the Opposition in this House is holding up the Government’s legislative program. Hon Tom Stephens: Where did you get that silly idea from? Hon NORMAN MOORE: It was said by a very silly person - the Leader of the House in the other place. Hon Derrick Tomlinson: Silly Kobelke? Hon NORMAN MOORE: That same fellow. If I were the Leader of the House in this place, and I were a member of the Labor Government, I would be absolutely ashamed of what the Leader of the House in the Assembly said. He is saying that this House could not organise - members will know what the expression is. Hon Ken Travers: No, we do not - tell us! Hon NORMAN MOORE: There are several different versions of it. Members can take their pick. Hon Kim Chance: Tomato sauce in a pie shop? The PRESIDENT: Members, interjections are not warranted at this stage. Hon NORMAN MOORE: The management and the operation of this House is not in the hands of 12 Liberal members out of a total of 34 members. For Hon John Kobelke to suggest that somehow the 12 Liberal members are causing the Labor Party difficulty in getting its legislative program through simply defies the facts. Here we have a list of Bills that the Government wishes to reinstate to the Notice Paper, and of course the Opposition will agree to do that. I might add, however, as a further indication of the incompetence of this Government, that the motion of the Leader of the House to exclude the Volunteers (Protection from Liability) Bill 2002, the Home Building Contracts Amendment Bill 2002 and the Yallingup Foreshore Land Bill 2002 is moved because they are somewhere between the Houses. They disappeared at prorogation. This is the Government that in the last session rushed this Volunteers (Protection from Liability) Bill through the Legislative Assembly, arguing that it was desperately required, absolutely urgent, and must be done today. Then the Government adjourned the Houses, went off on the break and discovered that it had not introduced the legislation into this House. It has gone - disappeared, along with the other two Bills. Hon Kim Chance: Those Bills simply need to be dealt with by a slightly different administrative process. Hon NORMAN MOORE: A slightly different process, was it? The facts of the matter are that the Government got it wrong again. The Leader of the House in the other place has the audacity to criticise the Opposition for delaying the legislative program. We have been telling the Government for a long time why the legislative program looks the way it does. Very simply, it is because it brings in industrial relations legislation that is three centimetres thick; the gay and lesbian law reform legislation, which is a significant Bill in its own right; and electoral reform, which is the biggest change to the State’s electoral system in its history. The Government wants the Parliament to deal with those Bills in five minutes. Then it brings in all these other Bills - many of which I might add were probably organised by the previous Government. Most of the Government’s first year legislative program consisted of the previous Government had already done, and now it complains about the Opposition. The Labor Party is the Government and, if it cares to talk to the Greens (WA), it can get its own way in the House. It can even get its own way if it talks to the Opposition occasionally. An officer representing the Leader of the House contacted me last Thursday, and asked to talk to me. I telephoned him on Friday, but he was not available. I understood he contacted me to give me some indication about what was going on in the Parliament. Eventually I got to talk to the leader’s office on Monday, and asked what legislation he wanted the Opposition to address. I sought some idea of what was coming on next so that the Opposition could prepare itself. There was no Notice Paper, because the House had been prorogued. Last night the officer representing the Leader of
[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 14 August 2002] 47 the House came to me with a typed list, with nobody’s imprimatur, and advised me that this was what the Government wanted to do. On top of the list was the Volunteers (Protection from Liability) Bill 2002 and the Home Building Contracts Amendment Bill 2002. However, there was an asterisk next to each of those Bills and a note saying that there may be some problem with them. Hon Tom Stephens: It sounds like he is a much better Leader of the House than you ever were. Hon NORMAN MOORE: I, and my colleagues in the Legislative Assembly, did not spend every second day whingeing to the Press that the then Labor Party Opposition stopped the Government’s legislative program day after day. I just sat back and I wore it. Of course, the previous Government told the Opposition what it thought was wrong, but it did not have its colleagues in the Legislative Assembly whingeing, whining and carrying on, attacking their own side. I cannot work out why Kobelke thinks that by attacking the Legislative Council he is attacking the Opposition. The Government is running this show for the first time in history. That is the shame of it all. For the first time in history the Labor Party controls both the Government and this House, and it cannot organise anything. It is totally and absolutely hopeless. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The parliamentary secretaries present, and Hon Ray Halligan will come to order. The Leader of the Opposition has the call. Hon NORMAN MOORE: The Government is totally hopeless. This is a demonstration of its incompetence. If I were the Leader of the House, I would be embarrassed and ashamed about what the Leader of the House in the other place has said about me. Hon Kim Chance: We still got more Bills through than the previous Government. Hon NORMAN MOORE: I thank the Leader of the House for that - out of his own mouth! Will he now tell that to the Leader of the House in the Legislative Assembly? He has now spilt the beans - his Government has passed more Bills through the House than the previous Government, when I was Leader of the House. There is, however, a difference between him and me. I did not have the Leader of the House in the other place whingeing to the Press and complaining about the Legislative Council, but this is what we get from Mr Kobelke. Now we have heard from the mouth of the Leader of the House that his Government has passed more Bills than the previous Government! What are they whingeing about? Hon Kim Chance: It did take us a bit longer. Hon NORMAN MOORE: The Opposition agreed, at my suggestion, that the House sit longer hours and extra days. The Government extended sittings by three weeks in the last session. The Leader of the House in the other place does not think that is enough. Hon Kim Chance: Since the Government - either Liberal or Labor - has lost control of this House, the capacity for passing legislation has dropped by some 25 Bills a year. Hon NORMAN MOORE: That is not the reason. It is because up to four or five parties are represented in this House, and they all want a say. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! Everyone seems to be enjoying this debate, but perhaps the Leader of the Opposition should have the floor. Hon NORMAN MOORE: Thank you, Mr President. I was hoping to get a word in, but it is difficult. I hope that the journalists who have been writing Mr Kobelke’s rubbish have heard the interjection of the Leader of the House, who said that he has got more Bills through the House this year than the previous Government did. That gives the lie to the tripe and propaganda being spewed out by the Leader of the House in the Legislative Assembly, Mr Kobelke. I would be ashamed and embarrassed if I were the Leader of the House to have one of my own telling me how incompetent I was in the management of the Legislative Council. If the Leader of the House wishes to say that Mr Kobelke got it wrong, and that this House has actually done a very good job, I would love to hear it. Hon Kim Chance: It is not good enough. Hon Ray Halligan: Does the Leader of the House not support this House? Hon Kim Chance: We have not done a good enough job, and we should all recognise that. It is a problem for all of us, not just the Government. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! Question time is finished. Hon NORMAN MOORE: In addition to this - we will be talking about it some other time - the Leader of the House now wants to stop people from talking in here. He has a notice of motion to again restrict the capacity of members to speak. I was here when Hon Joe Berinson brought in the first time constraint in this place. I opposed it then, and I
48 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 14 August 2002] oppose it now. Now, another Labor Government comes in and a further restriction is contemplated, even though the Leader of the House and I had recent agreement on this. Sitting suspended from 6.00 to 7.30 pm Hon NORMAN MOORE: Before the dinner break, I spent some time castigating the Leader of the House and the Government on their incompetence and inability to manage the House. The Leader of the House, however, informed me by way of interjection that he has done a better job than I did when I was Leader of the House and that he got more legislation through this House than I did. I now totally change my approach to the Leader of the House. He is to be commended on getting so much legislation through the House. However, I think he should tell the Leader of the House in the other place what a good job he is doing, because he does not seem to know. Hon Kim Chance: I did tell him that. Hon NORMAN MOORE: I hope the Leader of the House told him in no uncertain terms, because I will when I get a chance. Now that we have this absolutely clear, and, as a result of the Leader of the House’s earlier admission, we have gotten rid of the campaign of absolute rubbish being run by the Labor Party that the upper House in some way or other is inefficient, incompetent or not intending to help the Government, maybe we can get on with the business of the House and deal with it properly and in a way that the Leader of the House argued for when he sat on this side of the Chamber. My predecessor on this side of the Chamber argued strongly and vigorously about the need for a House of Review. Indeed, Premier Gallop, when in opposition, was a great supporter of a House of Review. It was a strange position because the Labor Party wanted to get rid of it. We found that when it was in opposition and we were the Government, and it had the numbers with the support of the Greens and the Australian Democrats, a House of Review was a place worth keeping. That is commendable. I am delighted at the outcome of today’s debate. I am delighted that the Leader of the House has now put to rest the lie promoted by Mr Kobelke that this House is not doing its job properly. I am pleased that the Leader of the House has acknowledged, by way of an agreeable nod when I was making this point, that the Opposition has made a number of suggestions and proposals on the operation of the House to spend more time on legislation and to have more Bills dealt with. I believe that those suggestions are fair and reasonable and that we should, if necessary, spend more time on legislation. However, this House is different from the other House, and long may that be the case. The moment we turn into a pale imitation of the Legislative Assembly, somebody will have the bright idea of getting rid of us. The big losers in that would be the people of Western Australia, the legislation we pass through the Parliament and, as a matter of interest, the Greens (WA) who would not be elected to the Assembly. I hope that the Labor Party will get rid of its nonsense campaign to denigrate this place that it is trying to run as it does the Labor Party no credit. All it does is denigrate its own members who are in charge of this House these days. I repeat that there are 12 members of the Liberal Party in this Chamber. We do not have the capacity or the numbers to stop anything happening in this Chamber. That is regrettable, having been here when there were about 25 of us and about half a dozen on the other side. Things have changed and that is the reality of the circumstances. Hon Kim Chance: The difference is we used to get 90 Bills a year through this House. Hon NORMAN MOORE: Yes, and ironically when there was no time limit on speeches. Hon Kim Chance: But 25-6 are pretty good numbers. Hon NORMAN MOORE: Members on either side did not spend all their time filling in their time; they just said what they had to say and sat down. Members believe by having time limits speeches will be quicker; they will not, they will take longer. I do not propose to take any more time other than to say that the Opposition will agree to the reinstatement of these Bills. Back in the good old days we would not have agreed; however, times have changed and we acknowledge that this should happen. I am pleased to note that three Bills are not included in the motion; that is, the Volunteers (Protection from Liability) Bill 2002, the Home Building Contracts Amendment Bill 2002 and the Yallingup Foreshore Land Bill 2002. I hope that at least the Yallingup Bill descends into a mire somewhere between the two Houses and is never seen again. It is the most outrageous and disgraceful piece of legislation that has come before this Parliament. I hope it never appears again, but that is for the Government to decide. I presume the Government is working out what to do with those three Bills. I expect they will have to start again in the Assembly, if that is what the powers that be indicate must happen. My view is that that is what should happen, because Bills that have not been introduced into this House disappear at prorogation. There are a number of other Bills that the Opposition does not much like. We believe that the Planning Appeals Amendment Bill 2001 should be sent back to the Assembly to start again. However, we will deal with it if the Government insists on bringing it forward. It has become an appalling mess. A number of other Bills on the list are in the same category. However, to expedite the proceedings of the House and to give the Government an opportunity to debate its legislation and have it considered, we are happy to agree with the motion as moved by the Leader of the House, with the exception of those three Bills. Question put and passed.
[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 14 August 2002] 49
TAXATION ADMINISTRATION BILLS, REFERRAL TO STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION Motion HON KIM CHANCE (Agricultural - Leader of the House) [7.38 pm] I move without notice - That the Taxation Administration Bill 2001, the Taxation Administration (Consequential Provisions) (Taxing) Bill 2001 and Taxation Administration (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2001 be referred back to the Standing Committee on Legislation and that it report not later than 24 October 2002. By way of explanation, these three Bills need to be referred again to the Standing Committee on Legislation as a result of the prorogation a few days ago. HON GEORGE CASH (North Metropolitan) [7.40 pm]: The Opposition supports the referral of these Bills. As members will be aware, during the last session these Bills were referred to the Legislation Committee for consideration and report. The committee has to date done a considerable amount of work on the issues raised in all those Bills. It is important that the committee be given an opportunity to complete its report and in due course report to the House so that that legislation can be considered. In the original referral of these Bills to the Legislation Committee I pointed out, first, that the Opposition believed that more detailed scrutiny of particular sections of the Bills was needed. As it has turned out, that has certainly been the case. However, I also made the point that the Liberal Party, as the Opposition, would not delay the passage of these Bills. In that regard, we are pleased to agree to this motion. I should indicate that my party room has again indicated - it will be put to the first meeting of the committee - that in respect of the question on the taxation Bills, I should substitute for Hon Bill Stretch, who is a full member of that committee. However, that can be dealt with in due course by the committee when it next meets. HON DEE MARGETTS (Agricultural) [7.42 pm]: I have no intention of opposing this motion. However, I briefly put on the record that we are going through a lot of acrobatics to deal with the whole issue of prorogation. Some good lessons are being put in front of us. Apart from the issue of questions falling into the ether and legislation disappearing into a nether world, there are probably some very good signals that this Chamber should start talking about the necessity for prorogation during the term of a Government to avoid a lot of this unnecessary difficulty in the middle of a Government’s term. Question put and passed.
GENE TECHNOLOGY BILLS, REFERRAL TO STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS Motion HON KIM CHANCE (Agricultural - Leader of the House) [7.43 pm]: Under Standing Order No 230A(4), I move without notice - That the Gene Technology Bill 2001 and Gene Technology Amendment Bill 2001 be referred back to the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs and that it report not later than 30 June 2003. I need to explain two things about this motion. This reference had to be dealt with separately because of its nature - I think because it was a referral under Standing Order No 230(c). Our standing orders require that the committee to which the Bill is referred report back within 30 days, unless the reference motion states otherwise. I was not aware of that when I first moved the reference, and this is an opportunity to fix it. The second issue that needs explanation is why I have nominated a date as far ahead as 30 June 2003. I concede that it might be a longer period than one would expect a committee’s inquiries to take. Of course, the committee may report earlier if it so chooses. The Government is looking for the advice and guidance of this House and the standing committee on a highly contentious question. The last thing we want is to put the committee under pressure through its reporting time. It is also possible - I do not know this for sure - that the committee may wish to travel. Since such travel would likely be to the Northern Hemisphere, it seemed pointless to specify a reporting date that would require the committee to travel in the northern winter, particularly if it were to somewhere like Canada as people would not be able to see anything but white. In that context I thought it would be better for the committee to travel during the midpoint of the northern summer. Hon Bill Stretch: Digging around in the snow might be quite appropriate. Hon KIM CHANCE: Does Hon Bill Stretch think I am winning some friends here? Hon Bill Stretch interjected. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Hon Simon O’Brien): The Leader of the House is addressing the question that the motion be agreed to.
50 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 14 August 2002]
Hon KIM CHANCE: Those are the two reasons for the motion. However, the committee may, if it so chooses, report earlier than 30 June 2003. HON CHRISTINE SHARP (South West) [7.46 pm]: We support the motion. I am very grateful for the practical suggestion about the time frames by the Leader of the House. I am sure that if it had been otherwise, the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs would have come back to the House in the near future to request an extension. The issue of genetically modified organisms is very complex. Although I am sure the committee is very interested to put a lot of energy into this inquiry and to report as quickly as it can, it will take some time to do the matter justice. We are very grateful for the time allowed by the motion, and I am very pleased to support it. HON BRUCE DONALDSON (Agricultural) [7.47 pm]: The Opposition supports the referral to the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs and the very wise counsel in extending its reporting date. As Hon Christine Sharp stated, the issue of genetically modified organisms is very complex. It has divided the thoughts of people in Western Australia. Not only those involved in the industry but also people in the wider community have concerns. Such a high level of debate is now occurring in the wider community that the committee will be on a hiding to nothing no matter what sort of recommendations it brings forward. However, we have a responsibility to investigate the issue fully. I liken it to the long time the Standing Committee on Legislation was involved with the DNA issue. That was a very complex issue at the time. I am pleased that the Government has adopted this policy. Is the State required to pass these Bills as complementary legislation to the Commonwealth’s legislation? In what position will the delay to 2003 leave the State? My only concern about the referral is that the delay might in some way inhibit the Government’s relationship with the Commonwealth and the other States. Is this a problem? If it is a problem, is it possible for the House to pass the Bills and for the Leader of the House to then refer the actual issue to the committee? Could the Leader of the House respond to that? It might not be a problem at all. We welcome the opportunity to investigate this issue. I went to a seminar on the Tuesday afternoon during Local Government Week. Many local councils attended. They expected to get 30 or 40 people, but finished up with more than 100. Some people had been there from the previous Friday, attending courses in councillor development etc. They thought people would he heading off to the bush, but they stayed. That showed the strong interest being taken in this technology. As I said earlier, I think we are on a hiding to nothing, but that is the politics of the matter. Hon Peter Foss: Take the smile off your face. Hon BRUCE DONALDSON: I am trying to keep a straight face. This is a major issue. I made a statement in our own party room about three and a half years ago that this would be one of the most important issues to confront agriculture over the next decade. That is a fact. Is it a problem for the Government to get these Bills through the House in the next month? HON DEE MARGETTS (Agricultural) [7.50 pm]: I do not wish to delay the House unduly, but this issue is very important to the Greens (WA) and it is an issue about which we are all concerned. My colleague Hon Jim Scott and I have been working on this matter extensively. Yes, I guess I was surprised at the interest in the local government conference. A forum with a maximum participation of 47 was advertised. I believe 95 people expressed interest, and when more than 100 turned up at the last forum it was a surprise to me. People seemed to be eager to discuss the issue and to know more. A lot of activity is going on in local government. I am pleased that local government is taking some initiative to run more forums in regional Western Australia. I am looking forward to participating in any of these forums should they take place. There are not many committees about which I would normally say, “Yeah, why don’t they go overseas”, because information can be requested from various areas and it is not necessary to go overseas. Much has been said about the experience of North American farmers - in Canada and the United States - who are the main group of farmers in the world who have extensively used genetically modified crops over some time. Instead of relying on what somebody has said - whether they be the president or representative of an organisation or, in the case of Percy Schmeiser, someone who has come head to head with one of the major multinational companies - a great deal could be gained from the committee talking to the various organisations and farmers directly, and even looking at the experience in the production areas. I wholeheartedly endorse the committee going to look at these areas. Hon Peter Foss: Are you on that committee? Hon DEE MARGETTS: I am not, and I would not be putting my hand up. I am sure it is in very good hands. Hon Kim Chance, Personal Explanation HON KIM CHANCE (Agricultural - Leader of the House) [7.54 pm]: The question that was raised by Hon Bruce Donaldson is an interesting one. Hon Dee Margetts has a question on notice, which I hoped she would ask today but obviously she had other questions in front of her. Unfortunately, I do not have the file with me, but the answer provided to that question pretty much addresses the issues Hon Bruce Donaldson raised. In short, it does not seem to pose a problem. If that is the case, one could argue whether the state legislation is superfluous. Although we have no state legislation at present, we are essentially covered by the umbrella of commonwealth legislation. The commonwealth Gene Technology Act will continue to operate on the issues of the environment and health for all time. State legislation
[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 14 August 2002] 51 can deal with genetic modification and GM-free zones for marketing purposes. In the absence of state legislation, the State still has the ability to influence commonwealth decisions through my membership of the gene technology ministerial council. A person could argue that, in a sense, the state legislation is superfluous although it would put some fine edges on it. That does not mean that I dismiss the importance of the committee’s inquiry because I think the committee will be able to be quite broad in its inquiry. If it feels that the Bill reference is too narrow, the Government would be keen to cooperate by providing a wider reference or the committee may, under its own motion, develop wider terms of reference. The Government is very keen and sincere in its desire to get the advice of the committee. As Hon Bruce Donaldson said, that can have an overwhelming impact on the way the legislation is implemented, as was the case with the DNA inquiry, which was a definitive document and is generally seen to be such. The issue is contentious and one of the principal outcomes I am looking for from the committee is not only its advice after it has completed its inquiry, but also the opportunity it will provide to be a forum for the public to bring forward evidence. That is the other reason that I am keen to provide an extended time frame for the inquiry. The short answer is no. I would rather have state legislation in place to deal with some of the issues that will come up; however, we can manage without it for the time being. Motion Resumed Question put and passed.
ADDRESS-IN-REPLY Motion Resumed from 13 August. HON GEORGE CASH (North Metropolitan) [7.58 pm]: I am pleased to support the motion in respect of the address to His Excellency the Governor. I was pleased to attend the opening of Parliament yesterday and hear the Governor’s speech, which contained an outline of the Government’s proposed legislative program for this session. The speech contained a number of issues that require discussion. I will not use this occasion to raise those issues save to say that I was pleased to hear the Governor confirm that Western Australia and the People’s Republic of China have entered into an agreement worth approximately $25 billion for the supply of natural gas by the Woodside consortium over 25 years. That is a huge economic fillip for Western Australia and something of which we can all be proud. When great economic decisions are made either by Governments or private enterprise, all political leaders want to jump on the bandwagon. Be that as it may, I take this opportunity to congratulate the former Premier of Western Australia, Hon Richard Court, for the significant part he played in working closely with the very senior officials from the People’s Republic of China. I also congratulate the executives of the Woodside consortium in working towards the objective about which we have now learnt. I also recognise the work that the Prime Minister of Australia, Hon John Howard, did for this contract, and also the former Minister for Resources Development in Western Australia, Hon Colin Barnett. I recognise Hon Norman Moore, as former Minister for Mines, the current Premier, Hon Geoff Gallop, for the work he has done and Hon Clive Brown, the Minister for State Development. All those members of Parliament have contributed to the success of this project. Most of all, congratulations are due to the executives and staff of the various companies that make up the consortium because, in true commercial terms, they were the people who determined that a contract would be agreed between the two parties. The project is good news for Western Australia because it will provide greater economic and job opportunities. Also, it will have a positive effect on Australia’s balance of payments, because it is mainly directed to export income. It augurs well for the relationship that exists between Australia, particularly Western Australia, and the People’s Republic of China. I will use most of the time that has been allocated to me tonight to talk about electricity reform in Western Australia. I have spoken on this subject before. I am a keen advocate of energy reform in Western Australia, particularly in the electricity supply part of the equation, which is an area in need of a significant overhaul. Members will be aware that in August last year the Government established what became known as the Electricity Reform Task Force. The job of that task force was to consider and report on the opportunities and options available to the Government to effect positive reforms to the electricity supply industry in Western Australia. It is interesting that the task force’s terms of reference were not set down in the usual way. They were set out as objectives in the form of guidelines that the task force was to follow. I will relate some of the history of the task force before referring to some of the very positive submissions it has received on the propositions that have come from its investigations. It is important to indicate the objectives by which the task force is guided. The first objective, which is stated to be the main objective, is to achieve, where practicable, lower sustainable electricity prices for all customers while maintaining the uniform tariff for residential and small business customers, and adequate reliability, security, quality and safety of electricity supply. Secondly, the uniform electricity tariff is to be provided as a safety net in a transparent manner that encourages efficiency in the delivery of the service. Cash flows required to fund the uniform tariff system will be provided by Western Power and other participants in the electricity system. Thirdly, the interests of consumers in relation to the supply of electricity are to be protected by, wherever possible, removing impediments to effective competition between persons engaged in, or in commercial activities connected with, the supply of electricity.
52 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 14 August 2002]
Fourthly, due consideration is to be given to the role that sustainable renewable energy is to have to provide good opportunity for gross greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced. The fifth objective is that a reasonable balance between the interests of electricity generators, transmitters, distributors, retailers, customers and the broader community be achieved while ensuring a reasonable consistency between gas and electricity access regulation. Lastly, the task force is to submit its recommendations to the Minister for Energy on the disaggregation of Western Power, the revised market structure, the electricity code, and the arrangement for full retail contestability within 12 months of the Electricity Reform Task Force’s first meeting. In preparing its recommendation the task force is to take account of the successes and failures of electricity deregulation in other jurisdictions. I am impressed with those objectives because they are broad and wide ranging and they give a fair amount of latitude to the task force. The objectives cover protection for both domestic and commercial consumers and provide the task force with opportunities to give positive recommendations to the Government on this matter. The task force was established in August last year and it got off to a good start. By April this year it had published two volumes of information that contained its views and other data and information, and set out a range of options that the task force considered relevant to the questions that were before it. It is important to note that the task force invited public submissions on the views that it put forward and sought alternative views from interested parties. Two thick volumes were produced. The first volume comprised 178 pages and was titled “Electricity Supply Industry Structure and Market Design for Western Australia”. I will run through part of the report in a moment. The second volume was titled “Regulatory Regime for the Electricity Supply Industry in Western Australia” and contained 160 pages of discussion in that area. In April 2002, when the two volumes were published for the benefit of the community, the task force also produced an executive summary that gave an indication of its views to date on a number of the issues. That discussion paper was titled “Discussion Paper on the Reform of the Electricity Supply Industry in Western Australia”. It set out a general summary of some of the more important issues that were raised in volumes 1 and 2 of the task force’s publications. The view of the task force in that summary was that Western Power should be separated into at least three independent businesses. The first was to be state generation, the second state networks and the third state retail. In the documentation published the task force made it clear that it believed that those three new and independent business were an essential part of the reform of the electricity system in Western Australia. I use this opportunity to put forward the views of not only the task force but also a number of other independent users - both domestic and commercial - that have made submissions to the task force. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Hon Simon O’Brien): Order! There is rather too much audible conversation. Some members might also like to reacquaint themselves with Standing Order No 79. Hon George Cash will continue. Hon GEORGE CASH: I will not quote extensively the executive summary of the task force. I will be selective, but that is not because I think the whole summary is not important; it is because I have limited time to make my comments tonight. Equally, when I comment about some of the other submissions to the task force, I will not be able to quote them in full, because of their considerable length, and also because of the nature of the technical data contained in them. I acknowledge the huge amount of technical and economic analysis that has been done in compiling these submission. The task force went on to say in its summary - It will be essential to establish clear and non-conflicting mandates for the entities resulting from the proposed structural reforms. This clarity will enable effective regulatory arrangements that can ensure consumer protection and reliability, security, quality and safety of supply. . . . The Task Force has identified market arrangements to promote greater competition and private sector investment. This includes the introduction, for the South West Interconnected System (SWIS), of a wholesale bilateral contract market accompanied by a Residual Trading Market to allow for the adjustment of contractual positions in trading electricity at the wholesale level. This could provide a foundation for the development of more intricate forms of market design as the needs of participants evolve. In addition, a range of regulatory and consumer protection initiatives are required to facilitate competition on fair and reasonable terms and to deliver on the reform objectives set by the Government. These include an Electricity Access Code, a Licensing regime, an Energy Ombudsman scheme and a Customer Service Code. The Task Force proposes to undertake further analysis of the financial viability of individual State-owned entities and the expected benefits from further reform prior to completion of its final report. The task force then raised and commented on particular issues. The task force report contains a vast amount of information. On sustainable lower prices, the summary states - Sustainable lower prices are anticipated to follow over time as a result of competition in fuel, generation and retail operations, increased efficiency in generation and supply, and regulatory measures. . . .
[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 14 August 2002] 53
In the longer term, downward pressure on wholesale and retail prices will be facilitated by competition between generators and the indirect competition that occurs when contracts for inputs such as fuel or plant are negotiated. Further on, under the same heading, the summary states - The Task Force believes that reform should facilitate incentives for investment in generation and network capacity to ensure security and quality of supply as demand for electricity grows. Suitably negotiated bilateral contracts and/or wholesale market clearing prices could encourage investment in the generation sector. The summary suggests that the uniform tariff policy can be accommodated as a series of uniform tariff caps. Funding of cross-subsidies inherent in this policy can be facilitated, and made more transparent and applicable to all retailers and marketers by a series of methods outlined in the summary. In the area of consumer protection, which is an area that domestic gas users will be keen to see implemented, the task force said that consumer protection for small-use electricity consumers would be addressed through the implementation of a comprehensive customer service code backed up by individual customer service charters, standard customer contract conditions and appropriate enforcement arrangements. The task force was also of the view that an energy ombudsman scheme would provide customers with a complaint resolution mechanism. With regard to renewable distributed generation, demand management and efficiency, the task force believed that a number of issues and a range of measures needed to be considered. The first was the disaggregation of Western Power, which the task force said would enable the independent business of state retail to contract with renewable projects independent of state generation. Further on it suggested the need for maintaining a preferential contestability level for access by renewable energy retailers. In the area of electricity access codes, the task force believed that there was a need for such access codes for the use of network assets and that they should be developed in Western Australia to have regard for the conditions prevailing in this State. The task force was of the view that full retail contestability could be seen in two complementary ways. First, the task force said that it is a primary goal of the reform process on the basis that competition at the consumer level will assist in passing through the benefits of upstream competition. Second, the task force said that FRC would require careful management as it is the element of the reform process most reliant on other reforms performing as intended. The task force recognised the significant different parameters and elements that comprise the south west and the north west interconnected grids. In relation to the north west interconnected system and the non-interconnected systems, the task force acknowledged that these require separate consideration. The task force went on to say that while the reform issues it had examined have primarily been associated with the SWIS, consideration also has to be given to other supply systems in the State. The task force’s current view on the structural reform of Western Power in the NWIS is that state networks should have a similar role to that proposed in the SWIS and state retail; that is, state retail should serve both contestable and franchise customers with appropriate ring fencing. The question of ring fencing will need considerable examination. To date, most commentators who have considered the question of ring fencing within Western Power believe that it is not a satisfactory way of dealing with the situation. It can work, but in real terms it does not work. There are obviously some other ways of getting away with the need to ring fence by disaggregating the organisation and clearly having separate entities doing their specific work. Hon Jim Scott: Is that like Westrail? Hon GEORGE CASH: Will the member explain what he means by that? Hon Jim Scott: That was ring fencing. Hon GEORGE CASH: I am suggesting that, in the end, ring fencing does not work. People will tell you that they intend to recognise the separate entities. However, if it is retained in a single organisation, in the end, the Chinese curtains do not work. That is one of the problems that we have with Western Power at the moment. There is an argument that Western Power has its various generation, distribution and retail divisions capacities ring fenced. However, there are many arguments that that is not the case in real terms. That is one of the problems we face with an organisation that has an absolute monopoly on the generation, distribution and sale of power in Western Australia. Later on I want to talk about a book that has been recently published. It is called The Great Energy Debate and deals with energy costs, minerals and the future of the Western Australian economy. It was written by Professor Kenneth W. Clements, Ye Qiang and Robert A. Greig and produced by the University of Western Australia Press. It is very much a publication of the research centre of the Department of Economics at the University of Western Australia. It successfully examines some of the economic arguments that clearly demonstrate in the end that the current entity of Western Power, because of its present structure, is restricting economic activity in Western Australia. As a result of the restriction on economic activity, and because it is not as efficient as it could be because it does not have to subject itself to competition from other private generators and independent power producers in Western Australia, it has a negative influence on job creation in Western Australia.
54 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 14 August 2002]
I want to refer to a considerable number of reports. They are by people who have spent a lot of time analysing the current situation and who are very skilled in this area. For the benefit of Hon Jim Scott I also point to the fact that Hon Robin Chapple has made a submission to the energy task force. I will make some general comments on what he said, because he will explain in due course his view on the disaggregation of Western Power. Before I move into some of those other reports, I want to indicate that although I am in favour of energy reform in Western Australia, and certainly in favour of electricity reform in this State, I have an open mind on how we might achieve that reform. I am impressed by the submissions and the manner in which they have been prepared, and the skill and knowledge that is obviously inherent in the reports that have been made by way of public submission to the energy task force. I maintain the position that, although I want to see a more efficient electricity system in Western Australia, I also want to be able to reserve my position on how it should occur until after the energy task force has reported. There are those who would like to make political capital out of the fact that as an opposition member I happen to be indicating a level of support for the Government’s energy task force activities. In the end, if the objective of the energy task force is the same as my objective - that is, to lower electricity costs in Western Australia - I believe that we will be sharing an admirable goal. By way of history I should indicate that energy reform in Western Australia has been occurring for some time; in fact, one can go back to 1994 when Richard Court was the Premier of Western Australia. Even when in opposition before the Court Government came into office in 1993, the then Leader of the Opposition, Richard Court, dominated the debate on energy reform in Western Australia. I well recall before we came into government the discussions that he and I had on the gas pipeline that we were proposing at that stage. Many people prior to 1993 did not believe that it would ever become a reality, but, of course, soon after we came to government in 1993, it was one of the early reform activities that we made happen by way of legislation through this House and obviously by way of the activities of private enterprise. To indicate some of the reforms that have occurred since 1994, we have had the disaggregation of the North West Shelf domestic gas contract, sometimes known as domgas; the splitting of the former State Energy Commission of Western Australia into separate electricity and gas businesses - that is, into Western Power and AlintaGas; the phasing in of third-party access to the AlintaGas transmission and distribution system; the phasing in of access to Western Power’s electricity transmission and distribution system - I will speak more about that in due course, because a lot of work is required in that area; the removal of restrictions on the sale of liquefied petroleum gas; the sale of the Dampier to Bunbury natural gas pipeline for $2.4 billion; and the public float of AlintaGas. I mentioned earlier the Karratha to Kalgoorlie gas pipeline. That pipeline was very much the dream of former Premier Richard Court, and when it was installed it provided cheaper energy to open new mining ventures and give greater sustainability and viability to other mining projects between Karratha and Kalgoorlie. In the end, all those changes were aimed at increasing economic production and generating jobs in Western Australia. That was an admirable and noble goal that benefited the people of Western Australia. I acknowledge the tremendous work that was done by Kenneth W. Clements, Ye Qiang and Robert A. Greig in their book The Great Energy Debate - Energy Costs, Minerals and the Future of the Western Australian Economy, because that book has generated significant comment from a considerable number of players in the energy market in Western Australia. The Electricity Reform Task Force invited public submissions in April 2002. I was pleased that the task force set up a web page on the Internet to make available its reports and all the submissions that were sent to it. One of the conditions of making a public submission to the task force was that it would be made public unless there were particular reasons for confidentiality. Some companies indicated that they did not want certain confidential things to be published, and that has been recognised by the task force. I have referred previously in this House to the Independent Power Advisory Group, which is chaired by Perth Energy and includes Alcoa World Alumina Australia, AlintaGas, Duke Energy International, Griffin Energy, Landfill Gas and Power, Newmont Power, Stanwell Corporation Ltd, TransAlta Energy and Epic Energy. That significant consortium of energy operators has made an important submission to the task force on the structure and market design for the electricity supply industry in Western Australia. That submission is available on the Internet and is well worth members having a look at. The task force was interested in finding out from interested parties what they thought of its views and whether other alternatives should be considered having regard to the guiding objectives on which I made comment earlier. The opening paragraph of the submission of the Independent Power Advisory Group dated May 2002 states - The Independent Power Advisory Group (IPAG) strongly endorses the direction of reform as recommended in the ERTF’s Discussion Paper Volume 1 and Volume 2 of April 2002 (the ERTF Paper). We agree with the key components laid out by the ERTF in transiting and transforming the current monopolistic industry structure to a market based industry structure. It goes on to set out what it believes are critical ingredients for a successful reform program. The submission is lengthy; in fact, it comprises some 33 pages and raises issues such as the cost-benefit analysis, the cost to the State of the current power industry structure, the macro-economic effect of lower electricity prices and the link between electricity reform and economic welfare. One issue that struck me was headed “The High Cost Structure of the Existing WA Electricity
[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 14 August 2002] 55
Industry”. It is worth relating some of the data contained in the submission, because it clearly shows that Western Australians are paying significantly more for both domestic and commercial electricity than is the case for those in the eastern States. It is true that some of our eastern States’ colleagues are involved in the national electricity market. However, notwithstanding that, Western Australians are paying too much for their electricity. On page eight of its submission, IPAG makes the point in the following terms - The Electricity Supply Association of Australia’s Electricity Prices in Australia 2001-02 report shows WA retail electricity prices to have been well beyond those in the National Electricity Market . . . It then refers to various figures. These figures are important because they detail the average nominal retail electricity prices paid by various States between 1996 and 2001. Figure 2 details the domestic electricity tariff with an off-peak rate for customers in a number of States with an annual consumption of 5 000 kilowatt hours with half of that in the off- peak period. Figure 3 deals with small business customers on general supply time-of-use electricity tariffs with an annual consumption of 360 megawatt hours with 25 per cent of that at night. Figure 4 deals with small business general supply franchise tariffs for customers with an annual consumption of 300 megawatt hours. Figure 5 deals with medium business, low-voltage tariffs for contestable customers with an annual peak demand of 250 kilowatt hours at 40 per cent load factor. Figure 6 deals with large business, high-voltage electricity prices for contestable customers with an annual peak demand of 2.5 megawatts at 60 per cent load factor. There is a general breakdown of how much Western Australians pay compared with that paid by those in the eastern States. For instance, the average nominal retail electricity price paid by Western Australians in 1996-2001 was 11.61c per kilowatt hour as opposed to a total average of 8.63c for all the States in the national electricity market. The bottom line is that Western Australians are paying 35 per cent more for their retail electricity prices than is the case in some areas in the eastern States. I will go on to explain, having regard to the figures that I have with me. Figure 1 indicates that Western Australia and the Northern Territory are lacking a competitive market. They had the highest average nominal retail prices for power over five years to 2001. In 2000-01, non-residential customers had been paying on average 14.33c per kilowatt hour in the Northern Territory and 10.58c in Western Australia, compared with an average of 7.75c in the national electricity market. For residential customers the prices were 14.01c per kilowatt hour in the Northern Territory, 13.81c in Western Australia and 10.75c in the national electricity market. In total average terms, users in WA have paid 35 per cent higher retail electricity prices - that is, 11.61c per kilowatt hour - than their national electricity market counterparts who have paid 8.63c per kilowatt hour. The national electricity market - NEM - includes the States of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania, and the Australian Capital Territory. Figure 2 indicates the comparative electricity tariffs for franchise residential customers in various States and regions with a consumption of 5 000 kilowatt hours per annum and with half of that consumption in the off-peak period. Western Australia stands out as having the highest tariff at 14.3c per kilowatt hour compared with the lowest tariff of 8.84c in the Sydney-Newcastle region. Figure 3 provides retail price comparisons for small business customers on franchise time-of-use tariffs. The consumption level assumed is 360 megawatts per annum, 20 per cent above the contestability threshold for general south west interconnected system customers from 1 January 2003. These consumers, with an assumed 25 per cent usage in the off-peak period, faced an average tariff of 14.48c per kilowatt hour in 2000-01, which compared with 13.5c per kilowatt hour in eastern regional Victoria, 13.3c in South Australia, 12.8c in Canberra, 11.25c in Queensland, 10.43c in southern regional New South Wales and 9.89c in the Sydney-Newcastle region. The bottom line is that the WA tariff represents a 33 per cent mark-up on the simple average of the selected NEM regions. Figure 4 indicates the small business general supply franchise tariffs for the same regions. The customer is assumed to have an annual consumption of 300 megawatts, which is 34 kilowatts average demand and equal to the contestability thresholds in the SWIS from January 2003. With the exception of eastern regional Victoria, the average WA tariff was higher than any other region at 16.17c per kilowatt hour; that is, eight per cent higher than South Australia, 29 per cent higher than Queensland, 32 per cent higher than southern regional New South Wales and 56 per cent higher than the Sydney-Newcastle region. I have referred to these six graphs of simple figures and I seek the leave of the House to have those graphs incorporated in Hansard. [The material was incorporated by leave of the House.] [See pages 62-64.] Hon GEORGE CASH: I am most obliged to the House for allowing those to be incorporated, because they will give a clear indication of why we are paying so much for our electricity in Western Australia compared with the eastern States. I notice that my time is running out fast and I am about one-tenth of the way through what I wanted to say. However, I shall continue because, as I said, I have a commitment to the lowering of electricity prices in Western Australia. Obviously, the Liberal Party, as a party, is keen for that to occur because it will have a tremendous flow-on effect for not only domestic users but also, in particular, commercial users, which use most of the electricity in this State. I have
56 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 14 August 2002] drawn attention to some statistics from the Independent Power Advisory Group. In June of this year IPAG also released a statement that clearly indicated that a failure to disaggregate Western Power would cost the State of Western Australia about $500 million a year in lost economic production and 750 new jobs every year if we did not act in a competent manner. Some of the submissions that have been lodged with the task force have commented that insufficient work has been done on a cost-benefit analysis. In the meantime, and certainly since some of those earlier submissions were lodged, a significant amount of work has been done on a cost-benefit analysis of energy reform in Western Australia and the benefits that would be available to the State. In particular, I refer to a document titled “Lower Energy Costs and the WA Economy: A General Equilibrium Analysis”. It is by Kenneth W. Clements and Ye Qiang from the Economic Research Centre of the Department of Economics at the University of Western Australia. It is the revised document of June 2000 and contains a tremendous amount of economic data. I shall quickly refer to the “Summary and Conclusions” of this rather lengthy document. Paragraph 8 states - In this paper, we have used a CGE model - That is a computable general equilibrium model - (WAM) - That is the Western Australian model - to measure the likely effects on the WA economy of lower energy costs resulting from future microeconomic reform and deregulation of the energy market. Two different scenarios were considered -- a 25-percent reduction in energy prices and 25-percent productivity growth in the energy sector. The major findings are as follows: . In both cases, aggregate employment, GSP, consumption, imports and exports all increase. The productivity growth has significantly stronger effects on exports. . In terms of output, mineral processing and some service industries are projected to benefit the most from both the energy price reductions and productivity enhancement. . Regarding the energy sector, in terms of output and employment the Electricity industry is likely to gain more from the price reduction than does Coal, oil and gas. The opposite is true in the case of productivity enhancement. The output of electricity is projected to expand by about 6 percent due to the price reduction and by 1.5 percent because of the productivity growth. It goes on to explain that through the productivity growth in the energy sector, aggregate employment continues to rise. That finding is consistent with previous studies at the national level. The summary cites work done by the Industry Commission and states that some 1997 reports say that empirical evidence from Australia and overseas does not suggest that productivity growth inevitably leads to lower aggregate employment or higher unemployment. The summary refers to Barnes’s report of 1999, which also finds that productivity growth does not appear to be associated with falling employment at the aggregate level. I refer to reform benefits. I mentioned the Independent Power Advisory Group statement of 13 June 2002. The Managing Director of Perth Energy Pty Ltd, Mr Ky Cao, referred to the reform benefits that would be gained, and said that the key elements of the analysis - which were published in a paper released by IPAG - included the high cost structure of the Western Australian electricity industry compared with the national electricity market and the link between electricity reform and economic welfare, particularly given the importance of energy costs to the mineral industry and downstream processing. Mr Cao also said that the University of Western Australia’s Economic Research Centre had simulated the impact of a 25 per cent reduction in real electricity costs through reform. According to Mr Cao, that 25 per cent reduction is easily achievable, and is less than the reduction achieved by the national electricity market during its reform period and less than the average nominal 35 per cent retail price gap that has existed between Western Australia and the national electricity market over the past five years. The result of this reduction would be a 0.65 per cent gain to Western Australia’s gross state product every year. Western Australia’s gross state product stood at $68 billion in 2000-01; therefore, a fall in electricity prices would increase state economic production by at least $440 million a year. Mr Cao suggested that, all told, the retention of the existing electricity structure is costing Western Australia about $500 million in state product and 750 new jobs every year. If we do nothing, that will be the burden we will bear. IPAG also looked at the savings that might occur in the domestic market. Its release of June 2002, “WA electricity reform: households could save up to $170 a year on electricity bills”, stated - The average residential electricity bill in WA could drop by $170 a year - to match Eastern States’ electricity prices - if reform measures being considered by the WA Government proceed. The savings would be the result of increased productivity, power plant availability, network utilisation and other efficiency measures, which are well below Eastern States levels. WA’s residential electricity prices have been up to 28% higher than the average National Electricity Market level over the five years to 2001.
[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 14 August 2002] 57
The release refers to an article produced by IPAG in June 2002 entitled “The Costs to Western Australia of Delaying Reform of the WA Electricity Market”. According to that report, the savings were determined by comparing the average residential price for 1996-2001 of 13.81c a kilowatt hour against the national electricity market average of 10.75c a kilowatt hour. It is worth this Parliament pursuing the possibility that we could save householders up to $170 a year on their electricity accounts. I was also interested in the 2001 annual report of the Electricity Supply Association of Australia, “Electricity Prices in Australia”. The point was made by Mr Keith Orchison, who is the Electricity Supply Association of Australia managing director, when he was releasing the 2001 edition, that the weighted average, inflation-adjusted power price for non-residential customers in 2000-01 was 8.21c a kilowatt hour, compared with 10.18c nine years ago when electricity reform got under way. The point I must make here is that they are actually talking about the eastern States market, although they recognise that there has been a significant reduction in the cost of electricity in the eastern States. No reference is made to Western Australia in this document, for obvious reasons, and that is that there has been no comparable saving in Western Australia. I said that considerable papers had been provided to the task force by way of submissions. I acknowledge that in May this year, Hon Robin Chapple made a submission to the task force. I will not read the paper in full, but I acknowledge the work done by Hon Robin Chapple in respect of his contribution for wanting to reform the electricity supply industry in Western Australia. On page 1 he states - We are pleased to offer our comments on the second ERTF paper on energy reform in Western Australia. As with our initial comments, we have focused our evaluation on Chapter 6, Renewable Energy, as we believe the eventual impact on the renewable energy industry will be the most significant long term legacy of the energy reform process. In this regard, we believe the task force has made some valuable suggestions for modifications of the current regime which may support new renewable projects. I do not want to be seen to be misrepresenting Hon Robin Chapple. I have skipped seven pages because I do not have time to cover them, but in his conclusion on page eight he states, in part - We must conclude with a sense of mixed feelings toward the work of the task force, which has undoubtedly been conducted with a high standard of professionalism and rigour, and due regard for the terms of reference set by the WA Government. Our primary cause for concern is that the primary objective of the task force, if achieved, may undermine any greenhouse benefits of a new private renewables sector. If low energy prices are sustained, incentives to improve energy efficiency are correspondingly reduced and energy-intensive investments are encouraged across all sectors. He continues - We are delighted with a number of the recommendations put forward which we believe may provide at last a workable regime for uptake of renewables in WA (subject to the issues raised in this submission and those raised by SEIA and CCWA), but conclude that the proposed market reforms will do nothing to prevent WA from being locked in to more coal fired power stations, a continued reliance on capital and energy intensive industry, and ultimately less control over energy policy than is currently exercised by the State government. No doubt Hon Robin Chapple will talk about his submission in greater detail in due course, but he took the time to make a submission to the task force. In May 2002, the Institute of Public Affairs made a submission and, in part, in respect of its introduction and summary, stated - We consider the Task Force’s proposals to be excessively conservative, especially in the treatment of generation and retailing, sectors where competitive provision is widely recognised to be readily achieved. It continued on page 2 - Finally, Western Australia has long experienced much higher electricity prices than those in other States. The most recent ESAA data show WA residential customers paying 25 per cent and business customers 40 per cent more than the Australian averages. Cheaper electricity prices are important both for households in WA and for industry competitiveness in processing where the State sees its competitive advantage. I do not have enough time left to deal with individual submissions. Another submission is from Wesfarmers dated May 2002. Under the heading “Market Structure”, it states - Wesfarmers Energy supports the vertical separation of Western Power, assuming the market framework and supporting regulation promote genuine competition in the retail and generation sectors and provides sufficient incentive for transmission and distribution sectors to reduce their costs also. Wesfarmers Energy considers that there is overwhelming evidence both within the WA electricity industry and other electricity markets to demonstrate that competition, or the threat of competition, most effectively reduces costs. The position in Western Australia is that supply cost reductions made in recent years have not in aggregate been passed on to the end consumer.
58 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 14 August 2002]
To ensure that the benefits of competition are passed on, not only must vertical separation of Western Power occur, horizontal disaggregation of generation is also required. I should also mentioned that under the heading “Competition in the Primary Fuel Sector” Wesfarmers Energy did not agree with the task force’s conclusion, as follows - However, we disagree most strongly with the Task Force statement that: “. . .that there is currently virtually no effective competition in coal supply for electricity generation” It goes on to state that - Both Premier and Griffin Coal have spent over $100million in modernizing their operations and achieving significant safety and efficiency improvements. Wesfarmers Energy own one of the State’s main coalmines and is a major coal supplier to Western Power. It agrees with disaggregation but does not necessarily agree with the comments about the efficiency of the coal industry in Western Australia. A document from the Independent Power Advisory Group dated June 2002 titled “The Costs to Western Australia of Delaying Reform of the WA Electricity Market” states - There has been much research undertaken on the benefits of pursuing reform of the electricity market in Western Australia. These benefits essentially represent the costs to the State of delaying reform. These costs are estimated at $500 million every year in forgone State economic production, and about 750 new jobs annually. The disaggregation of Western Power’s main business streams of generation, networks and retail, and the containment measures dealing with market power in the generation and retail markets, are the fundamental steps in this reform process. The submission is quite detailed, although I cannot go into all the detail tonight. The Western Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry also made a submission. Its opening statement to the task force states - The Chamber of Commerce and Industry of WA (CCI) welcomes the report of the Electricity Reform Task Force (ERTF) and believes there is much in the report to endorse as part of the development of a competitive electricity industry in Western Australia. Further on it states - Electricity prices, and energy prices in general have a major impact on the WA economy because of the economy’s reliance on minerals and energy extraction and processing. [Leave granted for the member’s time to be extended.] Hon GEORGE CASH: I thank the House for its indulgence and appreciate the additional time. This document goes on to say that electricity and energy prices in general have a major impact on the Western Australian economy because of its reliance on minerals and energy extraction and processing. In this regard, we note the detailed quantitative assessment of the effect falling energy prices would have on the Western Australian economy. Those views are presented in Professor Ken Clements et al recently published book, The Great Energy Debate: Energy Costs, Minerals and the Future of the Western Australian Economy. That is the book from which I read earlier. I pay tribute and acknowledge the tremendous work of Professor Clements and the other authors for the production of that document. I am not sure whether the Conservation Council of Western Australia made a submission to the task force, but I have a document that sets out some of its views of the task force’s aims. The document states - Key CCWA recommendations are: Disaggregate Western Power Corporation into three separate businesses comprising generation, transmission and distribution, and retail activities to improve the access to the grid for new sources of energy such as renewables and cogeneration and to lead to greater efficiency in the system. Keep transmission and distribution in Government hands but open up generation to competition to permit independent generators to enter the market. Open up the Western Power retail sector to private firms once the first stage is successfully completed. The additional horizontal disaggregation of Western Power to avoid the dominance of a small market by a major player and the stifling of independent renewable power producers. A submission was also received from the Australian Sustainable Energy Industry Association. In general, that association supports what the task force is doing. The SEIA sets out a considerable number of recommendations that are contained in its 28-page report, which are too numerous for me to refer to tonight; however, I acknowledge its
[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 14 August 2002] 59 submission. Earlier this year, the House considered the access arrangements to the grid. The SEIA was very involved in that process. For a long time Western Power have been telling people that there is free, open and transparent access to the grid for independent power providers. That has been shown to be totally false. I could use other language, but I think members know what I am talking about. At the time, the Minister for Energy recognised the problems raised by the SEIA. I am pleased that this House disallowed certain regulations on the understanding that the Minister for Energy would try to refine and improve access to the grid for IPPs. That is an issue that I will keep my eyes on because Western Power is a monopoly power generator, distributor and retailer in Western Australia. As a result of the very limited competition in the area of power generation - in particular I am referring to the south west interconnected system, not the north west interconnected system - there is a need for action if the price of electricity is to be reduced for domestic and commercial consumers in Western Australia. I have already stated that I am keen to see electricity reform in Western Australia. As an individual member of Parliament, I am prepared to approach the issue with an open mind. I am pleased to see that such positive comments have been contained in the submissions to the electricity reform task force of Western Australia. Given the limited time I have tonight, I cannot do justice to the huge amount of research that has been undertaken on the issues raised by the task force. However, it is proper to approach these issues with properly researched and analysed data. Clearly, the submissions before the task force are very much in that category. Electricity reform in Western Australia is critical. It must be handled in a proper manner with a structure being established that will open up, in particular, generation and retail. In addition, if we can have a transparent and open access to the grid, it will be in the interest of all electricity consumers - both domestic and commercial - in this State. As an individual member I am keen to be part of that reform process. This type of reform is in keeping with the principles of the Liberal Party because it has always supported the fact that there should be an opportunity for choice. The Liberal Party believes that the private sector can be a driving force in achieving reform and lower electricity prices in Western Australia. I say to my colleagues in the House and to all members of Parliament in Western Australia that it is important to have an open mind on these issues. In the end we are here to achieve the greatest opportunities for Western Australia. If there is electricity reform and continued energy reform, that will be to the benefit of the State. If it is to the benefit of the State, it is to the benefit of the people who live here by way of economic, social and cultural benefits that will flow on from that. Let us never forget that in the last decade energy reform in Western Australia was commenced under Richard Court’s Government. Had the Court Government been returned in 2001 that energy reform would have continued and electricity reform, in particular, would have been on the agenda. The mere fact that there has been a change of government in Western Australia is not a reason for there to be a slowing down of the reform process. The change in government should not diminish the Liberal Party’s commitment to energy reform in this State. As we continue to talk about electricity reform, I hope that it will be talked about in a bipartisan way. If it is not and it becomes a political football, the losers in the end will be the people of Western Australia because of less than optimum economic activity in this State. In July 2002 a good assessment was prepared by Access Economics Pty Ltd for the Western Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia. It is titled An Assessment of the Case for Electricity Reform in Western Australia. It is my understanding that all members of Parliament in this State were provided with a copy of this document. All one has to do is turn to page 28 and read the section titled “The Benefits of Reform” to understand that in a real sense, unless we have reform in Western Australia in the energy system and, in particular, the electricity system, we will be forgoing opportunities that are clearly available to us. I urge members to approach the subject with an open mind and, in the end, to have the consumers at the uppermost of their mind, because they are the ones who will benefit the most from any reduction in electricity prices. The flow-on effect will be greater economic growth and greater job opportunities in this State. Debate adjourned, on motion by Hon Bruce Donaldson.
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE HON KIM CHANCE (Agricultural - Leader of the House) [9.10 pm]: I move - That the House do now adjourn. Industrial Relation Legislation - Adjournment Debate HON ROBIN CHAPPLE (Mining and Pastoral) [9.10 pm]: I bring to the attention of the House and of the Government an effect of the industrial relations legislation which is causing me a great deal of concern. I hope the practice does not eventually extend to state policy. I refer to the activities of a company called Mow Holdings Pty Ltd, which has franchises for many BP service stations. I have a fairly good relationship with BP Australia Limited, because of its progressiveness on environmental issues. I have contacted BP’s General Manager External Affairs, Peter Metcalfe, on this issue, and I am waiting for some form of response. I have also contacted the Office of the Employment Advocate, which is handling an Australian Workplace Agreement on behalf of Mow Holdings, the franchisee for the BP service stations. Ostensibly, because the company claims it needs to be profitable, it is undercutting the state award by some eight per cent. It is doing this by saying that anybody who works shifts or who
60 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 14 August 2002] wishes to work weekends or after hours, does so voluntarily. Because it is voluntary, there is no provision for a penalty rate. For example, a person who is currently working for a full week, which attracts a rate ranging from $14.95 for normal hours to $24.30 for weekend or Sunday night work, will now be on a flat rate of $16.95. When the two figures are averaged out over the four-day working week, for an original employee of BP and an original employee of Mow Holdings under the state award, there is a reduction of approximately eight per cent. Suddenly, by changing to an Australian Workplace Agreement, workers in this State will have their wages reduced by eight per cent, and will actually be eight per cent lower than the minimum rate required under the Western Australian legislation. This is a despicable approach by the company, and should be condemned by BP, which has indicated that, in moving to a franchise arrangement with Mow Holdings, none of its workforce should be disadvantaged in any way. It is interesting to note that the letter accompanying the agreement that has been established by Mow Holdings Pty Ltd states that there is a no-disadvantage test. This has been raised by workers from Mow Holdings with the Office of the Employment Advocate. It has determined that there is no such thing as a penalty rate for night work and weekend work on the basis that workers do that voluntarily. That is an absolute nonsense. People usually seek to work extra hours on the basis of some remuneration benefit. This organisation is trying to prostitute its work force to the extent that they have no right to bargain in any way, shape or form because the organisation that was set up to protect them, which is now of Office of the Employment Advocate, has determined at a federal level that any overtime work is voluntary. It is an absolute nonsense. I sincerely hope that this Government takes up the issue with its federal counterpart and points out that it is not acceptable in this State to offer wages that are lower than the state minimum award by some eight per cent. I will continue to raise the issue with the OEA, this Government and BP because I do not think it was the intention of BP in any way, shape or form, when agreeing to the franchise arrangement with Mow Holdings, a wholly Western Australian-owned company, that there be any disadvantage to its work force. I ask the Leader of the House to advise Mr Kobelke, the Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection, of my concerns and the concerns of a large number of workers who have nowhere to go. They sign this Australian workplace agreement or are damned. It is a totally unacceptable outcome. Government Funding for Catholic Schools - Adjournment Debate HON JOHN FISCHER (Mining and Pastoral) [9.17 pm]: I would like to address an issue that in many ways can be likened to a chicken and egg scenario; that is, government funding for catholic schools in regional areas. We have all heard the rhetoric about commonwealth funding for wealthy private schools. However, we never hear about funding for smaller schools that provide excellent education for 30 per cent of our State’s children. We have all read about wealthy private schools receiving federal funding. However, we never hear about those small private institutions that provide a viable alternative in both the city and, more importantly, the country. Our children are our most treasured possessions, as they are our future. The quality of the education that we give them today will be reflected in the world they shape in the future. Governments recognise the importance of education but fail in the equal distribution of the service. All children in Australia deserve a First World level of education. If we do not put money into education in the bush we will not attract families to the bush, which is the chicken and egg scenario. The Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, in cooperation with the University of Tasmania, released a report by Dr Sue Kilpatrick on 15 August titled More than an Education - Leadership for rural school community partnerships which studied the value of rural schools to rural communities. The researchers studied five rural communities, one being Margaret River in our south west. Their research found that schools contribute to the wellbeing and prosperity of local communities and provide a major opportunity for interaction in rural communities. The report states that regional schools provide training which meets the needs of both the community and students, which leads to increased class retention rates, an increase in youth retention in regional areas, as well as providing cultural and recreational benefits with the shared use of school resources. In the case of Margaret River Senior High School, Principal Ray Harwood is reported in The West Australian as saying that the turning point came for Margaret River when years 11 and 12 were added to the school, resulting in students staying in Margaret River to complete their education. This study has been confirmed by a similar one carried out in 1985 by Kleinfeld, who found that schools that achieve the best results exhibit strong teacher-administration-community partnerships. These studies show that schools are of critical importance in communities. In small regional communities this importance is magnified. These studies prove what we have always known to be the case: once a school closes in a rural or regional town, the town begins to die. The heart of the town lies with its future. In regional communities few high schools provide years 11 and 12. Without this provision students in regional communities are forced to make career decisions at an earlier age than their city counterparts. This often has a negative effect on their careers. It would be daunting for a 14-year-old to consider leaving home to go to the city to study for the tertiary entrance exam. It is not only the student who suffers angst with this decision making but also the parents. Many parents do not wish to send their children away to school, and so they move to the city, causing a brain drain from the country. If this Government wishes to foster regional development, one way is to provide choice of education in the bush. One issue facing regional communities is that of fly in, fly out mining operations. These operations provide few benefits for the local communities that service them. If mine personnel could be encouraged to live locally, huge
[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 14 August 2002] 61 benefits could be brought to local communities. One of the major issues facing mine employees is that of secondary education. Many parents are not keen to live in regional towns because the local high school, if there is one, frequently fails to provide an education that will encourage and develop tertiary aspirations. If members were to look at the 2000 TEE results, they would see that not one regional school made it into the top 10 Western Australian schools as per the tables published in The West Australian in January 2001. Interestingly, Margaret River Senior High School and Bunbury Cathedral Grammar School were at number 17. These schools service more densely populated areas than those that I represent in the Mining and Pastoral Region. The Curriculum Council web site gives achievement tables for the past two tertiary entrance examinations. These tables confirm that if people send their child to a high school in the north west of the State, their child has a 60 per cent chance of not sitting a tertiary entrance examination, unless they send their child to a private school, such as St Luke’s College in Karratha, where some 59 per cent of year 12 students sat four or more TEE subjects. One reason that regional students do not study for the TEE at the same rate as city students is that they lack information. If a city school wants information regarding TEE scoring and subject choice, an officer of the Curriculum Council will visit the school and meet with parents and teachers to discuss the issue. However, this is not possible in the country because there is no funding provision for officers to travel to rural and regional schools for this purpose. Officers do travel to rural schools, but at the cost of the rural community. For example, Broome Senior High School paid for an officer to visit the school last year. Governments need to overcome the tyranny of distance by providing such funding. This brings me to the question of choice. In my electorate, Port Hedland has one state high school and one Catholic middle school, St Cecilia’s College, which is struggling to provide an alternative choice for regional families. This school is badly in need of an upgrade, as it currently occupies BHP’s old single men’s quarters. If this school had modern facilities, it would provide a viable alternative choice of education that would reduce the attractiveness of fly in, fly out operations and provide huge benefits for Port Hedland. If it became an attractive alternative, it would offer education at years 11 and 12, which would also provide huge benefits for Port Hedland. State government funding for Catholic schools is extremely poor, yet Catholic schools are to be found in every rural town of reasonable size. There are some 365 000 school students in this State, of which 70 per cent attend state schools and 17.5 per cent attend Catholic schools. Although 30 per cent of students attend Catholic and independent schools, these students attract only 7.9 per cent of state education funding. If the Catholic Church decided to close all Catholic schools, this State would have to provide an extra $5.6 million annually for the education of these students. The Catholic Church provides an invaluable service to this State and a priceless service to country areas. It provides families with a choice between staying and developing regional communities, or leaving and eroding those communities. Each child who attends a state school attracts $8 748 per annum of state government funding, while each child who attends an independent school attracts $1 565 in state government funding and up to $3 200 in federal funding, which still leaves a large deficit to be funded by parents. This Government needs to come to the party and provide additional funding to regional and remote communities to develop infrastructure. With the exception of a few Catholic colleges in Perth, the majority of Catholic schools are no better equipped than state schools, but they provide choice for parents, particularly in small country towns in which there may be only one high school, thereby limiting the opportunities for students. This Government needs to assist the Catholic Education Office to rebuild St Cecilia’s College to make it an attractive alternative that will keep teenage children in Port Hedland. This in turn will provide tomorrow’s work force in a growing economy. The north west of Western Australia is underpinning the future of not only Western Australia, but also Australia. This Government needs to assist in providing for the alternative educational needs in the bush. Question put and passed. House adjourned at 9.27 pm ______
62 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 14 August 2002]
Figure 1. Average Nominal Retail Electricity Prices 1996-2001
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00 NT WA 8.00 NEM c/kWh 6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00 Non-Res Res Total Avg
Figure 2. Domestic Electricity Tariff with Offpeak Rate (annual consumption of 5000kWh with half offpeak) 16
14
12
10
8
c/kWh 6
4
2
0 WA SA Melb East ACT QLD Syd- City Vic Newc
Source: ESAA, Electricity Prices in Australia 2001-2002
[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 14 August 2002] 63
Figure 3. Small Business Electricity Tariffs (general supply time-of-use for annual consumption of 360MWh with 25% at night) 16
14
12
10
8 c/kWh 6
4
2
0 WA Melb East SA ACT QLD Sth Syd- City Vic NSW Newc
Figure 4. Small Business General Supply Franchise Tariffs (annual consumption of 300MWh)
20 18
16 14
12 10 c/kWh 8 6
4 2
0 East WA Melb SA QLD ACT South Syd- Vic Nth NSW Newc
Source: ESAA, Electricity Prices in Australia 2001-2002
64 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 14 August 2002]