Parliamentary Debates (HANSARD)

THIRTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT FIRST SESSION 2014

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Tuesday, 18 February 2014

Legislative Council

Tuesday, 18 February 2014

THE PRESIDENT (Hon Barry House) took the chair at 3.00 pm, and read prayers.

HON DESMOND KEITH DANS Condolence Motion HON SUE ELLERY (South Metropolitan — Leader of the Opposition) [3.01 pm] — without notice: It is with great sadness that I move — That this house expresses its deep regret at the death of Hon Desmond Keith Dans, a former member of the Legislative Council for the South Metropolitan Region; places on record its appreciation for his long public service; and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement. I did not have the opportunity to know or work closely with Hon Des Dans but I did take the opportunity to talk to a number of his former colleagues, all of whom held him in the highest regard. It is not always the case, Mr President, that in this business of politics, which sometimes can be a bit nasty, people from different groupings hold the same view of one of their former colleagues, but it is the case in respect of Hon Des Dans. He was described by everyone I spoke to as being a team player; driven to pursue a real policy agenda; not here just to fill a space or hold a seat; generous with his time and advice to those who were new and coming into the system; he knew he was here for a purpose; and he recognised the privilege it was to represent people in this place and he enjoyed it. Hon Des Dans was born on 24 November 1924 and passed away on 2 January this year. He was 89. He enlisted in the Royal Australian Navy Reserve in 1942 and served in the Pacific. He was a member of the Seamen’s Union of Australia. He was a storyteller and he did tell tales of his time as a young man travelling to ports all over the world. He commented in later years on the changing nature of the world and how, when he was a young man, every city and every port was markedly different. But he noted over time that the world was becoming more homogenised and that all the ports started to look the same. He joined the Labor Party in 1958 and he played an important role in his time at the Seamen’s Union to bring the union back into the Labor Party. He worked in the north west. He knew and loved the north west of this state, and he campaigned hard to win the seats in that area for the Labor Party. He learnt much in his time as an official of the Seamen’s Union, and that included the skill of campaigning. It included how to negotiate through really hard and difficult disputes and how to keep union membership strong against attacks from all corners, including royal commissions aimed at but unsuccessful in destroying the waterfront unions. He learnt how to cross the t’s and dot the i’s so that the deal he did today could stand the scrutiny and the test of time. He applied an ethical and robust approach to these campaigns and to his negotiations, and that stood him in good stead when he had to negotiate some of the trickier elements of what he did in his parliamentary life, including the establishment of Burswood Casino and a clampdown on illegal gambling when he was minister for that portfolio later on. He was elected an MLC in 1971 to the equivalent of what is now the South Metropolitan Region, and he served in that capacity in this place until 1989. I am told that he was loyally assisted in his parliamentary career by his long-term electorate officer, Judith Fellows, and I am advised that, between the two of them, they pretty much knew everything that was going on in this place. I am told that Judith was “old school”, which I think is code for a bit scary! But I am told that between them they made the perfect combination in this place. He served as Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Council from 1976 to 1983, and Leader of the Government in the Legislative Council from 1983 to 1984. As a leader he was avuncular and generous, and he was leader at a time of some giant personalities in Parliament, yet he held his own. He could give as good as he got from the other side but he maintained excellent working relationships with everyone in Parliament. He was tough but he was a genuinely happy bloke who loved what he did. Indeed, he was himself one of the political giants in this place. As a minister, he held the portfolios in the areas of industrial relations, works and services, tourism, racing and gaming and water resources. In the industrial relations area he oversaw changes to occupational health and safety that dramatically improved workplace safety in Western Australia. As Minister for Works and Services with Special Responsibility for the America’s Cup, it was indeed fitting for him as he spent much of his work and life in and around Fremantle, and the changes that the America’s Cup brought to the port town were in no small way as a result of his work. He resigned from the ministry in 1987 and was appointed to set up and chair the port operations task force.

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014] 67

He is survived by his wife, Rikki; his children, Jody and Peter; and his grandchildren, Elle, Keely, Elizabeth, Cullen and Bella. I am told that he had a lifelong love affair with his wife, Rikki, and was very proud of his children and grandchildren. Indeed, some members today may know his son, Peter, who is a well-respected public servant. The Seamen’s Journal of 1971 recorded the time that he transitioned from union official to a member of Parliament. There are some, Mr President, today who would seek to demonise those of us who worked in unions before we came to this place—they would have us be embarrassed or ashamed by that work and would describe that work and those who perform it as somehow corrupt or illegitimate. Hon Des Dans’s farewell to his union, when he was moving to become an MP, reminds us that the work is indeed honourable and that important social change was achieved by union members and those who worked for and with them. He talked in particular of the role of the Seamen’s Union in drawing attention to the horrors and the lies about the Vietnam War and about the penal code. I will refer to the Seamen’s Journal of June 1971. In his response to his comrades wishing him well for his future as a Labor parliamentarian, he said — Tonight is a moment I have dreaded; the comrades who are seated at this table are multiplied by many more on the ships, comrades who would stand as men among any company; I have known them for many years and I do not want to break that link. Indeed, I want to continue with my union, I want to remain doing some useful service for my union. If we look at the opponents of Labor they are people who when they enter the legislature retain firm links with those they came from. I deeply want to retain my trade union links and work in the interests of my union and in support of it. Further in that same speech to his colleagues, Mr President, he said — I remember an old seaman, Jack Patience, saying at a C.O.M.-Reps’. Meeting that he believed in peace because he wanted to live. This, perhaps, is the force that drives people on to fight for peaceful co- existence and a better life, rather than live an inactive life, a life that will give nothing to the present or future generations. Des Dans was testament to the range of people skills and leadership learnt by leading members in the union movement and testament to how those skills can be transferred to the drive for policy, and to managerial and leadership skills as a member of Parliament and, indeed, later as a minister. It is telling about the man to also quote from his valedictory address to this place, in which he said — Unlike the previous two speakers, I have been looking for this day for some time. I feel no tinge of remorse nor nostalgia because during the course of my lifetime I have been engaged in a number of different areas and I have learned not to look back. … I have not met anyone in the Parliament, no matter what his political view, who has not tried to do his best for the people he represents. Same of us may have different views on how people work, but I do not think I have ever come across anyone who came in here only for the buggy ride. Hon Des Dans was a Labor leader, a Labor hero, and he was indeed a giant in the time of giants in this place. He was a lovely fellow, a team player and good bloke. Those are the words of those who knew him well and worked with him. I am only sorry that I too could not have known him. On behalf of the Australian Labor Party, I send my condolences and best wishes to his family and friends on their loss. HON PETER COLLIER (North Metropolitan — Leader of the House) [3.11 pm]: I stand on behalf of the government to support the condolence motion for Hon Des Dans. Desmond Keith Dans was born in Perth on 24 November 1924, the son of a miner and station manager. He was educated at Highgate Convent, Christian Brothers College in Kalgoorlie and the Kalgoorlie School of Mines. Like many other young men of his generation, he stepped forward to serve Australia in the Second World War by enlisting in the Royal Australian Naval Reserve before his eighteenth birthday. As a stoker he served on several ships in the Pacific theatre until his discharge in March 1946. In civilian life he joined the merchant marine, leading to his involvement in the Seamen’s Union and his employment as its secretary from 1959 to 1971. He joined the Australian Labor Party and served on the party’s state executive from 1959 and led his union to re-affiliate with the ALP. With the retirement of Hon Fred Lavery from one of the two South Metropolitan Province seats in the Legislative Council, Des Dans was endorsed by the Australian Labor Party to contest the seat at the 1971 state election. The province consisted of the Legislative Assembly seats of Fremantle, Melville and Cockburn, held by the ALP, and the seat of East Melville, held by the Liberal Party, which did not even field a candidate in 1971. Des Dans was elected with an absolute majority of 3 000 votes, 52.8 per cent against the Democratic Labor Party and an Independent, the late Shirley de la Hunty. Six years later at the 1977 election, in an unfavourable climate

68 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014] for his party, Des Dans was re-elected by 3 200 votes in a straight fight with the Liberal Party. He gained a third term in 1983, when he defeated his Liberal opponent by over 23 000 votes—nearly 70 per cent of the vote—at a time when South Metropolitan Province consisted of the seats of Fremantle, Melville, Cockburn and Rockingham. In the Legislative Council he served as government and opposition Whip from 1973 until 1976, when he succeeded Hon Ron Thompson as Leader of the Opposition. Des Dans led the Australian Labor Party in this chamber for 11 years until 1987, as Leader of the Government after the 1983 election. From 1983 until December 1984 he was the Minister for Industrial Relations, subsequently holding the portfolio of Tourism, Racing and Gaming until February 1986. He was then Minister for Works and Services with Special Responsibility for the America’s Cup, retiring from the Burke cabinet in March 1987. The America’s Cup in January–February 1987 was the first time the cup had not been defended by the New York Yacht Club. It was a defining event for our state and for the City of Fremantle and it is appropriate that a minister with a maritime background, representing Fremantle, was involved in these preparations. Hon Des Dans left Parliament in 1989 and enjoyed a long retirement, maintaining his involvement with the East Fremantle Yacht Club and the South Fremantle Football Club, passing away at the age of 89 on 2 January 2014. We convey our sympathy to Mrs Rikki Dans, his children, Jody and Peter, and their families. HON COL HOLT (South West — Parliamentary Secretary) [3.14 pm]: I stand on behalf of the Nationals WA—National members present and from past eras—to support the condolence motion for Hon Des Dans, and to express our sympathy on his passing to his wife, Rikki, to whom he was married for over 60 years, and his daughter, Jody, and son, Peter, and their extended family. Having read briefly some of the speeches and heard a bit about Hon Des Dans, I know that he obviously formed very strong friendships in the chamber as well as outside the chamber. Having read through some of the speeches, I found that one of those members he formed a strong friendship with was Hon Mick Gayfer, a Nationals MP from the wheatbelt, with whom I am sure he had many strong and boisterous debates both inside and outside the chamber. Given some of the views that Hon Des Dans expressed in some of his speeches, one debate would have been around the statement that he did not agree with having an upper house and we could quite easily do without it. I am sure that Hon Mick Gayfer would have had a long and arduous debate with him on that viewpoint. We also see in his final speech that he mentioned pressing, some years earlier, the then Premier Sir Charles Court to recognise that we should be putting resources and visits into Asia to build relationships. He was making the point 25 or 30 years ago that we are part of Asia and we should be strengthening our relationships to ensure we build a trading relationship into the future. In some ways, Hon Des Dans saw Asia as very important to our economy and he was pushing to make the most of those opportunities for the state. I also see in perhaps one of his final speeches in this place that he said he was very much in favour of the two-party system. Standing here as a National, a minor party in the make-up of the current membership of this house, I know he would find strong debate now, just as he did with Hon Mick Gayfer in years gone by, both in this place and the corridors. He was obviously a man with strong beliefs who fought hard for those beliefs and his constituents, the people who supported and elected him. We should be very thankful for the service that Hon Des Dans gave to the people of Western Australia, not only as a serviceman during World War II but also to this Parliament for over 18 years. We say thank you to his family for their support of him over those years of duty, often in positions of high responsibility. I should think they would be very proud of their husband, father and grandfather in the service that he delivered to the people of Western Australia. On behalf of the Nationals, our best wishes go with his family. HON KATE DOUST (South Metropolitan — Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.18 pm]: I also wish to add some words in support of the condolence motion for Hon Des Dans. Unfortunately I did not have the opportunity to know him as well as some of my predecessors, but I certainly saw him around the party in the first few years I was a member and in my first few years as a union organiser. Members have only to read his first and last speeches to see that he obviously had a very interesting life. He had a love of the sea that carried through from when he was a very young man to his final years. I am not sure where he gained that, having grown up in Kalgoorlie, but we all know Kalgoorlie people gravitate to water, so I think that ongoing passion served him well. I know that when I started as a trade union organiser in 1984, he was the Minister for Industrial Relations, and the most significant piece of legislation we dealt with around that period was the occupational health and safety legislation, which he had carriage of. I must say that members on this side are immensely proud of the work he did as a Labor man and former trade union official in that space, because it created an immense change in workplaces across Australia. It is a piece of legislation that has stood the test of time. It is a living document that we hope will continue to evolve and improve over time. However, certainly that piece of work and contribution he made in that space has made a major difference to working people’s lives in our state. We have only to look at the work he has done in the portfolio of tourism, particularly looking at the changes made with the Burswood Casino being set up and the

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014] 69 changes that occurred as a result of the America’s Cup in Fremantle. Both play significant parts in the South Metropolitan region today; both are significant tourism attractors in our state. I know that in the later part of his life Mr Dans was a life-long resident in Fremantle and certainly would have seen the post-America’s Cup changes himself. We only have to go back pre-cup to see that Fremantle had become a big daggy. Therefore, through the changes, and by making sure that the cup was held there, it certainly gave a great boost to the area— changes that we enjoy to this day. Obviously, when we look at his work in the trade union movement, having brought his experience through from the Navy to act on behalf of seafarers, and then when we read his first speech, we see the ongoing interest in all things related to transport. I know that my colleague Hon Ken Travers shares that passion. I know that when we read the final speeches of members, sometimes there is a lot of regret about what people could or should have done, but that does not exist in the final speech that Hon Des Dans provided. He talks about not having had any regrets and looking forward; that he actually enjoyed and had fun being in this place. I think that is something that we all try to do. It is a very healthy and positive attitude, and obviously that attitude was reflected in the outcomes that he was able to deliver for the people in our state. I pass my condolences on to his wife, his children and his grandchildren. Hon Des Dans is a great representative of a period that has now probably passed us by. I think they were a group of trade union officials who were different in the way they operated and in the way they had grand visions. They may not necessarily have had the education that a lot of our members or trade union officials have today, but they certainly had the vision. They used to cut through the barriers to achieve that vision, either for their members in the workplace or for their broader community. When we look back at all the things that Des Dans was able to achieve across the range of portfolios, he certainly did achieve a lot for his party, his community and his family. His was a life well lived, and a man whom we can certainly no doubt respect and give our thanks for. HON KEN TRAVERS (North Metropolitan) [3.23 pm]: I, too, want to join with colleagues in the house who have passed on their condolences to Hon Des Dans’ family for their sad loss. However, we should also celebrate and commemorate his contribution to Western Australia. As members have pointed out, he made a significant contribution as a member of Parliament, a union official and also a minister of the Crown. The Labor Party had many former union officials who came from transport backgrounds; he was one of them. Many members would recall the rail stories of Fred McKenzie. In Des Dans’ case, it was around the maritime industry. It is interesting to note when one goes to look at the inaugural speech of Hon Des Dans, people would actually believe he was a member for regional Western Australia because he talks very much about the north west of the state. However, as we go through it, we understand that it is about arguing and calling for an enhancement of the state’s shipping services in Western Australia. He was very proud of the history of the Labor Party in contributing to the state’s shipping service in the past. At that point, he was calling for a further expansion of the state’s shipping service, and it is with some regret that we no longer have a state shipping service. I wonder what Hon Des Dans would say in this place today if he were still here. We all can read his inaugural speech to get a very good idea of how he would have viewed the matter, given that many of the issues he raised back then are still prevalent today. One of the things that is telling when we do a bit of research about the history and the role of Hon Des Dans is that he was able to look forward and not just back to see where the future lay. In fact, even in terms of the issues that he was raising back in 1971, a lot of it was around containerisation and the changing nature of the shipping industry. Of course, we all now would look back at that and just see that as history, but he could clearly see what was coming down the track. The other thing that Des Dans will be remembered for in his contribution to the tourism industry. Many have made the point about his role and involvement in the America’s Cup. Of course, the other thing is that he was the member who was responsible for putting through this house the bill that created the WA Tourism Commission. I also just wanted to bring to the attention of the house one small thing that shows how members of this place are often given challenges in areas that they may not be necessarily accustomed to and then go on to do great things, as Hon Des Dans did. In the debate of 22 November 1983, when the WA Tourism Commission bill was being put through this place, in responding to a number of comments that had been made by members in the other house, Hon Des Dans made a comment when referring to a number of meetings that had occurred prior to the election at which the decision was taken to establish the commission. He said — I was present at the time, although I readily admit that tourism is not one of the things in which I am vitally interested. I think it is quite interesting to see his comment at that stage, and then to look at the history and contribution that he then undoubtedly went on to make. Another area in which I think he was able to predict the future of where things would go was, again, in that same debate. The issue came up about the creation of the tourism commission, and the fact that one of the other members, Hon Phil Pendal, had suggested that he would have no objection to the appointment of agents for

70 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014] tourism in Singapore, Auckland or London. By way of interjection, Hon Des Dans pointed out that Tokyo was one of those places, and that the Japanese were the most travelled nation in the world at present. Of course, we all know that Japan would later become one of our major tourism markets and that the tourism commission, which Des Dans was involved in the creation of, would place a very strong focus on the Japanese market in the promotion of tourism in Western Australia. Clearly, he is a person who stayed very strong to his ideals. He set a standard for those of us in this chamber, particularly those of us who are Labor members, in terms of the goals and aspirations that we aspire to. It is people like Hon Des Dans who went before us who certainly—in my case—give me great inspiration in trying to achieve the levels that they did in terms of their commitment to the community and to transport issues. I want to acknowledge his fantastic contribution, and, with my colleagues, pass on my sincere condolences to all his family, particularly Peter Dans, who is known to many of us in this chamber as someone who regularly has attended estimates hearings. To all of his extended family and friends, who I am sure are missing him greatly at this point in time, my deep and sincerest condolences. However, to Des Dan: a life well lived and a great contribution! HON DARREN WEST (Agricultural) [3.29 pm]: Much of what I had to say about the passing of Hon Des Dans has already been mentioned. I would like to make a small point. As a young, aspiring member of Parliament, I did a lot of research into members who had come before me in this place, and during my inaugural speech I mentioned the contribution that those members had made. One such member that I distinctly remember doing some research and study into was Des Dans. Something I noted from his earlier speeches, as Hon Colin Holt pointed out, is that he had a quick wit and made some very sharp comments, which I think were admired by all. He seemed to add a bit of theatre to Parliament. One of my favourites that I plucked out was from a debate involving Hon Mick Gayfer. Hon Des Dans was talking about the need for leadership and how the great leaders of old would have been somewhat dismayed by the poor level of leadership that they saw at that time. I do not quite know who he was referring to or what the debate was about but someone interjected “John Curtin”, and Hon Des Dans said that John Curtin would be dismayed with the leadership. Mick Gayfer interjected “Billy Hughes”. Hon Des Dans said to him, “Hon Mick Gayfer is a lot older than me; I don’t go back quite that far.” There was a certain level of quick-witted humour in a lot of his speeches, which always livens up debate and adds some colour to what can sometimes be dreary debates in the Parliament. Like everybody else, I would like to acknowledge the contribution that Hon Des Dans made. Projects such as the Burswood Casino and Hillarys Boat Harbour were heavily influenced by him. He was Minister for Works and Services with Special Responsibility for the America’s Cup. His contribution to tourism during that time was enormous. He was a very proud union official. He was the secretary of the Seamen’s Union of Australia when it merged with the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union to become what is today known as the Maritime Union of Australia. He kept very close ties with the union movement. As some of the speakers before me have said , it is becoming unfashionable to denigrate unions and point out their negatives. People like Hon Des Dans did much to go the other way in these discussions and made very real and important contributions to the lives of union members and the workers of Australia. I thank Hon Des Dans for his contribution to public life. I also thank him for inspiring all of us who aspire to follow in the footsteps of great men like him. Like the previous speakers, I wish to convey our best wishes to his family. THE PRESIDENT (Hon Barry House): I have the honour of being the only remaining current member of this chamber to overlap service with Hon Des Dans. I served with him in this chamber for about 18 months—from 24 October 1987, when I was first elected, until 21 May 1989, when Des Dans started his retirement. While I did not get to know him very well during that time, I saw the respect that he commanded and was afforded in this place by all other members and staff. In that time he sat on the government benches where Hon Nick Goiran sits today. We should keep in mind that there was bench seating at that time—the old format. Hon Des Dans was clearly the elder Labor Party statesman in this chamber. He obviously had a lot of credibility and influence on his colleagues on both sides of this chamber and across the whole political spectrum and proceedings in this place. I particularly recall one humorous incident involving Hon Des Dans. It was a very late sitting—about 3.00 am. Thankfully, we do not have many of those legislation-by-attrition episodes today but in those days, unfortunately, it was quite a common occurrence. Hon Des Dans and a few others had been openly snoozing for some time during a very long­winded, tedious debate which oppositions occasionally resort to in the vain hope that something may change dramatically and they can manage to make a point that will magically change the view of the government or the cross benches and the legislation will be defeated. There were no cross benches in those days apart from the National Party but I do not think it classified itself as a crossbench party at that stage. Hon Phil Lockyer was on my side of proceedings at that stage. He was a well-known prankster and joker. He was in the chamber at the time and noted that Hon Des Dans and several others were taking a bit of a kip during

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014] 71 the proceedings. He wrote a note to Hon Des Dans and asked one of the chamber attendants, Phillip Ugle, to deliver it to him. Phillip was a bit of an institution when it comes to the history of this place. He was a wonderful chamber attendant who was admired and loved by all people across the whole spectrum and he served this chamber extremely well for a long time. Phillip delivered the note to Des Dans and woke him up. At that stage the Leader of the Opposition was Gordon Masters. I cannot remember whether it was Gordon or one of the two frontbenchers—Phillip Pendal or Norman Moore—who had been speaking rather laboriously for a long time. The opposition member was on his feet and he was going to sit down very soon, so he asked through the note for Des Dans to get the call and have a few bars on the bill for about five minutes. It was signed “Joe Berinson”, who was the Leader of the House at that time, and of course knew nothing about the situation. He sat on the front bench about where Hon Helen Morton sits today—in bench seating, of course. Hon Des Dans was startled at being woken up. When he read the note, he was pretty alarmed as he obviously did not have much knowledge of the bill that was being debated. He certainly had no clear knowledge of what had been said in the chamber for the past hour or so. In his half-awake state, he lurched out of his seat to have a word with his leader, Hon Joe Berinson, in front of him, who, as I said, knew nothing about what was going on. Unfortunately for Hon Des Dans, in his half-awake stupor, he did not navigate the step too well and ended up in a very untidy heap in the passageway. He was not hurt but it attracted instant attention across the chamber and halted proceedings. It provided great mirth to Phillip Lockyer and a couple of others who were in on the joke. It brought proceedings to a halt for a while as the situation was cleared up and Hon Des Dans understood what had happened and realised that he had been set up. It is worth noting that the debate collapsed soon after, a vote was taken, the legislation passed and everybody went home laughing. Perhaps there is a message there that a good way to get progress in this chamber may be to resort to humour and lighten things up sometimes rather than the usual adversarial, antagonistic way. On this sad occasion, I want to join all the members who have spoken and all the members of this chamber in stating that Hon Des Dans served this state very well. He served this state in the Navy in World War II, he served in the merchant navy and marine industries and he served as a union member and organiser. He served as a long-term Labor Party member and official. He served as a member of this Legislative Council from 1971 to 1989—18 years. During that time and until his death, he was heavily involved in community organisations such as the East Fremantle Yacht Club and the South Fremantle Football Club. He held very significant roles in the chamber, as Whip, as a shadow minister in various capacities in opposition and as the leader of his party, as Leader of the Opposition and then Leader of the House. He served as a minister in several portfolios, which have been mentioned, in government. He is perhaps best known for his central role in Western Australia hosting the America’s Cup in 1987 and the establishment of the Burswood Casino in the 1980s. I certainly congratulate Hon Des Dans on his marvellous service to the state and his contribution to life in Western Australia. I am sure he will be sadly missed by his family, friends and this institution. I will pass on our condolences to his wife, Rikki, who incidentally sent me a very nice note in response to a letter I sent to her and her family from all members and staff of the Legislative Council upon Des’s death. As usual, we will provide a Hansard copy of this condolence motion to Mrs Dans and her family. With that, members, I will put the motion. As is usual practice, I ask members to stand in their places and observe a minute’s silence. Question passed; members standing. CLERK OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Statement by President THE PRESIDENT (Hon Barry House): Thank you, members. First of all, welcome back to the current session of this Parliament. I acknowledge the presence at the table today of our newly appointed Clerk of the Legislative Council, Nigel Pratt. As we know, Nigel was appointed late last year to take on the role following the retirement of Malcolm Peacock. He started work on 3 February this year. I am sure I speak for everybody associated with the Legislative Council in congratulating Nigel on his appointment and look forward to working with him in the future. Welcome, Nigel, and best wishes for the years ahead. Members: Hear, hear! BILLS Assent Message from the Governor received and read notifying assent to the following bills — 1. Minerals Research Institute of Western Australia Bill 2013. 2. Barrow Island Amendment Bill 2013. 3. Electricity Corporations Amendment Bill 2013.

72 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014]

ULTRASOUND RADIOLOGY SERVICES — PILBARA Petition HON STEPHEN DAWSON (Mining and Pastoral) [3.43 pm]: I present a petition containing 535 signatures couched in the following terms — To the President and Members of the Legislative Council of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned residents of Western Australia are in support of increased access to ultrasound facilities in the Pilbara Region. Your petitioners therefore respectfully request the Legislative Council support the allocation of more ultrasound radiology services in the Pilbara by the State Government. This request includes the extension of the current one day per week operation of ultrasound facilities in Tom Price and Newman. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. [See paper 1175.]

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE BILL 2013 — CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS Ruling by President THE PRESIDENT (Hon Barry House): On our final sitting day last year, Hon Lynn MacLaren introduced the Same-Sex Marriage Bill 2013. During members’ statements, Hon Nick Goiran drew to the attention of the house standing order 122(3)(b) and sought my ruling as to whether the Same-Sex Marriage Bill 2013 offended against that specific provision. I have considered this matter over the summer recess. In the first instance, I draw members’ attention to the ruling that I delivered on 30 November, 2012 regarding the Marriage Equality Bill 2012 introduced in the last Parliament by Hon Lynn MacLaren. I note that Hon Nick Goiran referred to that previous ruling and quoted from it in his member’s statement. I also draw members’ attention to part of that previous ruling in which I stated — It has been the traditional approach of Presidents of this House that such general matters of law are to be left to the courts to adjudge, and that the President should only make rulings on a matter of law that is directly related to the jurisdiction or procedures of the House; a common example being the applicability of section 46 of the Constitution Acts Amendment Act 1899 to a Bill then under consideration by the House. The most recent rulings where such an approach was taken were in relation to the various electoral reform bills of 2001, which were ultimately the subject of a series of court decisions once enacted. My view in relation to this matter has not altered since that time. Standing order 122(3)(b) provides that — Any Bill that the President determines … in the case of a Council Bill, cannot be introduced in the Council in accordance with any constitutional or statutory provision, shall be withdrawn by order of the President. The focus of this standing order in relation to council bills is deliberate. The clear intent is to exclude bills that offend against provisions such as section 46 of the Constitution Acts Amendment Act 1899 as referred to in my 2012 ruling. The decision of the High Court of Australia in The Commonwealth v ACT [2013] HCA 55 on 12 December 2013 is conclusive in relation to the Australian Capital Territory Marriage Equality (Same Sex) Act 2013 . This law, when enacted, was found to be inconsistent in its entirety with the commonwealth Marriage Act 1961 within the meaning of section 28(1) of the commonwealth Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988. Section 109 of the commonwealth Constitution provides for a similar test of inconsistency with respect to laws made by a state legislature. Section 109 provides — When a law of the State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid. Section 109 was not directly considered by the High Court in the ACT case. It is only when a bill is passed and receives royal assent that it becomes a law which may be invalid for inconsistency under section 109. There is no provision that I can see in either this state’s constitutional arrangements or the commonwealth Constitution that would prevent this house from considering the bill introduced by Hon Lynn MacLaren. The matter of the bill’s validity will, if enacted and challenged, be a matter for the courts. The matters raised by Hon Nick Goiran may be taken into consideration by honourable members in determining whether to vote in favour or against the second reading of the bill. Accordingly, consistent with my ruling of 30 November 2012, I am not prepared to rule the Same-Sex Marriage Bill 2013 out of order.

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014] 73

GREATER BUNBURY REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT 0024/41 — INDUSTRIAL DEFERRED ZONE Statement by Minister for Mental Health HON HELEN MORTON (East Metropolitan — Minister for Mental Health) [3.48 pm]: I present today for tabling the “Greater Bunbury Region Scheme Amendment 0024/41”, which will facilitate the introduction of a new industrial deferred zone to provide for future industrial development in the greater Bunbury area. The introduction of an industrial deferred zone in the greater Bunbury region scheme will allow for the identification of land suitable for industrial development, based on endorsed strategic documents, without the need for all of the required studies up front. This provides an interim step in the process, while detailed studies such as local structure plans are being undertaken for specific sites. The lifting of the industrial deferred zone will occur by resolution of the Western Australian Planning Commission once detailed planning has resolved the outstanding matters affecting the land. The land identified for rezoning in this amendment will provide land for future employment consistent with the “Industry 2030 — Greater Bunbury Industrial Land and Port Access Planning” final report and the “Greater Bunbury Strategy” recently endorsed by the Western Australian Planning Commission. In accordance with the statutory provisions for region scheme amendments, this amendment was advertised for three months. Seventeen submissions were received that contained 15 general comments, two comments of support and no comment of objection. Copies of the submissions and the Western Australian Planning Commission’s report on submissions will also be tabled today. I am pleased to be able to table the documentation for the Greater Bunbury Region Scheme Amendment 0024/41 and I commend it to the house. [See papers 1176 and 1177.] GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 — STATUTORY REVIEW Statement by Attorney General HON MICHAEL MISCHIN (North Metropolitan — Attorney General) [3.50 pm]: I wish to report to the house on the progress of the statutory review of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990, which is required to be undertaken under section 14 of the Acts Amendment (Consent To Medical Treatment) Act 2008 within three years of the commencement of that act. Section 14 also requires that a report based on the statutory review is laid before each house of Parliament within four years of the commencement of the amendment act. The terms of reference for the statutory review focused on the operation and effectiveness of the Guardianship and Administration Act to determine whether the act provides effective guardianship and administration arrangements for persons with a decision-making disability; if the State Administrative Tribunal is operating efficiently and effectively in respect to such matters; and if the act supports the effective operation of enduring powers of attorney, enduring powers of guardianship and advance health directives and the making of treatment decisions and decisions relating to medical research. The statutory review of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 commenced in February 2013 and a targeted consultation process resulted in the receipt of 42 submissions. I am pleased that so many organisations and individuals took the time to provide comments. The act aims to protect the best interests of vulnerable people in our community who have a decision-making disability that may have been caused by illness, accident or trauma. The act provides that adults with capacity can appoint a person of their choice to make important personal, lifestyle and treatment decisions on their behalf if they lose capacity to do so themselves sometime in the future through the completion of an enduring power of guardianship, or to make decisions for them on property and financial matters through an enduring power of attorney. A person can also complete an advance health directive to document the future treatment decisions they wish to be made on their behalf if they are unable to make reasonable judgements about such treatment when it may be required. These are important and complex matters. Therefore, I consider that it is imperative that all issues raised in the submissions are given careful consideration prior to making any amendments to the Guardianship and Administration Act. Detailed consideration of the issues is being undertaken and drafting has commenced on the statutory review, which is expected to be completed by June this year. Once the government has had the opportunity to consider the findings and recommendations, I will ensure that each house is provided with a report on the statutory review. NON-GOVERNMENT BUSINESS — SCHEDULE Tabling THE PRESIDENT (Hon Barry House): Members, I table the schedule for non-government business allocated sessions for 2014.

74 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014]

Motion On motion without notice by Hon Peter Collier (Leader of the House), resolved — That, pursuant to standing order 111(4), the schedule for non-government business tabled by the President be adopted. [See paper 1161.] PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS — SCHEDULE Tabling THE PRESIDENT (Hon Barry House): Members, I table the schedule for private members’ business allocated sessions for 2014. Motion On motion without notice by Hon Peter Collier (Leader of the House), resolved — That, pursuant to standing order 112(4), the schedule for non-government business tabled by the President be adopted. [See paper 1161.] PAPERS TABLED Papers were tabled and ordered to lie upon the table of the house.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON UNIFORM LEGISLATION AND STATUTES REVIEW Eighty-fourth Report — “Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Bill 2013” — Tabling HON KATE DOUST (South Metropolitan — Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.57 pm]: I am directed to present the eighty-fourth report of the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review, “Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Bill 2013”. [See paper 1178.] Hon KATE DOUST: The Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Bill 2013 proposes to close the gap in the regulation of sole traders manufacturing therapeutic goods. The second reading speech and the explanatory memoranda did not provide the detail required for this committee to fully consider the bill. The committee found that the bill proposed the application of more than 577 pages of commonwealth Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 regulations, manufacturing principles, orders and notices under the therapeutic goods law into WA law. The genesis of the uniform scheme is from the national competition principles policy, related competition principles agreements and the Galbally review. The Galbally review recommended uniform legislation by adopting the commonwealth TGA 1989 by reference. The principal act is being amended in the federal Parliament. This information was not provided to the committee. Western Australia agreed to adopt the uniform scheme at a Council of Australian Governments out-of-session arrangement. The committee did not have a signed agreement before it and nor was it able to locate the intergovernmental agreement that covered off the clauses of the bill. The committee could not assess the clauses of the bill against any form of intergovernmental agreement. The committee noted the comprehensive provisions under the Australian Consumer Law WA and formed the view that the Fair Trading Act 2010 covered the field in relation to the regulation of sole traders. The committee and the house were not informed of the commonwealth’s establishment of the Australian New Zealand Therapeutic Products Agency and the phasing in of a new regulatory scheme by 2016. This scheme would ultimately require the repeal of the commonwealth Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 after 2016, yet the WA Parliament is being asked to consider the adoption of the commonwealth TGA for the next two years. As it stands, part 6 of the bill provides for the commonwealth government to have responsibility for the therapeutic goods law. The state Minister for Health functions and powers under the bill will be substantially impacted. This represents a diminution of Parliament’s sovereignty and law-making powers. The committee recommends the bill be withdrawn and the committee commends the report to the house. Eighty-fifth Report — “Electronic Conveyancing Bill 2013” — Tabling HON KATE DOUST (South Metropolitan — Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.59 pm]: I am directed to present the eighty-fifth report of the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review “Electronic Conveyancing Bill 2013”. [See paper 1179.] Hon KATE DOUST: The committee thanks the Minister for Lands and the staff of Landgate for the quality of the information provided to assist the committee’s scrutiny of this bill. The process for buying a home involves collection of documents, delivery of documents for settlement, signing of documents before a witness, arranging

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014] 75 the production or retrieval of the duplicate certificate of title, and drawing bank cheques for settlement, and is an experience that involves time and sometimes a great deal of stress. The bill will enable substantial improvements in the way property transactions are handled. Electronic conveyancing will streamline processes and improve efficiencies. It will achieve this by enabling conveyancing transaction documents to be prepared by the conveyancing industry practitioner electronically, to be validated with the land registry before settlement, to be digitally signed, and to be lodged electronically, and for the financial aspects of the transaction to be settled by electronic funds transfer. The committee notes that all states and territories, except for the Australian Capital Territory, have or are in the process of introducing electronic conveyancing. Western Australia signed an intergovernmental agreement for these reforms in 2011. The bill reflects the objects and principles of the intergovernmental agreement and provides for a review by the responsible minister. The committee commends the report to the house. WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PHOTO CARD BILL 2013 Second Reading Resumed from 24 October 2013. HON KEN TRAVERS (North Metropolitan) [4.01 pm]: I had hoped that we would be able to pass the Western Australian Photo Card Bill before Parliament adjourned last year, and I had indicated at the time that the opposition was willing to facilitate the quick passage of this bill, because the opposition does support this bill, which is a bill for an act to provide for the issue of a document known as the Western Australian photo card and for related purposes. The small advantage of not having had what would have been a very compacted debate on the last sitting day of the last Parliament is that we now have more time to debate this bill. There are some issues in this bill that are worth teasing out in this chamber. The opposition now also has the opportunity to put on the record the reasons for our support of this bill. From the opposition’s point of view, this bill has been a long time coming. It has been a part of our policy that Western Australia needs to introduce a photo card, and we are, therefore, very pleased that the government has now chosen to do that. As members would be well aware, identity fraud is a common occurrence. This morning I heard a radio report about how people in Western Australia are having their identity used by another person and are not aware that that is happening. Therefore, proof of identity is becoming incredibly important. One of the key items that is used to prove a person’s identity is a Western Australian driver’s licence. I am sure members of this place would on numerous occasions have gone to a place at which proof of identity is required. I am sure very few of us would have been asked to prove their age at a pub — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: I have been! Hon KEN TRAVERS: I am sure Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich is still asked regularly to prove her age! Two issues are involved here—proof of identity, and proof of age. A card for people who want to prove their age in order to get into a licensed premise is available through the Liquor Commission. However, when it comes to proof of identity, many members of our community do not have a driver’s licence, for one reason or another. A proof-of-age card may not be an appropriate card for people who want to prove their identity, and it does not meet the standards of certainty that are provided by a driver’s licence. I note that the government has removed the requirement that drivers over a certain age must take a driving test, although they are still required to undergo a medical test and may lose their licence if deemed not fit to drive. I have one parent who still has a driver’s licence and one parent who does not. A person who does not have a driver’s licence may find it very difficult to prove their identity. The purpose of the Western Australian photo card is to provide a proof-of-identity card for people who do not have a driver’s licence. It will incorporate the proof-of-age card that is being used at the moment. The other major form of photo identity is a passport. However, many people do not have a passport. The parliamentary secretary said in his second reading speech that the bill provides for people to obtain a photo card even if they do not have a passport. However, a passport will be an easy way for a person to meet the gold standard test that is required in order to be issued with a card under this bill. A passport is a cumbersome document and one that people are often reluctant to carry with them because of its importance. The photo card will therefore provide a readily accessible proof of identity that people can carry in their wallet or purse, as I do. I have just looked at the photo on my driver’s licence. That was not a good idea! It is interesting to note that Australia Post issues a proof-of-age card. However, those cards are not issued in New South Wales and Western Australia. I cannot understand why such a card is not available in Western Australia. Perhaps some restriction has been placed on Australia Post by the Western Australian government against the issuing of such a card. However, I would support the photo card in favour of the identity card that is issued by

76 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014]

Australia Post. The cost of the Australia Post identity card is $50 or $55. The parliamentary secretary indicated in his second reading speech that the government’s intention is that the photo card will be issued for a five-year period at an estimated cost of $35. Therefore, the Western Australian photo card will be significantly cheaper than the one that is issued by Australia Post. However, having said that, the opposition has some concerns about the cost of this card. For some people, the cost of obtaining this card will be more expensive than if they were to get a driver’s licence. Age pensioners are entitled to a free driver’s licence. If my father was still eligible to get his driver’s licence, he would get that licence for free. The government has indicated that an age pensioner will be required to pay for this photo card. That is a significant anomaly, and it is my intention to look at the possibility of moving an amendment during the committee stage that the government cannot charge a person more for this photo card than a person would pay for a driver’s licence. A person who is eligible for a free driver’s licence should be eligible for a free photo card. If a person is eligible for a senior’s concession for a driver’s licence, a photo card should cost no more than that driver’s licence. It effectively replaces the Seniors Card. Unless we get an absolutely ironclad guarantee, there is a danger that if it is not written into the legislation that that is the intent of this place, a future government may change it. Even when governments have had issues written into legislation, they later come back to try to change it when they are desperate for money. It is my firm view that if someone is eligible for a free driver’s licence, they should also be eligible for a free photo card, or, if they are eligible for a driver’s licence at a discount price, the cost of a photo card should be no more than the discount price paid for that driver’s licence. I note that this bill picks up many of the provisions in the collection of acts that deal with licensing motor vehicles and drivers’ licences. A number are still to be proclaimed, including the Road Traffic (Authorisation to Drive) Act. We have previously debated in this house a situation involving someone who wanted a copy of a driver’s licence photo. I am sure Hon Simon O’Brien will remember this debate. We eventually arrived at what I thought was a reasonably good compromise about the executive or the administrator being able to apply to the director general to be given a copy of the photo. I note that the same provisions have been picked up and brought across into the Western Australian Photo Card Bill. I congratulate the government on doing that because it is appropriate. I do not know whether anyone, under those provisions, has ever sought a copy of a driver’s licence photo. A very sad case prompted those provisions to be put into the drivers’ licensing legislation. Hon Simon O’Brien probably remembers the story better than I. A mother wanted to get the photo of her child who had just got their licence and had their photo taken in the excitement of getting their first driver’s licence, but then they unfortunately passed away either that day or very soon after. The child’s mother wanted a copy of the photo and there was no ability for the department to legally provide that photo to the mother. Hon Simon O’Brien: That is a very rare occurrence. This is the trouble, I guess, when you have the letter of privacy laws. It is not a case of a sympathetic official simply turning a blind eye. The law was specifically created and that is the downside of having such a — Hon KEN TRAVERS: I have no doubt that 30 years ago they would have probably gone into the back room and got a copy of the photo, and then just went out, put it on the counter and said, “See you later; I don’t know what you’re talking about!” I think Hon Simon O’Brien is suggesting by sign language that he may have done similar things as a Customs officer! Is that what he is saying? Hon Simon O’Brien: Certainly not. Hon KEN TRAVERS: It is all privileged in the house, Hon Simon O’Brien! There would have been a time when those sorts of actions would have occurred. If something like that happened these days, we would potentially have Corruption and Crime Commission inquiries and all the rest of it because there is a breach of the provisions. I think the executor or administrator is the appropriate person. Originally it was to be a family member. The view at that point was that someone completely estranged from the family member whose photo it was could apply for a copy of it and that family member would never have wanted them to have the photo. The reason they did not have a photo of the family member was that they did not want that person to have a photo. The executor ultimately takes control of the deceased’s property and then distributes it in accordance with their wishes. Hon Simon O’Brien: The question of course returns to the security of personal information. It may well happen that a family member could seek to adopt someone’s identity for the wrong purposes. I agree with Hon Ken Travers that we landed at the right place, and that is in this bill as well. The PRESIDENT: Order! It is all very interesting but it sounds more like a conversation than a debate. Speaking of conversations, there are quite a few audible conversations around the chamber. Can members just observe that and note that the member on his feet has the call. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I would have described it, Mr President, as reminiscence by a couple of old combatants and their success stories on the battlefield when they were able to get a good outcome for the people of Western Australia!

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014] 77

Hon Simon O’Brien: We are in furious agreement! Hon KEN TRAVERS: It took us a bit of time to get there, as Hon Simon O’Brien may recall, but we eventually got what I think is good and it is mirrored in the bill we are dealing with today. Hon Simon O’Brien: In my day, that is what happened! Hon KEN TRAVERS: I only hope, as we progress throughout the notice paper over the next couple of days, that we might be able to get some of that furious level of agreement and cooperation occurring again. I will probably pursue a couple of areas in more detail if we go into the committee stage. I will just highlight them for the benefit of the parliamentary secretary at this stage. He may wish to seek to address them during his second reading response and we will see how we go. The first clause in part 2 of the bill sets out the eligibility. There is a further catch-all to allow for prescription by regulation of the eligibility criteria. The government indicated in the explanatory memorandum that it does not intend to prescribe further eligibility criteria but it wants to leave it optional for the future. Other than being a resident of Western Australia and at least 16 years of age, I cannot see what other criteria the government would contemplate. I was wondering whether the parliamentary secretary could indicate to the house whether the government is contemplating something, whilst not wanting to do it at this stage. I think the argument to put regulations in “just in case” begs the question: where does it stop? The government could put regulations in just about every bill about every matter to say, “We can do anything else we want by way of regulation.” I have been concerned over recent times that there is an increasing desire by governments to put in these “catch-alls”. Government can basically change the substantive policy of the bill by way of regulation and change legislation significantly by way of regulation because it does not want it to come back before Parliament. All regulations are potentially disallowable, but members know that it is more likely for something to be picked up and given the level of scrutiny required when it is dealt with through an act of Parliament rather than by way of regulation. If there is no foreseeable purpose for that, I wonder why we are including it at this stage as opposed to leaving it. If at some future point significant changes are required, let us bring that back as a quick amendment bill in the future. I am intrigued about two other areas. One is that there are a lot of powers to delegate both within the department and outside. I am intrigued to know whether that is a sign the government proposes to delegate and to contract out this work to other organisations. I am looking for some indication from the government as to why it is looking for the power to delegate to not just people employed in the department, but also a person who is not employed in the department for the issuing and administration of these acts. There is clearly a policy of privatisation by stealth going on in the department at the moment. I do not know whether those clauses have been put in to facilitate that. Another area in which this bill clearly seeks to delegate power beyond the department is for some of the storing and capturing of photos and signatures. I might be wrong, but I understand that the motor vehicle driver’s licence database is held within the Department of Transport and is not contracted out or delegated to anybody else. I am not sure that the current legislation allows that to occur. The parliamentary secretary can indicate to us later whether it is the case that the current legislation allows the department to contract out the functions of the department. However, the legislation contains significantly severe penalties for the misuse of the information that will be retained and stored by the government—I think the explanatory memorandum makes that clear. As I said, the information from this card that will be collected and held by the government is similar to the information collected and held by the government from a driver’s licence. I agree that it is very sensitive information and that it needs to be securely stored. I have grave concerns, once the collection and storage of that information is allowed outside the government, that the government will actually lose control and lose responsibility. Almost consistently on a daily basis we see government agencies, when functions are privatised and passed out to the private sector, walk away from their obligations and responsibilities. I have to say that areas of the transport portfolio are some of the worst. We had an Auditor General’s report tell the government that it is still responsible for the rail lines in Western Australia, but the government continues to put blinkers on and argues that it is no longer responsible because that responsibility is contracted out to a private company. I therefore have grave concerns about this constant push to privatise basic functions when we are storing, holding and keeping people’s private records. Those sorts of records should be very securely held and maintained in a government department where the minister and the CEO of that department are held directly responsible for the way in which the information is stored and maintained. Once we start allowing it to be passed on to a third party, that level of responsibility will dissipate and we will get the buck shifting that we see on an all too familiar daily basis when things go into contracted-out government services. I have talked about the rail. We could have a debate that is not related to this bill but that makes the point I am trying to make about this bill. Look at what is happening with Serco and the contracting out of functions of the government! When something goes wrong, the government says that we have to go and talk to the private contractor. The private contractor says no, we have to go and talk to the government. The bottom line is that the

78 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014] public does not get the answers it is entitled to; no-one takes responsibility for the failures that have occurred. I will certainly be looking for some very robust explanations from the parliamentary secretary on those clauses of the bill and whether they match legislation for the existence, capture and storage of information for a driver’s licence; and, if they do not, why they are included in the bill, what the government’s intention is with keeping in- house the information that will be recorded, and how we as a Parliament can be assured that it will always be the case. Also, we regularly get a government response in this place to questions about whether the government is intending to privatise or contract out an area of responsibility that the government has no plans at that stage. Three days later the government suddenly has a plan for it. When we say to the government that there were no plans, it says that that is right and that it made the decision after we asked the question. How do we prevent that being the case even if the government suggests that it is not an issue at this stage? I believe that a very important part of this legislation is to ensure people have a sense of protection and guarantee that this area of responsibility will not be contracted out and that this important information will be held and stored within a government agency where people will be held responsible for it and be held accountable for any loss or misuse of that information. I believe that as members of this house we all have an obligation to our electors to be able to give an assurance not only that the information will be held securely, but also, if something goes wrong, that someone will take responsibility for it because, as I say, all too often we see that occurring. Another area I want to comment on is the number of provisions in the bill about someone allowing someone else to use a photo ID card. I do not know whether there is a similar provision in the motor vehicle driver’s licence legislation; if not, perhaps we should be looking at that, although I know it cannot be provided for in this legislation. I also want to clarify another matter, if the parliamentary secretary is able to answer it in the second reading debate. I suspect that we will be going into Committee of the Whole, so I am happy to leave it until that point. It is about the clause on preventing someone from misusing the card. I assume it is clause 11(4) of the bill. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary could clarify that clause for someone who seeks to present the card at a pub, or wherever, as if the card were their own. I suspect that many children around Perth do that. I heard a story the other day about daughters whose ID cards different people had used when they were 16 and 17 years old to get them into pubs. I was shocked and horrified! But then again I grew up in a period when people — Hon Samantha Rowe: Were never asked for them. Hon KEN TRAVERS: We were never asked for them. Hon Sue Ellery: You are unnaturally tall! Hon KEN TRAVERS: And from the age of about 14 years I was able to walk into most pubs or into the Quokka Arms Hotel—not for anything other than a lemon juice with my parents of course! It was part of a ritual in Western Australia that we were never asked for identification, particularly people of my height. Not only was I never asked, but also all my friends thought I was the best person—once we were 18—to go into the pub to get the alcohol without having to go through the rigmarole of being asked to prove my age. However, I wonder whether clause 11(4) is the only provision in the bill for dealing with people who will try to misuse a photo ID card by presenting it and pretending it is their card rather than somebody else’s. With those comments, I am again very pleased to indicate that the opposition will be supporting this legislation. There are a couple of issues we have to get clarification on, particularly the cost of the card, but there is no doubt that we are keen supporters of the card and that we believe there is a need for it. As I said, it has been a longstanding policy of the Labor Party to bring a similar measure into the state of Western Australia. In concluding my remarks, I should say that although this has been technically a bill that I have handled as the shadow Minister for Transport, the person who has done the most work on the Labor side of Parliament on the development of this card is the honourable Margaret Quirk. She has been a long-term supporter of the bill and I want to place on the record my support and thanks to her for the work that she has done in progressing it. I particularly thank her for her work with seniors groups. I know that in her capacity as shadow spokesperson for seniors she is very keen and happy to see a bill like this brought before Parliament and progress through, as she has been working on it. I just say to members opposite that one of the great things about the honourable Margaret Quirk is that when she gets a bone, she will not let go! Members can rest assured that if we are not able to deal in this legislation in Parliament with the issue of charging seniors who are age pensioners for one of these cards when they can get a free driver’s licence, the honourable Margaret Quirk will vigorously pursue the issue until the day when age pensioners are able to get this card free, just as they can get a driver’s licence free. With those comments and noting the time, I conclude my remarks. Debate interrupted, pursuant to standing orders. [Continued on page 88.]

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014] 79

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE SCHOOLS — FUNDING 1. Hon SUE ELLERY to the Minister for Education: Is the minister aware that the director general of the Department of Education last week advised a meeting of independent public school principals that they should not expect “these are the only cuts” in reference to cuts to schools to date? Will the minister rule out further cuts to schools funding in 2014? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for the question. I am not aware that that is what the director general said. What I will say, as I have said constantly, is that we will continue to well resource our schools. Hon Sue Ellery: You are not well resourcing them in 2014! Hon PETER COLLIER: I emphasise once again that our schools remain the best-resourced schools of any state in the nation and our teachers remain the best paid of any state in the nation. That did not come by accident but as a direct result of this government increasing funding in education by 55 per cent from the time it has been in office, at a time when there has been a nine per cent increase in students. That level of funding is unsustainable. The government will continue to provide quality education for all students throughout Western Australia, regardless of where they live. Whether they live in Meekatharra or Nedlands, we will continue to consider the requirements of each individual child. Future funding is always part of the budgetary process. Suffice to say, as education minister, I will continue to advocate on behalf of education and our schools will continue to be very well resourced. SHARK DRUM LINE PROGRAM 2. Hon SUE ELLERY to the Minister for Fisheries: Does the minister concur with his colleague Hon Phil Edman that there is no guarantee that the shark cull will decrease the chance of an attack on a beachgoer? Hon KEN BASTON replied: I thank the member for the question. I think that drum lines are a tool of the toolbox. They can help save somebody’s life, because one hopes that the shark one kilometre offshore will take the bait, rather than the person. That is basically what it is about. People think it opens a Pandora’s box—not necessarily, but it is there hoping that sharks will prefer the bait to the person. SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION — STEVE DOBSON 3. Hon KATE DOUST to the Attorney General representing the Minister for Small Business: I refer to the appointment of Mr Steve Dobson to the board of the Small Business Development Corporation. (1) On what date was Mr Dobson recommended for the position? (2) Who recommended Mr Dobson for the position? (3) On what date was the appointment officially approved? (4) Who officially approved the appointment? (5) What is the total cost of all sitting fees paid to Mr Dobson since his appointment? Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. I do not have the answer to that at the moment, but I know for a fact that I initialled an endorsement of an answer from the Minister for Small Business; it seems not to have found its way into my folder in the last half an hour. I will chase that up and if it is passed to me before question time closes, I will respond. ECONOMIC REGULATION AUTHORITY — SUBMISSIONS 4. Hon KEN TRAVERS to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Transport: (1) Was the minister or anyone in his office provided with a copy of a submission by the Department of Transport, the Public Transport Authority and Main Roads to the Economic Regulation Authority’s inquiry into microeconomic reform in WA prior to it being submitted? (2) Does the minister agree with the views expressed in the submission? Hon JIM CHOWN replied: I wonder, due to the plethora of questions from the member, whether he could give me the number of that question.

80 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014]

Hon Ken Travers: It is 407. Hon JIM CHOWN: I am still looking, Mr President. The PRESIDENT: I think that another minister is indicating he has the answer. We are all a bit rusty first day back! Hon JIM CHOWN: I thank the member opposite for some notice of the question. (1) No. (2) Not applicable.

BUNBURY HOSPITAL — ALLEGED ASSAULT 5. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON to the Minister for Child Protection: I refer to media reports in The West Australian newspaper today alleging that a 15-year-old boy in the care of the Department for Child Protection and Family Support’s chief executive officer attacked a newborn baby. (1) How long has this boy been in the care of the CEO? (2) Was this boy allocated a caseworker? (3) How recently has the department had contact with this boy and was this contact face-to-face? (4) Was the boy currently accessing any ongoing mental health services or has he done so recently? (5) Was the department aware of any reasons why this boy should not be left alone with a newborn baby without supervision? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. I think that my comments would be shared by everybody in this house. This is an extremely distressing and tragic incident that has led to injuries to a 28-day-old baby boy at Bunbury Hospital. The 15-year-old father, who is under the care of the state, has been charged with aggravated grievous bodily harm. Investigations into this matter are ongoing and the causes of this injury are still unknown. I have asked Terry Murphy, the chief executive of the Department for Child Protection and Family Support, to work with the police, the hospital and all relevant government departments to review the circumstances and events leading to this incident. The baby has been provisionally taken into the care of the Department for Child Protection and Family Support. (1) There were two periods of care when the young, 15-year-old father was with the Department for Child Protection and Family Support—from July 2004 to December 2006 and from April 2011 to the present. (2) Yes. (3) There was an allocated caseworker. The department has had regular contact with this boy, the father. Since October 2013 a departmental worker has been engaging with him and the baby’s mother to provide support in preparation for the birth of the baby. On 28 January 2014 and on 4 February he was engaged in face-to-face meetings with family, and I am advised that the department had contact with this boy yesterday. (4) The member’s question related to whether he was accessing any ongoing mental health services now or recently. This young man is a troubled young man and, as such, has been offered a range of appropriate social and emotional support services. The member also asked whether the department was aware of any reasons why he should not be left alone. (5) No. From the time of the baby’s birth, the parents were frequent visitors. They were engaged in feeding and caring for the baby, including taking the baby for walks, and midwives had over 30 contacts with the baby and raised no clinical concerns.

SHARK DRUM LINE PROGRAM 6. Hon LYNN MacLAREN to the Minister for Fisheries: (1) Is the minister aware of the anti–shark cull protests in WA over the past two months, including two large rallies of 6 000 and 8 000 in Cottesloe, multiple protests across Western Australia and in other Australian states, and in South Africa, New Zealand, London, the USA, Italy, Spain and Argentina? (2) Will the minister investigate non-lethal alternatives to shark mitigation in WA coastal waters now that communities and scientific experts have rejected the drum line strategy and it has been proven to hook at least 40 smaller “non-target” sharks after only one month in the water? (3) How many sharks will die before the government considers the ocean to be safe again?

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014] 81

(4) Will the minister pull out the baited drum lines immediately and instead implement other measures of shark attack mitigation, including eco barriers, early warning systems and, in some circumstances, shark shields? (5) If the drum lines remain until 30 April, will the minister consider having the hooks monitored every hour and tagging and releasing sharks caught on the hook? Hon KEN BASTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes. (2) The deployment of up to 72 drum lines along approximately 40 kilometres of a total coastline of 12 500 kilometres is one part of a multifaceted shark hazard mitigation strategy being implemented by the government that includes aerial patrols, equipment for Surf Life Saving WA, information to the community, a shark tagging program, applied research into shark deterrents and a trial beach enclosure. Yes, the government will continue with its investigation and research into shark deterrents, noting that they form one part of an overall strategy. (3) The deployment of drum lines is a public safety measure that was introduced following the seventh shark-related fatality in three years. The government does not apologise for putting people’s lives before those of sharks. (4) No. (5) No. We already have a good monitoring program in place and one that is certainly more rigorous than other comparable programs. Ironically, the data being gathered through the implementation of this part of the government’s total shark hazard mitigation strategy is contributing significantly to our knowledge and research on sharks in south western WA. WELLINGTON DAM — FISHING AND RECREATION HUB 7. Hon RICK MAZZA to the Minister for Fisheries: I refer to the Liberal Party’s election promise that, if re-elected, a Liberal government will create a fishing and recreation hub at Wellington Dam by providing funding to enable restocking of the dam with species such as rainbow and brown trout or black bream. (1) What species and quantity of fish have been restocked? (2) What is the quantum of funding so far allocated to this promise? (3) When will the project be completed? Hon KEN BASTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1)–(3) No fish have been stocked to date. The quantity of fish stocked will depend on the species selected and the carrying capacity of the system. It is important to select species that will not only thrive in the dam itself, but also maximise community and tourism benefits within the region. The Department of Fisheries is currently working with Recfishwest to identify appropriate species and quantity of fish to ensure the success of this important undertaking. The project will be completed this term. I have met with Recfishwest and it is certainly working on that. ABORIGINAL AND ISLANDER EDUCATION OFFICERS — DJIDI DJIDI ABORIGINAL SCHOOL 8. Hon SALLY TALBOT to the Minister for Education: I refer to the Aboriginal and Islander education officers at Djidi Djidi Aboriginal School. (1) How many full-time equivalent AIEOs were employed at the school in — (a) term 1, 2013; (b) term 2, 2013; (c) term 3, 2013; and (d) term 4, 2013. (2) How many AIEO FTEs are currently employed at the school—that is, in term 1, 2014? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question.

82 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014]

(1) The number of Aboriginal and Islander education officer FTEs employed at Djidi Djidi Aboriginal School in 2013 were as follows — (a) 2.6 FTEs; (b) 2.8 FTEs; (c) 2.6 FTEs; and (d) 2.6 FTEs. (2) There were 2.8 FTEs as at 18 February 2014.

ASSET INVESTMENT PROGRAM — COMMONWEALTH CONTRIBUTION 9. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH to the minister representing the Treasurer: I refer to the 2013–14 Government Mid-year Financial Projections Statement. (1) Of the state’s asset investment program, which projects are still subject to confirmation of commonwealth funding? (2) What is the estimated value of the commonwealth contribution? (3) What is the estimated value of the state’s contribution? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) Projects in the asset investment plan are the responsibility of relevant ministers and their agencies overseeing the projects. (2)–(3) Not applicable.

ASSET INVESTMENT PROGRAM — REGIONAL HEALTH 10. Hon DARREN WEST to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Health: I refer to page 108 of the 2013–14 Government Mid-year Financial Projections Statement and the asset investment program review and cuts to the Southern Inland Health Initiative of $141.8 million over the next three years. For each of the following hospitals and for each of the three years, what was the original funding and by how much will this funding be reduced: Collie Hospital, Katanning Hospital, Merredin Hospital, Narrogin Hospital, Northam Hospital and Warren Hospital? Hon ALYSSA HAYDEN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. After reviewing the answer that was provided to me, I am not 100 per cent confident in giving this answer. I ask that I be able to follow it up and provide it at a later date.

“ARE YOU BUSHFIRE READY?” ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN — TENDERS 11. Hon SAMANTHA ROWE to the Leader of the House representing the Premier: I refer to the “Are you Bushfire Ready?” campaign coordinated by the director of government media. (1) What savings was the director able to negotiate for the advertising spend on this campaign? (2) Did all the contracts under this campaign go to tender; and, if not, why not? (3) If yes to (2), what are the details of the tenders, including value, successful tenderer and contract–tender numbers? (4) Who was responsible for decisions on which media outlets should carry advertisements? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Premier has asked the member to put the question on notice.

GOLDFIELDS–ESPERANCE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION — REGIONAL BLUEPRINT 12. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Regional Development: I refer to the article in the Kalgoorlie Miner of Saturday, 16 November 2013 headed “Regional blueprint” and the answer to question on notice 838.

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014] 83

(1) Who negotiated and who signed the memorandum of understanding between the Kalgoorlie–Boulder Chamber of Commerce and the Goldfields–Esperance Development Commission that informed the tender for Creating Communities for GEDC’s regional blueprint? (2) Will the minister table the joint memorandum of understanding between the Chamber of Commerce and the Goldfields–Esperance Development Commission? (3) If no to (2), why not? (4) Is the GEDC exempt from implementing regular government procurement guidelines and procedures? (5) If yes to (4), will the minister table or explain that exemption? (6) Who or what company was the successful tenderer for Creating Communities for GEDC’s regional blueprint? Hon COL HOLT replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The GEDC CEO and corporate service manager and the Kalgoorlie–Boulder Chamber of Commerce and Industry CEO negotiated the MOU. The GEDC CEO and the KBCCI CEO signed the MOU. (2) Yes. I seek leave to table the document. (3) Not applicable. (4) No. (5) Not applicable. (6) Creating Communities was engaged by the KBCCI through its own procurement processes. Leave granted. [See paper 1180.] LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM — COUNCIL MERGERS 13. Hon AMBER-JADE SANDERSON to the minister representing the Minister for Local Government: I refer to the tactic of categorising council mergers as “boundary changes” when only two councils are affected. (1) How can the two entities becoming one count as only a “boundary change”? (2) Has the Minister for Local Government received legal advice on defining these amalgamations as “boundary changes”; and, if not, will the minister commit to seeking that advice? (3) If the minister has received legal advice, will he table that advice; and, if not, why not? (4) Will all amalgamated councils retain their names in a hyphenated fashion? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) This is provided for under the Local Government Act 1995. (2) Yes. (3) No. (4) This is a decision for the new local governments and the Local Government Advisory Board. NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME — TRIAL SITES 14. Hon ALANNA CLOHESY to the Minister for Disability Services: I refer the minister to the Western Australian National Disability Insurance Scheme and My Way trial sites and specifically to the additional expenditure of $76 million over two years, which was identified in the Government Mid-year Financial Projections Statement. (1) How will this additional expenditure be utilised? (2) What impacts on existing services have been identified as a result of this additional expenditure? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) The 2013–14 Government Mid-year Financial Projections Statement includes a provision for the additional spending of $76 million over two years commencing in 2014–15 for the operation of the

84 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014]

National Disability Insurance Scheme trial sites in Western Australia. Details of the precise costings for the two trial sites are still being negotiated between the Western Australian government and the commonwealth government. (2) People with disability currently accessing services will receive the same level of service or an increased level of service based on the National Disability Insurance Agency’s planning and funding model. SERCO — ESCORT RECORD SYSTEM 15. Hon SUE ELLERY to the Attorney General representing the Minister for Corrective Services: I refer to statements to media outlets by Serco Australia’s chief executive, David Campbell, at the time of gaining the court security and prisoner transport contract, confirming that — The company also proposes introducing an escort record system so there is transparency in the delivery of services and to ensure detainees are treated safely. (1) Was an escort record system introduced by Serco? (2) If yes to (1), will the Minister for Corrective Services list all the details the escort record system records; and, if not, why not? (3) If an escort record system was not introduced, why not? Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Corrective Services advises — (1) Yes. The Serco escorting and recording system was introduced by Serco in March 2012 through a staged implementation process. (2) The Serco escorting and recording system records detailed information regarding vehicle and persons in custody movements, as well as offence details and welfare observations while under Serco custody. (3) Not applicable. BANJUP AND FORRESTDALE — FIRE RISK MINIMISATION 16. Hon KATE DOUST to the minister representing the Minister for Environment: I refer to the recent metropolitan fires in Banjup and Forrestdale. What steps had the department taken prior to Monday, 3 February 2014 to minimise the risk of a fire in these metropolitan areas? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. Fire pre-suppression works undertaken by the Department of Parks and Wildlife prior to the 2013–14 fire season in sections of Jandakot Regional Park managed by the department, including the area recently impacted by the Banjup fire, include spraying of dry fire access tracks, completed by 2 October 2013; spraying of wet fire access tracks, completed by 11 November 2013; fuel reduction slashing, completed by 20 December 2013—two areas in the Taylor Road–Gibbs Road block totalling 1.6 hectares were slashed; and lock and gate maintenance, completed in November 2013. Fire response plans for Jandakot Regional Park were developed in consultation with the Department of Fire and Emergency Services and the relevant local government authorities, and were distributed to DFES and the City of Cockburn by 8 November 2013. Machinery works aimed at improving vehicle access in boggy areas were completed on the Taylor Road–Gibbs Road block on 15 January 2014. SHARK DRUM LINE PROGRAM 17. Hon LYNN MacLAREN to the Minister for Fisheries: Has there ever been a fatality in Western Australia caused by a tiger shark? Hon KEN BASTON replied: I thank the honourable member for the question. To my knowledge, there have been attacks by tiger sharks. I have not had proof of a death caused by a tiger shark, but I have been told that there is. I do not have the exact case, so that is it. Several members interjected. Hon KEN BASTON: Can I say that those three sharks are the sharks that were identified and are dangerous to humans. Those are the three sharks that were actually taken. The tiger shark is one of those three, and that was by — Hon Lynn MacLaren: The tiger shark has never caused a fatality, minister. Do your research.

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014] 85

Hon KEN BASTON: It has, and there are some cases in which it is believed that it may have been a tiger shark. That is my information, and that is from an expert of Fisheries. Hon Lynn MacLaren: Please update it; please look into it. Hon KEN BASTON: Thank you.

PERTH AIRPORT — RAILWAY LINE 18. Hon KEN TRAVERS to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Transport: (1) Can the minister confirm that the completion of the airport rail line has been deferred another year until 2020? (2) Has the funding profile for this project outlined in table 1 on page 180 of the 2013–14 budget paper No 3 been changed? (3) If yes to (2), will the minister table the new funding profile for this project; and, if not, why not? (4) If no to (2), why has the completion date changed? Hon JIM CHOWN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1)–(4) Due to an extended time line for environmental and heritage approvals process and final route design work, the project completion date has been moved to 2020. The Public Transport Authority is due to submit a project definition plan to cabinet in mid-2014, and that will outline a detailed funding profile.

GOLDFIELDS–ESPERANCE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION — PUBLIC SECTOR COMMISSION REPORT 19. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Regional Development: I refer to the Public Sector Commission’s report into the Goldfields–Esperance Development Commission. (1) When was the Public Sector Commission’s report presented to the minister? (2) How many recommendations did the report contain? (3) Did any of the recommendations reflect adversely on the GEDC board? (4) Will the minister table a copy of the Public Sector Commission’s report; and, if not, why not? Hon COL HOLT replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) The report was sent to the minister’s office on 11 December 2013. A briefing on this matter was provided to the minister by the Public Sector Commission and the chairman of the GEDC board on 7 February 2014. (2) There were 22. (3) The report identified improvements that could be made to the operations of the board. (4) It would not be appropriate to table the report as it includes feedback from interviews with GEDC board members and staff who provided in-confidence opinions. However, in the interest of transparency, I believe it is appropriate to table the recommendations from the report. [See paper 1181.]

PUBLIC HOUSING — MARGARET RIVER–AUGUSTA 20. Hon SALLY TALBOT to the minister representing the Minister for Housing: (1) Were recent media reports that the average wait time for public housing in Margaret River is six months longer than the state average correct? (2) How many properties are available in the Margaret River zone and the Augusta zone? (3) How many people were on the waitlist in each zone in September 2013? (4) How many people are currently on the waitlist in each zone? Hon KEN BASTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Department of Housing advises —

86 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014]

(1) The average wait time reported to the Augusta Margaret River Times for applicants housed from 31 December 2012 to 31 December 2013 was 161 weeks—that is, three years and one month. The statewide average for the same period was 135 weeks—that is, two years and seven months. (2) As at 31 January 2014, nil. (3) The number of people per application cannot be retrospectively reported by zone. The number of applications for Margaret River was 55 and for Augusta was eight. (4) As at 31 January 2014, there were 56 applications, equalling 109 people, for Margaret River, and eight applications, equalling 15 people, for Augusta. COTTON BUSH CONTROL 21. Hon DARREN WEST to the Minister for Agriculture and Food: I refer to question 1000 asked on 10 December 2013 regarding the cotton bush epidemic. (1) Given that cotton bush is a declared plant under the Biosecurity Agriculture Management Act, have any notices or fines been issued to any landowners who have failed to remove or destroy any cotton bush growing on their properties in the last three years? (2) If yes to (1), how many fines and/or notices have been issued? (3) Has the minister or the Department of Agriculture and Food issued any notices, fines or warnings of any kind to any government agency or government trading enterprise landholders in the last three years where cotton bush is known to grow? (4) If yes, which agencies or trading enterprises have been contacted and what action has since been taken to address the outbreak? (5) If no to (3), why not? Hon KEN BASTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) None under the Biosecurity and Agricultural Management Act 2007. The BAM act has been in full effect only since 1 May 2013, replacing the Agricultural and Related Resources Protection Act 1976. Regulatory actions have been undertaken under ARRPA. (2) There have been 619 actions undertaken for cotton bush control compliance on private land under ARRPA since 1 January 2011. This includes 445 site inspections; 172 work agreements, non-statutory agreement for works required; and two section 50 notices, a direction notice to undertake works. (3) No. (4) Not applicable. (5) ARRPA did not have regulatory powers relevant to government agencies or government trading agencies. The Department of Agriculture and Food is engaging other government agencies for control of cotton bush and other widespread and established weeds through a community coordinated approach. The use of regulatory processes under the BAM act will be applied across tenure through this approach. BURU ENERGY — SHALE GAS PROJECT 22. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE to the minister representing the Minister for Mines and Petroleum: I refer to an article on the front page of The Australian dated 30 December 2013 by Andrew Burrell headed “Gas wars to open up on a new front” in which he reported the Western Australian Minister for Mines and Petroleum as giving an undertaking that — the government would ensure all future shale gas projects were assessed, with auditors conducting inspections to check compliance with safety and environmental standards. (1) Is this consistent with the decision by the Environmental Protection Authority not to assess the proposals by Buru Energy to undertake tight gas stimulation using hydraulic fracturing of four existing exploration wells in the Canning Basin area of WA? (2) If no to (1), what steps will the minister take to maintain his undertaking to ensure all future shale gas projects are assessed, as reported? (3) If yes to (1), will the minister please explain how it is consistent? (4) Will the minister please issue an explanation to the community about how this is the case so they can have faith in the process?

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014] 87

Hon KEN BASTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. The Department of Mines and Petroleum advises — (1) Yes. The Environmental Protection Authority is a statutory authority and its assessment process under part 4 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 is independent from the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s assessment of environmental impacts under petroleum legislation. (2) Not applicable. (3) In addition to DMP’s environmental regulatory responsibility, it also seeks advice from other regulatory and advisory government agencies where applicable. Any proposals that could potentially have a significant impact on the environment must be referred to the EPA for independent assessment. (4) Western Australia’s regulatory framework for hydraulic fracking is coordinated, transparent and risk- based, and is continuously being improved in response to new scientific, technological and social considerations. DMP has also established an interagency working group to ensure that updated legislation, regulations and guidelines are robust and address community values and expectations for the developing shale and tight gas industry in Western Australia. Development of natural gas from shale and tight rock in this state is still in the early stages of exploration and evaluation, so WA is well positioned to learn from other jurisdictions to ensure that industry adopts the highest international best practice standards. CITY OF BELMONT–SHIRE OF KALAMUNDA — MERGER 23. Hon SAMANTHA ROWE to the minister representing the Minister for Local Government: I refer to the intended merger of the City of Belmont and the Shire of Kalamunda. (1) Has the government undertaken a cost–benefit analysis; and, if not, why not? (2) Does the government intend to undertake one before the merger takes place in July 2015; and, if not, why not? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1)–(2) The Local Government Act 1995 provides for the Local Government Advisory Board to inquire into the merits of the various proposals before it. This will include considering the proposals from the City of Belmont, the Shire of Kalamunda and the minister. NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME — PERTH HILLS TRIAL 24. Hon ALANNA CLOHESY to the Minister for Disability Services: I refer the minister to the National Disability Insurance Scheme trial in the Perth hills due to commence on 1 July 2014. (1) How many total participants have been selected to participate in the trial? (2) How many of these people are existing Disability Services Commission clients? (3) How many of these people are new recipients of services? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) The agreement between the Western Australian government and the commonwealth government estimates that there will be 4 300 participants in the NDIS Perth hills trial site. (2) Of these people, 1 743 are existing Disability Services Commission clients. (3) Of these people, 2 557 are new recipients of services. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 993 AND 1008 Answer Advice HON PETER COLLIER (North Metropolitan — Leader of the House) [5.06 pm]: I would like to provide answers to Hon Sue Ellery’s question without notice 993 asked on 10 December 2013 and to Hon Lynn MacLaren’s question without notice 1008 asked on 10 December 2013. The PRESIDENT: I know you would like to, but I assume you are tabling those answers. Hon PETER COLLIER: Yes, I would like to table those, thank you, Mr President. They are from the Premier. [See papers 1182 and 1183.]

88 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014]

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE 648, 649, 655 AND 657 Papers Tabled Papers relating to answers to questions on notice were tabled by Hon Ken Baston (Minister for Agriculture and Food), Hon Michael Mischin (Attorney General) and Hon Peter Collier (Leader of the House). SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION — STEVE DOBSON Question without Notice 3 — Answer Advice HON MICHAEL MISCHIN (North Metropolitan — Attorney General) [5.07 pm]: As to Hon Kate Doust’s earlier question to me representing the Minister for Small Business, I have received the document that I was referring to and the answer is — (1)–(4) The former Minister for Small Business made recommendations to cabinet for a number of appointments to the Small Business Development Corporation board. These were officially approved on 10 September 2012. (5) It is $12 436.61. AVONLINK TRAIN SERVICE Question without Notice 1056 — Answer Advice HON JIM CHOWN (Agricultural — Parliamentary Secretary) [5.07 pm]: I would like to provide an answer to Hon Darren West’s question without notice 1056 asked on 12 December 2013. The PRESIDENT: I assume you are tabling that answer. Hon JIM CHOWN: Yes. [See paper 1188.] WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PHOTO CARD BILL 2013 Second Reading Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting. HON SUE ELLERY (South Metropolitan — Leader of the Opposition) [5.08 pm]: I am pleased to support the Western Australian Photo Card Bill. A number of organisations and constituents have raised this issue with my electorate office in recent years. Organisations such as the National Seniors Association, the Association for Independent Retirees and the Council on the Ageing have raised it with me. The reason that we need to introduce legislation of the kind contained in this bill is that when an elderly person makes a decision that driving is beyond them or, as is often the case, illness or a change in their life circumstances means that they no longer feel safe to drive, they give up so much more than the bit of plastic that was their driver’s licence. If a person does not have a valid passport or does not want to renew their passport, or if a person does not want to have to carry their passport with them all the time, they lose a lot more than their licence to operate a vehicle—they lose the recognised identification that is required by all sorts of regulatory bodies, including banks. If a person wants to move from a joint account to a single account, or change from a signature to a PIN on their credit card, a great amount of weight is placed on the provision of a driver’s licence to prove that the person is who they say they are. People also need a form of identification if they want to work as volunteers, as many seniors do when they are no longer in the paid workforce or their families have moved on; if they want to check in for the purpose of boarding an aircraft; if they want to send a parcel or transfer money; if they are responsible for picking up their grandchildren from child care or school and they need to set up that process; or if they want to join a club that requires the presentation of identification. Seniors organisations have identified that the transition period for people who no longer have a driver’s licence is often very difficult. COTA WA, in its submission to the government for the state budget 2012–13, said — For older Western Australians, mobility is a fundamental prerequisite for maintaining autonomous living and important for all types of activities outside the home environment. They need access to reliable transport—whether private or public. Not all older people are able to continue driving and, like all transitions, this can be a difficult time for the former driver and his or her family. COTA WA said also — For an older person, the loss of his/her driver’s licence is a severe limitation, which may result in social isolation and the inability to access both services and necessities of life.

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014] 89

COTA goes on to say that more work needs to be done to improve the public transport system, because it is a vital part of what seniors need to rely on when they lose their driver’s licence. COTA was calling at that time for the government to fund programs to meet the mobility requirements of seniors who have lost their driver’s licence or do not have access to a private car, and the commissioning of a study to look at what being well served by public transport means for seniors. COTA makes the point that people undergo a significant transition when they either make the decision to give up their driver’s licence or that decision is made for them. This bill will go some way towards making things easier for seniors because it will enable them to provide an alternate form of identification. Therefore, for those reasons, we will be supporting this legislation. This bill has been talked about for some time. When I was seeking to find out when the government first announced that it would bring in this bill, I found an article dated March 2010—four years ago now—in the Wanneroo Times about how the member for Kingsley had raised this issue in state Parliament and said that a photo identification card with the status of a driver’s licence would soon be available. We have had to wait four years for that, but I am glad we are finally getting close to achieving that result. It is important that we do not stop with this one measure. This measure is important, and we need to get on and do it, but we need to do other things to assist seniors at that point of transition when they are either forced to or choose to give up their driver’s licence. That transition period may last for a while. We are all familiar with seniors who do not want to give up their driver’s licence but adjust their socialisation and their driving habits over time. Seniors may start the transition process by driving only during the day and not at night and by not driving into the city and at peak times because they are nervous about what that might mean for them. That transition period may last for a couple of years. We therefore need to do more for seniors than just provide an alternate form of photo identification, although that is a good thing. I invite the parliamentary secretary to advise us what other measures the Department of Transport is undertaking to help seniors and how it has responded to COTA’s request for the 2012–13 budget that further work be done to assist seniors during this important time of transition. I look forward to the parliamentary secretary giving us the answer to those questions. With those remarks, I indicate my support for the bill. HON SIMON O’BRIEN (South Metropolitan) [5.17 pm]: I want to make a brief contribution to the debate on the Western Australian Photo Card Bill 2013. I am delighted that this bill has finally completed its gestation period. That is a credit to those officers who have endured so long and indeed lived so long that they have finally seen this bill arrive in this house. I heard a while ago from Hon Ken Travers that Hon Margaret Quirk, the member for Girrawheen, has been a champion and an enthusiastic supporter, I imagine — Hon Stephen Dawson: She is a champion. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: — of this particular bill. Hon Stephen Dawson should have let me finish my sentence, or he might find that he has put the punctuation in the wrong area. I was saying that the member for Girrawheen has been a champion of this measure. I did not say that she is a champion. The member might have that view, and perhaps she is a champion. I also acknowledge, as Hon Ken Travers said, that Margaret Quirk has taken an active interest for a long time in promoting a readily accessible photo identification card or a similar mechanism. In fact, from listening to Hon Ken Travers, one would think that she was the sponsor of this bill. We have to go back to about 2007 or early 2008 when the Australian Labor Party, and I think at that time Minister Quirk, might have had a chance to bring in this bill. That is going back a long way indeed. However, that is not to detract from any support or enthusiasm for the bill. Hon Ken Travers: Did you take the original drafting instructions to your cabinet by any chance? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I will tell the honourable member a bit about the history of this bill, while preserving cabinet confidentiality. Hon Ken Travers: Let us all get around the fireplace! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Yes—we will all get around the fireplace and sing Kumbaya. Because there is such interest in this bill, I will explain a bit of the history. In my opening remarks, I congratulated those public servants who were in on this bill at the beginning and who have not retired or died of old age and are still here, because it has taken a long time. The bill before us and the policy that informs the bill is supportable. Putting all levity to one side, the authors of the bill have provided a masterpiece of drafting and a piece of bureaucracy that covers all the basics, and that is a credit to them. I cannot believe how long it takes for these things to come to fruition, but that is the nature of the system that we have. The checks and balances are necessary to protect the public from members of Parliament keen to legislate prematurely in these matters. I certainly acquired a very active interest in this area a few years ago when I was simultaneously Minister for Transport and Minister for Disability Services. Many people with disabilities are confronted with the sort of identification problem that has already been alluded to in this debate, which provides a good snapshot of what

90 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014] successive governments and successive ministers and members have tried to do. Many people with a disability, be they young or old, find that they need identification for a whole range of reasons. However, because they cannot obtain a driver’s licence, they find it difficult to have a piece of identification that is readily available and able to be provided when required. Let us make no bones about it; although it is not intended by law to be a form of identification per se, the Western Australian driver’s licence is just that. That is how it is treated in a whole range of circumstances, including dealing with government departments that have nothing to do with people actually driving a motor vehicle. I made some inquiries about this matter when I was Minister for Transport because I thought I may be able to do something. I discovered that the arrangements in place were, quite frankly, inadequate. As members will note from the documents that have been provided with the bill, the photo card provided for in this bill will replace the existing government answer to the problem; that is, the proof-of-age card. When I first inquired about this, the proof-of-age card was, if my memory serves me correctly, within the province of the Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor, or its predecessor at that time. It did not actually fall to me, which I thought was ironic. We were trying to find a solution for people with disability issues who could not obtain a driver’s licence and I was the Minister for Transport cheerfully opening licensing centres and what have you — Hon Ken Travers: The government does not do that anymore; it closes them. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I do not know if they are closing any but there have been plenty of ribbons cut. Hon Ken Travers: Not since the member left the job as minister. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I will take Hon Ken Travers around and show him a few plaques and things. Hon Ken Travers: The place has gone downhill since you left; that is all I can say. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: If the member had entered into these sorts of mutterings earlier on we could have given him an extra 15 minutes to complete his remarks. I acknowledge his very kind, if somewhat tongue-in- cheek, interjections. Hon Ken Travers: There is nothing tongue-in-cheek about it; you have been the best transport minister that the Barnett government has had. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Many of us have often said that Hon Ken Travers talks a lot and often. But, if you allow him to keep doing that he will eventually say something that makes a lot of sense. I thank him for his last remark. The proof-of-age card was the province of the Minister for Racing and Gaming. I said that I wanted to do something about it because I had an interest. The only problem was that Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor got a bit territorial and did not want to give up any of its bailiwick. That was stalled and I was disappointed. Nonetheless, we at the Department of Transport—as it was created—put our minds to the problem. At the time I pointed out that the Department of Transport had a licensing function which was a very major part of the department with most of the machinery already in place—the legislative apparatus required; a driver’s licence system and applications with the capacity to produce drivers’ licences; a network of centres and other ways of interacting with the public; a recognised function and purpose; and all the rest. To me, it all seemed ready to go, if we could harness the capacity to do it. It was pointed out that these things are often not quite as easy as they sound. The department began applying itself to the question of how we could make some sort of system work to get the outcome that everyone on all sides knew ought to be achievable rather than find deficiencies in the legislation or reasons to not do it. It occurred to me that there was perhaps a simple way to do this. There were people—such as those the Leader of the Opposition referred to—who felt they had to forego their driver’s licence because of their age and for safety reasons. Those who did so responsibly were then left without a well-recognised form of identification. As everyone in the licensing area of the department knows, there are a lot of seniors out there who keep their drivers’ licences for a lot longer than they actually use them for driving. They have given up driving but they keep their licences as a means of identification. I thought the simple thing to do was to recognise that a driver’s licence was de facto used by everyone as a means of identification and to have a driver’s licence category—it sounds a bit silly—of identification only. Currently drivers’ licences state, by a code of letters that I am not immediately familiar with, whether the holder can drive a truck, a motorbike, a manual or automatic car and so on, so what about a driver’s licence with a category of “for identification purposes only”. Hon Ken Travers: A driver’s licence to say that you can’t drive. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Indeed, it is an apparent oxymoron; but that is the sort of thing that we were trying to achieve. Hon Peter Katsambanis: What about a photo on the Seniors Card?

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014] 91

Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: No; I thank the honourable member for his interjection, but when we talk about identity documents a driver’s licence, for example, is subject to more rigorous requirements. Indeed, we have a lot of legislation that underpins that and creates offences and so on. We now have the Western Australian Photo Card Bill 2013. This is the instrument that has been created by the experts at the Department of Transport—a fine department created in 2009 with the inspired decision of, not this government, but a previous government. This instrument will bring to life and give form to all of the aspirations that we have heard about during the course of this debate. I support the bill. I am glad that the weight of opinion has shifted within government to take responsibility for this matter away from the Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor and into the Department of Transport where it belongs, because it has the expertise. It is creating something that I think will look a heck of a lot like a driver’s licence. We will have all the functions that are prescribed in the bill. I certainly support the bill, and I am glad that everyone else seems to as well. One issue that has arisen is the question of licence fees. I want to say a couple of things about that before I conclude. I noticed from the second reading speech that the photo card will cost approximately $35 and will be valid for five years, which of course is around $7 a year. When one compares that with the current cost of a driver’s licence, which I am sure all of us have on our person now, that is a pretty good price. I think it reflects the cost of actually providing the service—it is cost recovery or, I suspect, possibly even a little less than cost recovery; I do not know. But it should be about cost recovery. Let us not be too twee about this; someone has to pay for this. Those who get the undoubted benefits should be the ones who pay, subject to any government policy that provides for those who have a requirement but a difficulty in paying caused by limited circumstances not through any fault of their own. When talking about people who have issues with disability or who are geriatric, they may well comply with membership of a concessional group, and that is fair enough. Nonetheless, to the extent it is possible the system should pay for itself. Comparing the licence fees for other categories, it seems at face value to be fair enough. Currently, an ordinary licence for one year is $39.50, and for five years it is $125. That is to renew an existing licence. As members can see, there is in effect a bit of a discount to take the five-year option. That reflects the fact that the recording fee and whatnot is only done once rather than every 12 months. Hon Ken Travers: The delegated legislation committee would have you over the coals if you tried to charge for — Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I was looking at this through delegated legislation–coloured glasses, member. I also noticed that when we look to the pensioner or senior category, it is $12.50 a year and $62.50 for five years. Again, there is no discount for the five-year option. With respect, I do not think there should be because they are already receiving the service at a subsidised level below cost recovery, presumably. That is why the five-year fee is simply five times the annual fee. There is also a category, from looking at the website, separate to that one I mentioned, for age pensioners. Whether it is for one year or five years, there is no fee. Hon Ken Travers: So no discount. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Indeed, no discount. Hon Ken Travers: That is the category that we are most concerned about; the fact they are then charged for this card. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: It strikes me, member: why should there not be parity? I have taken some minutes out of members’ lives to explain my version of some of the history for just that purpose: to explain how we got to this point. The fact of the matter is there is a machinery of government to be set up to deliver this service. It needs to be paid for and it needs to be paid for, by and large, by the users, but recognising that when there are equity issues across other similar government concessional areas, the same probably ought to apply here. I will be interested to hear the government’s response to the proposal by Hon Ken Travers that has just appeared on a supplementary notice paper. I do not know whether the paper has been distributed in the chamber, but it is certainly on the web. Hon Ken Travers: I think it is around the chamber. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I understand that it proposes similar concessions and specifically no fee. I beg your pardon; I do not have the document in front of me now, but it is to have similar concessions available for the photo card that are available — Hon Ken Travers: You cannot charge more for a photo ID card than that person would pay for a driver’s licence. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I thank the member for reminding me of the approach he has taken. That seems a very good suggestion for debate. At face value, I cannot imagine why the government would want to oppose it. We will see what happens when that comes up. I think it is a legitimate thing to do; that is, to have parity or equality

92 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014] in how we treat different concessional groups, whether it is drivers’ licences or photo ID, because they are basically in many ways much the same thing and for the same purpose. I am very pleased to see this bill in this place. To everyone who has ever shown any sort of enthusiasm and — Hon Stephen Dawson: Including Margaret Quirk! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Including Margaret Quirk; and contributed in spirit, if not in deed, to progress the matter — Hon Ken Travers: A room full of champions for this legislation! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: A room full of champions; I think we now need to proceed with the second reading and hopefully we will be able to bring this to the members of the public who need it. HON LYNN MacLAREN (South Metropolitan) [5:37 pm]: I want to join the throng of voices in support of the Western Australian Photo Card Bill 2013. Obviously, some of the issues canvassed are of interest and I basically will go into a bit more detail on Hon Ken Travers’ concern about the use of the data. In saying that, the Greens are very glad to see that photo cards will be available for people who do not have a driver’s licence or a passport early next year, or is it now early this year? As Hon Ken Travers said, this was brought up at the end of last year, so my notes might not have been updated from that time. I will only briefly touch on the issue that was raised with me regarding data security. I consulted with stakeholders. The Council on the Ageing Western Australia Inc want it on the record that it really welcomes this initiative. There is a need for people to provide 100 points of ID if they want to set up banking facilities or transactions and they do not have a passport or a driver’s licence. However, the concern that was raised with me relates to clause 20, “Agreements for performance of functions”. Clause 20(1) states — The CEO — Of the Department of Transport — may enter into an agreement providing for the CEO’s functions … (2) The agreement may be with the Commissioner of Police, a local government, or any other person or body, — This is the important part — whether or not the person or body has itself functions of a public nature. If we are to look at that, it would be important for us to ascertain—as Hon Ken Travers raised in his concerns about organisations that are contracted to do public things, such as Serco—how our data will be secured and protected. Hon Ken Travers: The interesting thing about the point you make is the fact that they name a couple of categories and then they say “but anybody else”. So they try to give the impression that it is going to be these responsible bodies but then it can be anybody. Hon LYNN MacLAREN: Exactly. Hon Ken Travers: So why not say that you can go to anybody in the first place? Hon LYNN MacLAREN: We may wish in committee to amend in clause 20(2) the final phrase “whether or not the person or body has itself functions of a public nature”. What is the intent there? Why does the bill allow anyone with other functions to access data that identifies a person? Only last night on the news we heard about a spate of identity theft in Western Australia over the last few weeks. I draw that to the chamber’s attention. It appears that clause 20 allows the CEO to privatise the use of the card and the data associated with it. We have to question whether that is responsible and we have to know the reasons behind it before we would approve of that. In fact we may never approve of that. It is very concerning to me. If the associated data is kept in the hands of the relevant department and it retains ownership of the data, the existing controls that public institutions must adhere to in maintaining confidentiality will be maintained. In a rapidly changing environment concerning data security, perhaps it is better that governing arrangements for such data be regularly scrutinised. Are we looking at those arrangements regularly to see how data is being used? Perhaps we could even have a reporting mechanism back to Parliament about that. The concern I have is that, despite the protection of confidentiality required under the bill, we are all too aware of the scope for hackers to gain unauthorised access to data, and that the scope for such access increases when data is in private hands because it does not have the extra protections that governments provide. I draw the chamber’s attention to and acknowledge that a WA data protection act may reduce the likelihood of this but, should data be accessed by hackers, it would be both an intrusion of privacy and a potential danger to cardholders. This is important, because the people who are more likely to take advantage of the photo card scheme are also more likely to be

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014] 93 vulnerable and disadvantaged, and least likely to be able to deal with the consequences of having their personal data compromised. If such data is processed or stored abroad, for example, there would be neither a safety net nor recourse to Western Australian laws, such as a WA data protection act. If WA or Australian law does not apply in the jurisdiction where data has been compromised, what are we to say to those whom we are encouraging to get a photo card ID? Those security measures may be specified in the contract with an outsourced provider, but the effectiveness of them would be limited by how far the law can reach. I have made that point, but I do ask, and I would like the minister’s representative to address the question: what recourse will an individual have if there is a security failure leading to that security theft? The bill seeks to provide help to those who need proof of identity. As I mentioned, the Greens completely support this bill, but the government should not at the same time fail to put in place those safeguards to protect identity theft. That is all I have to say. HON PAUL BROWN (Agricultural) [5.43 pm]: I rise to speak on the Western Australian Photo Card Bill 2013 today because I believe that a good number of constituents in my electorate, the Agricultural Region, will benefit greatly from this bill. A number of groups that will benefit come to mind immediately. One group foremost in the conversation today has been seniors who either do not currently have a driver’s licence or have some sort of disability that precludes them from having a driver’s licence. This bill will enable them to have security over their identity when they are going about their daily business. Another group in all our electorates that will also benefit greatly from this bill is students. A lot of students who leave school and enter the mature world do not have a driver’s licence and may not have a passport. This bill will enable them to have photographic ID to go about their normal daily business with some sort of security. As I said before, there are also in our communities citizens with disabilities who are unable to afford the luxury of a driver’s licence or a passport. Most people access a passport only when they are going overseas. They do not access a passport to go about their normal daily business. It is very expensive and it is a very cumbersome item to carry around. As Hon Ken Travers alluded to in his speech, people do not want to have a passport stuck in their pocket. It is a very valuable document and certainly not a document people want to carry around with them every day. People with disabilities may very much want to go overseas but do not necessarily get that opportunity. Without a driver’s licence, the only other realistic way of acquiring 100 points of identification is to apply for a passport. This bill ticks off all the boxes for them as it will enable them to obtain photographic ID. Other groups within our electorates will benefit from this bill—I am sure Hon Stephen Dawson will back me up on this. Our electorates have a number of constituents with Aboriginal heritage who also miss out on obtaining photographic ID either because they have not got around to getting a driver’s licence or cannot afford a passport. Once again, this photo ID card is a very cheap option to enable them to go about their daily business. A lot of those people from my electorate, and even more from the electorate of Hon Stephen Dawson, have to travel a long way from town or from their community to access government services, or even private services, for which they need photographic ID. For them this bill is a win-win. For a nominal fee they will be able to access secure ID that will enable them to go about their business each day without the fear of being turned away by government agencies or by private business. I have another concern. My wife is a pharmacist and is required by regulation to ask people in her pharmacy for photographic ID when they are shopping for pseudoephedrine-based medication. It does not matter which group people find themselves in—young, elderly, of Aboriginal heritage or disabled—they require photographic ID in a pharmacy to obtain pseudoephedrine-based medicine. This enables the community to prevent pharmacy shopping. As we know, there are nefarious types in our community who shop at pharmacies up and down the highways and the roads for pseudoephedrine to make methamphetamine. This bill will therefore enable our law- abiding citizens to access medicine from a pharmacy without the fear of retribution and without the fear of being turned away. Hon Simon O’Brien alluded earlier to fees for the photo ID card. I happened to be on the department’s website just prior to the member bringing up the issue of fees. A trap for beginners looking at government department websites is not scrolling all the way down to make sure they have all the information. I was making some notes and I did not scroll down far enough to see that the fee for age pensioners was zero. I was going to stand up and rail against Hon Ken Travers for making a mistake on that, but I was wrong. That will teach me that I should scroll down a bit further on the iPad to make sure I get the right information. Hon Ken Travers: I am sure it is a natural occurrence for others! Hon PAUL BROWN: I will walk away from here tonight saying that I learnt something today! Hon Ken Travers: That Ken Travers never gets it wrong! Hon PAUL BROWN: No! I will relax later thinking about that. I will walk away from here, having learnt to scroll down a little further on the iPad. Accessing information on the iPad is not the same as reading from a document that is in front of me; there is a little more information at the bottom.

94 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014]

Hon Ken Travers: It is only in one category and it is confusing. Hon PAUL BROWN: It is, because it contains not only the seniors’ area, but also an area for age pensioners. Nonetheless, I imagine that most people in our electorates would not fear paying $7 a year for the ID card. I do not want to be flippant about other people’s money, and I understand the point made by Hon Ken Travers and Hon Simon O’Brien that there is probably scope within an amendment to allow for the same fee to be applied to the photo ID card as currently applies to the licence fee for the aged, and I suggest that $7 is not a large fee to pay for a secure ID. In saying that, conversely, $7 is not much for the government to waive. Hon Ken Travers: If you are an age pensioner, it can be a lot. There is also the principle that people will pay more for one than the other. Hon PAUL BROWN: I am not trying to be flippant about other people’s money and I appreciate that every dollar in the bank account of an age pensioner—or any pensioner for that matter—is very valuable to them. I am alluding to the fact that $35 over a five-year period—I have not done the sums for a daily or weekly figure, but it is $7 a year—is a fairly reasonable cost to expect anyone to pay, that is, if the proposed amendment is not passed. Hon Ken Travers: And as long as that does not go up! That is the estimate, but I have seen a lot of government figures blow out between the initial estimate and the final reality. Hon PAUL BROWN: I agree with the honourable member, but I will deal with what is in front of me and I will let Hon Ken Travers deal with the hypothetical. The other point about the full-cost recovery photo ID card is that it is voluntary and nobody will be forced to sign up. When people apply for a photo ID card, they are fully aware there is a fee. The government is not forcing this card upon people. It is a fully voluntary manoeuvre for people to pay that $7—if they want a photo ID card. Aged citizens within our electorates may choose to keep renewing their driver’s licence. If it is free and it continues to be free, why would someone give up their driver’s licence? Even if people do not use their driver’s licence, at least it is a valid form of ID. It will cost seniors and other people who have drivers’ licences $25 a year, or if they opt for a five-year licence they will receive the senior discount and pay $12.50 a year. We might find people rushing to throw away their driver’s licence, which costs a minimum of $12.50 for a senior; they will not renew it and will move to the photo ID card, which is more to the point of what Hon Ken Travers just suggested. If that is the case and more people move away from having unnecessary photographic drivers’ licences and move to a photo ID card as their preferred method of ID, hopefully that will not put upward pressure on the system and we can have the photo ID card remain at the reasonably low fee of $7 a year. I commend this bill and the bipartisan support it has received. Hon Stephen Dawson: Multiparty support! Hon PAUL BROWN: I do not know the correct term—bio, mono, unilateral, bilateral or whatever the member wants to call it—multilateral! It is great to see that for once we are all singing from the same hymn sheet. I will leave the belief that this is a sinister bill to Hon Lyn MacLaren and others. I see benefits in this card where others see darkness and cynicism. I commend the bill to the house and look forward to voting in favour of the bill on behalf of my constituents. HON STEPHEN DAWSON (Mining and Pastoral) [5.55 pm]: I, too, am pleased to stand in support of the Western Australian Photo Card Bill 2013. I, too, think it is a great thing that members around the house support this bill and are basically of one voice at this stage. I hope it continues and that throughout this parliamentary term we support each other on many pieces of legislation, but I dare say that might not be the case. However, I am pleased to say that I support this bill and will give members some of the reasons for that. Members in this place will know that I am a fairly recent convert to driving. I have not always had a driver’s licence and being also reasonably young still, being in my thirties, until a few years ago, before I started here, I did not mind going out on the weekend to Northbridge, the Roey, or wherever it might be in my electorate. I have always appreciated a beer and have always liked to go out. Over the years, certainly not in recent years, I have been asked for identification when I have gone to some licensed premises and I have not had a driver’s licence. Even though I am balding and ageing, some places still ask me to provide ID, and I am pleased to say that I now have a driver’s licence to show them. I have been balding and ageing for a few years and it has been a struggle at times to get into some licensed venues. It is not just me—I am being frivolous now—and many young people throughout the state are faced with this challenge. Many young people do not want to bring their passport out on a Friday or Saturday night; in fact, many young people do not have a passport to bring out. This bill is certainly good for those people and for many Western Australians. Young people will benefit, and members in this place have mentioned seniors who will benefit, and Aboriginal people will benefit from this bill. I concur with Hon Paul Brown, although I do not agree with the reasoning he gave. Some Aboriginal people cannot get a passport or struggle to get a passport. For example, the member for Kimberley in the other place, Josie Farrer,

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014] 95

MLA, for years failed to obtain a birth certificate. She did not have a birth certificate, so she struggled to get a passport. Hon Paul Brown: In my speech I was not precluding any other reason; I just wanted to be brief. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I know that the member was speaking from the heart and I do not think he was being frivolous. Producing a photo ID is a struggle for some people, and hopefully this bill will help those people. At the moment, anyone over the age of 18 can apply for a proof-of-age card. Sitting suspended from 6.00 to 7.30 pm Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: Before the dinner break, I had just commenced making a few remarks about the Western Australian Photo Card Bill 2013. I had indicated my support for the bill; indeed, I had indicated that I thought it was a good bill. I have a number of questions about the bill and hopefully the parliamentary secretary can address them when he speaks or they can be addressed during the committee stage of the debate. Before the break, I was talking about the fact that I was a late convert to driving. I have had issues over the years with getting into licensed premises because I did not have a driver’s licence. I have had to resort to using my passport on a number of occasions to enter some of these establishments. Many young people in the state have to use their passport on a regular basis because they do not have a driver’s licence to get them into a facility. I know that there is a proof-of-age card and that has been helpful for people. I certainly used that in the last few years before I had a driver’s licence, but before that I used my passport. A number of members have spoken about the cost of the WA photo card, which is the new card to be issued under this bill. The new fee will be about $35 and the card will last for five years. I have lost my passport on numerous occasions. A passport costs about $240, and if a person loses their passport, they have to pay an extra fee of about $100 for the first passport and $200 for the second passport, if they are so unlucky as to lose more than one. If a person has relied on a passport to get into licensed premises, it can be a costly exercise if they have to get a replacement. That is one of the reasons that I think this photo card is a wonderful initiative. As members have said, there are issues about the cost of this card when compared with the cost of a driver’s licence. Obviously, the cost of a driver’s licence today is $39.50 for one year and $125 for five years. I dare say that those fees will increase as of 1 July 2014, but at this stage it is $39.50 for one year and $125 for five years. The fee for the photo card will be $35 and it will last for five years. That is a big difference in cost. I hope that the cost of a photo card does not increase over time so that it becomes comparable to the cost of a driver’s licence, because then it would be an impediment for many Western Australians. I know that some members have said that if the $35 cost is spread over five years, it is only $7 a year and so it is not very costly for people. I make the point that for some people in this state, $35 in one go is actually a sizeable amount. Just because members in this chamber can afford $35 in one go does not mean that everybody else can. I think that $35 is fair. In states such as New South Wales, similar cards are free for Seniors Card holders, war widows and some recipients of Centrelink payments. This state should look at that system and try to assist people on pensions or Seniors Card holders to ensure that they, too, can access these cards. At the moment, application for a proof-of-age card can be made at a driver and vehicle services centre or the DVS agent in regional areas. In my electorate, there are agencies in Broome, Carnarvon, Exmouth, Kalgoorlie, Karratha, Kununurra and South Hedland. Perhaps when the parliamentary secretary talks at a later stage he can assure us that the new photo cards issued under this bill will be available in the very same outlets in regional areas. I want to make sure that people in regional Western Australia have access to these cards, because I think they are a good initiative. Many young people in particular struggle with the 100­point identification system. It is commonly used now. Banks and a range of other organisations use the 100­point identification system. It is often difficult for young people to produce primary identification. This is another reason why I think the new photo card will be helpful and beneficial to young people around the state. I have a question about whether financial institutions will accept this card as a form of primary identification. I seem to recall—it has been a while since we have been in this place—that that issue was raised in the media last year. At that stage, I do not think—I might be wrong—this new card was going to be accepted by banks. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary can bring us up to speed on that. If that was the case, hopefully it is no longer the case and these cards will be accepted by financial institutions as a primary form of identification. The other element of this new card that I like and I think is great is that people will be able to get two cards. Hon Ken Travers: One for your little brother? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: No; it is two cards for one person. A young woman who goes into Northbridge can have one card with all her details on it. I look at Hon Liz Behjat when I talk about young women! When young women are in Northbridge, they can come across unsavoury elements. I think it is a good thing that they can have a second card that will have basically their name and their date of birth.

96 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014]

Hon Jim Chown: You can have your name, photograph and age on one card and you can apply for another one with your home address. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I think people will be issued with a card with their home address and they can apply for a second card that will have a limited amount of information. Hon Jim Chown: No; it is the other way around. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: Is it the other way around? I thank the parliamentary secretary for pointing that out. It is a good thing. I rarely go to nightclubs, but I know from talking to young people that a range of nightclubs and pubs in Northbridge scan a person’s card as they go into the establishment. I do not have the same view as Hon Lynn MacLaren. I am certainly not a conspiracy theorist; however, it concerns me slightly that a person’s ID is scanned on the way in and that information is shared with a range of facilities in Northbridge. I do not know what happens to that information after that night and whether it is kept. I would feel safer if young people have two cards, one of which has less information and does not include their home address. It would be one less risk for young people. I fully support that. I have a question about the cost of the second card. In the notes that I read before the parliamentary recess I did not come across the cost of the second card. I certainly hope that the second card will have a reduced fee. I hope that people will not have to pay the full price again—the $35. If the fee was around the $10 mark for the second card it would make it worthwhile and more affordable for a young person. It really is young people who are likely to be getting a second card; it will not be oldies, and I do not think that Aboriginal people will take up this offer across the board—young Aboriginal people may take up this offer. I had a question about the second card and a number of members tonight raised the issue of a concession fee for holders of a concession card. At this stage, the bill does not have a reduced fee for concession-card holders and I think that this is an issue the government has to consider, because I think we should be following in the footsteps of the other states that have a reduced fee for some members of the community. All in all, I have some other potential questions if we go into committee stage, but I am happy to say that I think this is a good initiative. Certainly, if this was around a few years ago when I was younger I would have taken advantage of it. I have raised the issue of the card with a number of young people over the past few months and they have said this is a good initiative. I commend this bill. HON JIM CHOWN (Agricultural — Parliamentary Secretary) [7.42 pm] — in reply: It is a sad indictment on today’s society that upstanding citizens of a democracy need an ID card such as the one we are discussing in this house, in debate on the Western Australian Photo Card Bill 2013. Unfortunately, it is a reality. It always surprises me when I am asked for an ID card or my licence because I am me: “Don’t you know who I am?” For example, at the airport, when someone goes to hop on a domestic flight somewhere, they hand over their ticket and all of their requirements and they are always asked to show their driver’s licence to prove that they are actually who they say they are. Hon Ken Travers: Surely, they would know who you are? Hon JIM CHOWN: They would obviously know who you are, Hon Ken Travers, but not me. I have mixed feelings when I am asked this question because obviously I understand the reason why they are asking for the identification. I feel a bit affronted by the fact that I am being asked for an ID card, then I feel a bit flattered that there might be someone out there in the community who is trying to pretend that they are me. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Oh, God! Hon JIM CHOWN: Exactly! The fact of the matter is that in today’s society for a whole plethora of reasons we need some form of identification. We need identification to access minor service requirements. As has already been said in this house, schools require a grandparent to show an ID that they are the grandparent of the child that they are picking up. I can go on further to add accessing bank accounts, stepping on an aircraft and, certainly, for those a bit younger than I am, to access liquor drinking establishments. I would like to thank all the members in this house for their second reading contributions and their obvious support of this bill. As a matter of statistics, approximately 184 000 people hold a proof-of-age card. It is estimated that if 20 per cent of the 184 000 recipients of the proof-of-age card become photo-ID cardholders, there will be 56 000 applicants once this card becomes available to the Western Australian community. There is obviously a great need for such a card. Community groups that have requested such a card include the Association of Independent Retirees, Alzheimer’s Australia, the Association for the Blind of Western Australia and Blind Citizens of Australia. The proof-of-age card, of which 184 000 are circulating, only really targets people—teenagers—who use it to access licensed drinking establishments. The photo ID card is a different card altogether. The application protocols for accessing a photo ID card are very similar to those for getting a driver’s

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014] 97 licence. There is a bit of a difference between a photo ID card and a driver’s licence. The photo ID card application is purely voluntary; if someone believes they need one, they apply for one. To answer Hon Stephen Dawson’s question, there will be a number of outlets throughout Western Australia, including licensing centres, where someone can apply for a photo ID card. I am sure that all the places where people can apply will be on the relevant website when it gets up and running. There is no point in going down this track if people who require a photo ID card cannot apply for one. The application process — Hon Stephen Dawson: That makes lots of sense, Hon Jim Chown, but sometimes governments do not actually operate like that. Sometimes we say “Okay, we will do this great thing but you can only get it there.” Hon JIM CHOWN: This is a government that tries its best not to operate in that manner. Hon Stephen Dawson: I am pleased to hear that these cards will be available throughout my electorate. Hon JIM CHOWN: Why would a government, such as this, upset possibly 50 000-odd people if they could not apply for their photo ID card? Hon Sue Ellery: Well, the government has upset a lot of other people. Hon JIM CHOWN: We will not go down this track, because at this stage we are debating the photo ID card, but I will finish this conversation by saying that that may be the member’s opinion but it is not the opinion of the majority of the citizens of Western Australia. Hon Ken Travers: There is a limit on where one can get a SmartRider card because there is a commercial arrangement with the people who deliver them. If the government does the same with these cards, then it will restrict the locations where they are available. Hon JIM CHOWN: I stand by my statement that applications for photo identification cards will be accessible through a number of centres throughout Western Australia and those centres will be public knowledge on the appropriate website. The proof-of-age card is not a personal identification card; it is exactly as it states—a proof-of-age card. All that it does is prove that the cardholder is over the legal drinking age so that they can access a licenced liquor establishment. If someone wishes to take the proof-of-age card as proof of identity, that is their choice. The same applies for establishments. To answer another question from Hon Stephen Dawson: it is up to financial institutions—banks—to say whether the photo ID card is an appropriate form of identification for them. The current custom for most establishments is that a licence is proof of a person’s identity. As I have already said, the protocols for an application and the approval of a photo ID card are similar to the licence application regime and very high standards are being maintained. I would assume that in time, once these photo ID cards come into circulation, most of the establishments that use a licence as a form of ID will come to understand the legislation and the requirements and will also accept the photo ID card as proof of identity. We have not legislated that these establishments must do so, nor is there legislation out there regarding licences. Hon Stephen Dawson: Has the department engaged with financial institutions to ensure that when the bill passes they might be more likely to accept it? It would be helpful for people to have it accepted. Hon JIM CHOWN: The financial institutions would be looking at this piece of legislation, fully aware that it is coming forward. Obviously, any financial institution is there to serve its customers; if they do not have customers coming through the door, they are not doing their job and their shareholders would be asking them questions. I do not see any issue in regard to financial institutions accepting this photo ID card in time, once they understand that the requirements to actually carry one are very stringent. Hon Stephen Dawson: They might just need a little nudge, so I hope the government is actually involved in conversations with the institutions. Hon JIM CHOWN: I am more than happy to pass that on to the Minister for Transport and the department. If they want to put out some sort of flyer to the financial institutions stating the facts in regard to the photo ID card, I do not see why not. Hon Ken Travers: While we are doing that by way of interjection, will it be formally recognised under the National Identity Security Strategy gold standard enrolment framework? Hon JIM CHOWN: Yes; the protocols are just the same in regard to the gold standard. Hon Ken Travers: I understand that the protocols are. Will it be formally recognised under that? Anyway, let us do that during Committee of the Whole House. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Hon Simon O’Brien): Yes, I think there is probably better availability for free exchange and discussion as we approach the committee stage; it might be more convenient for all members. Hon JIM CHOWN: I will work backwards through my notes.

98 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014]

In regard to Hon Lynn MacLaren’s query about the system that holds these ID cards being hacked or compromised in some way, I assure the member that the system involved in the database for approved applications of the photo ID card is the same database used for Western Australian driver’s licence applications. It is a database that has very secure protocols and it is checked regularly. If the system was compromised in any manner, as Hon Lynn MacLaren supposed, not only would the photo ID card be called into question, but also every driver’s licence in Western Australia would be. Great efforts are made by the department to ensure that the database is never compromised. I am not saying it can never happen, but at this stage it has not happened and I am unaware of it happening anywhere else in similar databases throughout the nation. That is all I am prepared to say on that matter. Hon Ken Travers spoke about a card issued by Australia Post. I was unaware of the Australia Post card; it was the first time I had heard of it. I have been given some advice, which is that the Australia Post card is an initiative of Australia Post, with which the Western Australian government has no involvement. The government is unaware of why that card is not offered in this state. I guess that may be a question Hon Ken Travers needs to write to Australia Post about. I am not sure what the protocols are in regard to the application of the identity card or proof-of-age card that Australia Post is putting out, but let me once again assure the member that the protocols in the Western Australian Photo Card Bill 2013, as I am sure the member understands, are very stringent and have a very high level in regard to ensuring that the photo ID card that this state is proposing through this legislation will be considered as paramount and virtually foolproof in regard to proving a person’s identity. Hon Ken Travers: When you go on to the Australia Post website, it says it is specifically not available in WA and New South Wales. I prefer our option, because at $35 it will be cheaper than theirs. Hon JIM CHOWN: How much is theirs? Hon Ken Travers: I think it is something like $50 or $55, and I think that is per annum, so this is a lot better. Hon JIM CHOWN: There has been some issue in regard to the pricing of the photo ID card versus driver’s licence, and I thank Hon Simon O’Brien for giving a very fair explanation in regard to the pricing. I will not go into it any further, other than to say that a driver’s licence, in accordance with the Road Traffic Act, allows people to drive a vehicle on a road; in fact, if someone is driving a vehicle on a public road it is mandatory that they have a driver’s licence. The photo ID card application is purely voluntary; it is up to a person whether they need one or not. There is no mandatory requirement to have a photo ID card. In saying that, the cost and the backup required for a driver’s licence is far more than a photo ID card. The photo ID card will cost approximately $35, as has been discussed by members. It will cost $7 a year, which is about $1 more than a cup of coffee, depending on where we buy our coffee. Hon Ken Travers: You must go to an expensive coffee shop! What yuppie hangout do you go to? Hon JIM CHOWN: I spent my Christmas in Melbourne, and $3.50 to $5.50 here is a big difference for the same cup of coffee! Hon Ken Travers: Don’t talk down WA, parliamentary secretary! Talk it up! Hon JIM CHOWN: I am not talking down WA—absolutely! We have better coffee here, hence the premium price! What I am getting to is that $35, yes, for some budgets may be a massive impost. I am sure that most people who need a photo ID card can find $35 over five years. Hon Ken Travers: You could use that same argument for a driver’s licence for an age pensioner. Hon JIM CHOWN: As I said, the concession for an age pensioner is a bit different to the photo ID card, and it is voluntary. My mother is not an age pensioner, but she happens to be 90 years old and still drives; if she was an age pensioner she would still be able to drive, and therefore she would need a driver’s licence. Hon Ken Travers: And she then gets, as a bonus, a driver’s licence that does the same thing as this card is going to do for her. Hon JIM CHOWN: She does not need this card because she has a driver’s licence. Hon Ken Travers: But the person that does not have a driver’s licence does need the card—that is the point! Hon JIM CHOWN: Hon Ken Travers raised the issue of privatisation and the issuing of cards. Clause 20 is modelled on section 6B of the Road Traffic Act. Under section 6B of the Road Traffic Act, the director general is able to receive licence payments at some Australian outlets such as post offices et cetera, and local shires in regional areas. In further response to Hon Stephen Dawson, the WA public can access some of the licensing services at these locations. Clause 20 will enable the WA public to apply for photo cards at these locations or at any Department of Transport licensing centre. I do not know how many licensing centres there are throughout the state, but I am sure there are more than enough for the requirements of applicants.

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014] 99

Hon Stephen Dawson: So every licensing centre, and where else? Hon JIM CHOWN: Department of Transport licensing centres and post offices. Hon Ken Travers had some issues about the contracting of the printing of the card versus drivers’ licences. I inform the honourable member that WA photo cards will be produced by the same private provider that currently issues drivers’ licences. I will get on to some of the requirements in the bill in response to further questions in a minute. This private provider has been used by successive governments for many years without any issues, and very strict security requirements are in place to ensure that nothing untoward happens during the printing of these cards, be they photo ID cards or the drivers’ licences that we all carry in our wallets or purses. This service also provides services to other government agencies such as the police department for the issuing of firearms licences, which is a card that I carry in my wallet, and I am sure Hon Rick Mazza carries a couple! Hon Ken Travers also asked a question in regard to misuse of the card. Clause 11(4), “Other offences relating to photo cards”, states — A person must not, without lawful excuse, have in the person’s possession with intent to deceive, a photo card, or an article resembling a photo card. Clause 11(1) to (5) deals with a range of offences relating to misuse of the photo card, with a penalty of $2 500. I bring members’ attention to clause 17(4) in response to Hon Ken Travers’ query, which reads — A person employed or engaged in connection with any aspect of the production of photo cards or otherwise concerned in the administration of this Act must not, other than for the purposes of this Act — (a) reproduce, by any means, a photograph or signature; or (b) cause or permit another person to do so. Penalty for an offence under this subsection: imprisonment for 2 years. In effect, anybody involved in the production of this particular card who passes one off or reproduces one will go before a court and face a possible penalty of two years’ imprisonment. There are substantial fines and terms of imprisonment for anybody who misuses a Western Australian photo card. Maybe we can get into the question of the delegation of powers in committee. Other than that, I would like to wind up by saying the amendment to clause 24 proposed by Hon Ken Travers would amend the cost of the card in reflection to the Western Australian driver’s licence. The amendment would allow a concessional fee for age pensioners. I have already discussed the reasons why, but the fee will be the fee as stated in the bill. The government will not entertain this amendment. Question put and passed. Bill read a second time. Committee The Deputy Chair of Committees (Hon Simon O’Brien) in the chair; Hon Jim Chown (Parliamentary Secretary) in charge of the bill. Clause 1: Short title — Hon KEN TRAVERS: I just want to follow on from the interchange I had with the parliamentary secretary by way of interjection about how the card will be treated. As I understand it, currently under the National Identity Security Strategy gold standard enrolment framework, which we can call GSEF for the purposes of the debate tonight, a driver’s licence is listed as a category B document. Will this identity card become a category B document for the purposes of that national framework? Hon JIM CHOWN: Unfortunately, not every state has a photo ID card and in fact once this goes through it will only be this state and New South Wales that have one. The national gold framework requires certain protocols, as the member has just explained. We are fairly confident that the process involved will meet the requirements of the gold standard framework for photo ID. Hon KEN TRAVERS: As I understand it, the requirements will be to present different options for different categories of document and then the photo ID is the document we end up with at the end of the process in the same way as an application for a driver’s licence. Is the parliamentary secretary saying that it will be accepted as part of that framework or will it only be accepted as part of that framework if every other state does a photo card as well? Will it become a document that is then only accepted in that framework? My understanding is that banks will not be able to use this as an identity document unless it is formally acknowledged by that national framework. It needs to be made clear to people whether this will now become a document that is acceptable to banks.

100 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014]

Hon JIM CHOWN: The gold standard is a commonwealth framework. As I said before, this will be something new in regard to the application of the gold standard. At this stage we are reasonably comfortable that we will meet the protocols for the gold standard, but we cannot guarantee that those requirements will be met. Hon Ken Travers: Has there not been any engagement with the commonwealth about this? Hon JIM CHOWN: Not at this stage, because these are state initiatives. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I will just make this comment. I think the minister is right—I mean the parliamentary secretary; I keep promoting him ahead of time, but when ministers around the place retire a year out, I am sure the parliamentary secretary will get the call under the rotation policy! I am quite amazed that the government has not sought to engage with the commonwealth with respect to this bill. I hope that once this bill is passed it will be proclaimed fairly quickly because I think people have been waiting for it and that is why before the summer break I indicated a willingness to the Leader of the House to ensure it was put through quite quickly, on that last day. I was happy to facilitate it and I think we even sat around for half an hour because I want to see this out and about in the community. I have to say I am absolutely astounded that there has not already been an engagement with the commonwealth to get it to accept this legislation for no other reason than if we have missed something, we could have the commonwealth identify it so it could be put into the legislation today. We should have gone to the commonwealth, told it we are confident that the legislation complies with the national framework and asked it for the tick-off before putting this bill to this house. When Hon Simon O’Brien gave his speech earlier this evening he gave us a bit of a history of this matter and said that this has not been an overnight bill that we had to rush to get sorted out. I think it shows disorganisation in planning that there was no attempt to try to engage with the commonwealth about whether this would meet that national framework, so if there was anything wrong, we could have factored it in. I just make those comments. Obviously, at this point of the debate there is nothing we can do to deal with this matter. If this bill does not meet those obligations, we will probably have to come back with an amended one. It would be absolutely crazy if it ends up that this card is not treated in the same way as a driver’s licence and does not become a category B document for that national framework. In my view it would defeat at least a large part of the purpose of the passage of this legislation. I will not say anything more about it; I just make those points. I certainly hope in future that if things like this are being dealt with, the government will try to be a bit proactive and engage with the commonwealth to confirm that what we are passing meets its criteria and that it intends to add it to its framework. Hon JIM CHOWN: To add some further information regarding the question of the gold standard, the gold standard acceptance of a card is about the enrolment process. Once the enrolment process meets the criteria, it virtually guarantees that it will be adopted by the gold standard. The gold standard is not legislation; it is administration. Just for the member’s information, as I have said previously, the photo ID card application form is similar to that for the Western Australian driver’s licence. The Western Australian driver’s licence enrolment process has been adopted by the gold standard. With the protocols in place in this bill we are reasonably confident that the photo ID card will also be adopted by the gold standard. Applications have been made to the administrators of the gold standard informing them what is, hopefully, about to take place in this house regarding the requirements of enrolment. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I have been stewing slightly over the answer the parliamentary secretary gave me about consultation with financial institutions. I hope that with some advisers present they may well be able to advise what consultation, if any, has happened with financial institutions. We have certainly known in this place for a number of months that the bill is here. As Hon Simon O’Brien has said, this bill has been in the making for a while. I hope the agency has had conversations with financial institutions because I think one of the benefits of this card could well be that it is accepted by banks as primary identification. Can the parliamentary secretary give us more of a sense about what consultation has occurred? Hon JIM CHOWN: Without repeating what I have said previously, there has been no consultation with financial institutions about the implementation of the photo ID card. However, as has been stated more than once by various members in this place, the photo ID card involves the same protocols and legislative framework as the Western Australian driver’s licence. Applicants will need to provide quite extensive proof of identity requirements before they are issued with a photo ID card. If the photo ID card application process is similar to that of a Western Australian driver’s licence, it is reasonable to expect that banks et cetera will accept it as proof of identity. Part of the process by the Department of Transport and the ministry will be to write to financial institutions throughout the state informing them that the photo ID card is about to be launched and that the protocols surrounding application for and approval of a photo ID card are very stringent and similar to those of a driver’s licence. Whether the institutions accept that is up to them. As I said earlier, it would be entirely reasonable to think a bank or a financial institution with 40 000-odd potential customers with a photo ID card would be very happy with the protocols attached to its approval, which are similar to those of a driver’s licence, and would accept it as proof of identity.

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014] 101

The DEPUTY CHAIR (Hon Simon O’Brien): Without giving an opportunity for a rerun of the second reading debate, clause 1 gives some latitude—I am certainly giving latitude—to allow related matters to be canvassed. It is a good opportunity for members to ask the sponsoring member at the table how the government will implement this Western Australian Photo Card Bill when it passes. Although there is the capacity to ask questions about the sort of consultation, I am having difficulty relating that to specific clauses of the bill. Members are highlighting that there is other work to be done, but the time does come to move on to what is in the bill. I remind members that there is capacity to ask questions and receive answers but then we need to get on with the bill itself. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Once this bill is passed, what will the government do to make financial institutions aware that this card is now available? I suspect that if there is no information campaign, and they are not aware of it or of the security provisions or checks and balances, they may reject it for a while. Is there a plan by the government to promote and market it among financial institutions and other bodies it thinks this will be of benefit to? Hon JIM CHOWN: As I have already stated, there is an intention to write to all these institutions informing them of all the requirements for application and approval of the photo ID card. That will be by formal communication. I am sure that will be followed up properly if some of the institutions have any queries about the photo ID card’s relevance as proof of ID. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I imagine there will also need to be some sort of education for licensed premises so they get used to this as an alternative to the proof-of-age card. I feel quietly confident that that is part of the process because of the amalgamation, effectively, of the two cards under this legislation. Hon JIM CHOWN: A photo ID card is entirely new for Western Australia. I am fairly confident that the community will adopt it in time. With any new process, it takes time for people to understand what is being provided, its availability and how to access it. That, of course, is about letting it be known in the wider community. I do not see any government of any persuasion not providing this information about something that will be of benefit to 40 000-odd people in the state. Hon KATE DOUST: Unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity to raise any matters during the second reading debate. We recently heard media stories about identity theft occurring in the metropolitan area over the last few weeks. It is very easy for people to scour through mail boxes and extract documents and cards. The bill contains penalties for people who use other signatures or photos. Given the changing technology and the range of cards we all use as part of our daily lives, various types of chips are inserted into the cards for both identity purposes and security of the card. Is there any provision in this legislation to ensure that this particular card is issued only to the person who applied for it and it cannot be stolen or replicated without permission? Has the government thought that far about what sort of technology it will apply in the production of these cards to address the security issues that may arise given the frequency of identity theft? I am curious whether that issue has been canvassed or any work has been done in that space. Hon JIM CHOWN: The member raises an interesting question. The bill has provisions for the chief executive officer to approve the format of the card. That format currently has a number of security features. In regard to the point Hon Kate Doust was alluding to about an identification chip that is personal to a person — Hon Kate Doust: I say that as an example. It could be a range of other options. Hon JIM CHOWN: A number of security features are embedded in the card. The photo card application form has a lot of cross-references with it—that is, the transport executive and licensing information system—similar to licence applications. Obviously, the further steps are taken to make this card secure for an individual, the greater the cost increases. It is as simple as that. There has to be a balance of what is required on the card and the cost for applicants. At this stage, the government is happy that the security features in the card are more than adequate for those people requiring it. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Is it the government’s intention that the database for this card will be the TRELIS database or is a completely new database being set up for recording information? Hon JIM CHOWN: It will be a stand-alone database that will sit within the TRELIS framework. I am not an information technology expert but I assume that means that the database will be separate from other databases within the system. Hon Ken Travers: But interfaced with them? Hon JIM CHOWN: No, because a separate photograph is required. Hon KEN TRAVERS: May I suggest that at some point, with photo facial recognition and other things now being put into databases, and photography, that the ability to cross-reference between the two databases will be important in the future. I would not be surprised if cross-references would start to occur to identify whether people have created false identities, with different licences, say because of the picture. I do not know if that is

102 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014] what the government is doing at the moment, but I imagine at some point in the future, if not us, then a future government will hand it all over to ASIO and it will do that. It would strike me that that sort of cross-matching would be useful at some point in the future. I would urge the government when it is setting up the database for this card that there is that interface. I am surprised it is not set up as a subset of the TRELIS database. Unless the parliamentary secretary wants to respond to me on that matter, I will go to another question. Hon Jim Chown: Are you asking a question? Hon KEN TRAVERS: I was simply making a comment and asking whether the parliamentary secretary wanted to respond to those comments. I was not specifically asking a question; I was just making the point that as we go into the future I would expect—in fact, I would hope—that one of the things that the department will start to do is a cross-match of the face. As I understand, this bill will provide for facial recognition technology to be built into the material and that would allow for checks to be carried out on whether prisoners who are sentenced to three years gaol are being released after three months to take puppies out for walks and we will be able to find out if they have an identity under another name, like the one that was found in their flat when they were arrested on parole. But I digress. In all seriousness, that would be a classic case where facial recognition technology could be used to run a quick check on the database to see if someone with the same facial characteristics has another driver’s licence under a false name. Hon JIM CHOWN: Part of the system, obviously, checks for duplications. It is essential that such checking is done, otherwise what is the point of having a photo ID card or even a driver’s licence that can be reproduced elsewhere or held by somebody who should not have it? This is part of the system checks that are in place to ensure that people who receive a photo ID card have a valid photo ID card. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I want to quickly touch on the interface with clause 6(4)(a). Hon Jim Chown: Are we still on the short title? Hon KEN TRAVERS: We are, but I want to talk about how a couple of clauses relate to each other, and the most appropriate place to discuss that is under this section. The DEPUTY CHAIR (Hon Simon O’Brien): Perhaps I misheard Hon Ken Travers, but it sounds as though the matter he wants to raise specifically raises a question under clause 6. Hon KEN TRAVERS: No, it is ranging across a number of clauses. The DEPUTY CHAIR: Might it be more appropriate or convenient to raise it when we get to those clauses? Hon KEN TRAVERS: No, because there are a range of general matters and it is about how a range of clauses interrelate. I think that this is the most appropriate time to do that. I would not do it unless I thought it this was the appropriate place to do it, Mr Deputy Chair. The DEPUTY CHAIR: Please proceed. Hon KEN TRAVERS: It is worth being clear that, as I understand, the default position is that the card will show the name, the photo of the person, the date of birth, their signature, and it will be their choice whether they tick a box to have their address included on it. That is my understanding of the card. Then it will also have a signature on it, as I understand, unless it is a person who under clause 6(4)(a) is a person with a disability who is unable to sign because of a permanent disability. I would like the parliamentary secretary to clarify the structure of the card—although I am a happy to leave this part, but I will flag it now—and whether someone who is illiterate will be required, as is traditionally the case, to make a cross or will they be treated as having a disability and, therefore, not be required to have a signature at all on the card? I would like the minister to clarify those issues about the structure of the card. The DEPUTY CHAIR: All of those matters will be dealt with when the committee gets into the detail of coming clauses, and that is the more appropriate place to deal with them. We will look forward to that. Hon KEN TRAVERS: The next point that would have arisen out of that, which relates to how this bill will operate with other pieces of legislation, is that people will have the option of not having their address on this card, but people do not have that option on a driver’s licence. Does the government intend to make that option available to people with drivers’ licences or, if they want a photo ID without an address on it, will they need to apply for one of these cards? The DEPUTY CHAIR: The parliamentary secretary may wish to address this now or under clause 8, which is about form and content of the photo card. Hon Ken Travers: No, because it is about the driver’s licence. The DEPUTY CHAIR: Hon Ken Travers, I have a responsibility here to the Committee of the Whole to make sure that we progress the bill in accordance with the standing orders. The question the member raises clearly falls

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014] 103 under clause 8. As is the normal case, I will allow a little bit of latitude, and if the parliamentary secretary believes he can deal with it properly now, I will allow him, or the matter can be deferred so it can be discussed in detail in clause 8. Does the parliamentary secretary want the call? Hon JIM CHOWN: I am more than happy to address the question regarding clause 8. Obviously, an address is required on a driver’s licence because a driver’s licence is a licence to drive and there are enforcement issues in regard to infringements under the Road Traffic Act. The member is correct that in regard to a photo ID card a person can either apply for one with or without an address. The reason for that is that an address would be required by most institutions or in most instances when proof of identity is required. The reality is that this will replace the proof-of-age card in time. As has already been stated in this house, a number of people, including younger males and females, will use this card. It will be predominantly females who will not want their addresses taken down when they use this card or have it photocopied to access a nightclub or whatever. They will have the option. They will actually be able to apply for both types of card if they wish. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I do not want to test the patience of the Chair, but this goes to whether we need to put other clauses into the legislation. If the position is adopted that there is a need for someone to have an identity card that does not have an address on it, my concern, using the parliamentary secretary’s example of nightclubs, is that I suspect nightclubs will want to know where a person lives so that if something goes wrong, they can track that person down. Does the current proof-of-age card have an address on it or not? Hon Jim Chown: No. Hon KEN TRAVERS: A lot of the hotels scan the cards into their databases and do a range of things with them, including, I suspect, selling them for marketing purposes—they probably do it on the sly. Hon JIM CHOWN: The proof-of-age card includes a name, date, signature and photo but no address. Clause put and passed. Clauses 2 and 3 put and passed. Clause 4: Eligibility for photo card — Hon KEN TRAVERS: This is something I briefly raised in my contribution to the second reading debate. I do not understand why we need clause 4(c) in the bill. What possible requirements could there be other than that a person be a resident and over the age of 16? Hon JIM CHOWN: Clause 4(c) reflects any advances made in technology in regard to cards, databases et cetera. It will futureproof other requirements that we may not even be aware of in regard to photo ID cards. That is the reason for it. Hon KEN TRAVERS: With all due respect, I find that trying to pass legislation that includes a catch-all clause that will enable the legislation to be changed by regulation for things that cannot even be contemplated today is not the way to do it. My personal view is that we should pass legislation in terms of what we think is appropriate today. Should something arise in the future, the government of the day can then come back and seek the permission of the house to make any relevant changes. This is not about technology; this is about the requirements. In terms of advances in technology, I would have thought that that would be covered by other provisions, such as what the application process might be and the issuing of the card, and in the form and content of the bill. All the other clauses that we are about to go through would come up in terms of future technology. The simple fact is that the eligibility requirements for a person to get this card are that they be a resident in the state and over the age of 16. That is pretty straightforward. My personal view is that if something changes in the future that causes us to want to change the eligibility criteria, then that should be a decision of the whole Parliament and should not be done by way of regulation. I will not move to oppose the clause; I just wanted to put that on the record. Clause put and passed. Clause 5: Application for photo card — Hon KEN TRAVERS: The bill contains a whole range of requirements. Under subclause (3), when someone applies for a photo card they will have to provide — (a) such evidence as the CEO requires to satisfy the CEO of the applicant’s eligibility, identity and residential address; and (b) where relevant, a photograph and a signature in accordance with section 6; and (c) the prescribed fee. I have two questions on that. How will these matters that are determined by the CEO be published and made available to people, and why is this simply a decision of the CEO rather than being prescribed by regulation?

104 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014]

Hon JIM CHOWN: These requirements mirror the current requirements for application for a driver’s licence in Western Australia. Hon Ken Travers: That doesn’t make it right. Hon JIM CHOWN: It is accepted practice. The application form and website will follow the gold standard and will be available reasonably soon, once this bill is passed by the Parliament. I think we covered most of this in our response to the second reading debate. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I am allowed to put on the record that, whether it is in other acts or not, there is a constant move towards removing the role of the Parliament from legislation. I am just making that point. Every time the government brings in legislation that does that, I will keep bringing it up. As the government brings in more legislation and the pile of examples gets higher, the government will be able to quote more and more bills that set the example of it, but it will still not make it right. It undermines the role of this house, of which I will continually remind the conservatives in this house, who so often try to proclaim that they preserve the integrity of this place, every time they unwind it. I again make those points about handing over power to the CEO. This is a matter that could easily have been prescribed by regulation, which would provide a clear process for publication and be very clear to people. There is another part of clause 5 that I want to briefly raise. Under subclauses (4) and (5), a person cannot apply for an extension of a card earlier than six months prior to the expiry date of the card unless they are applying for a replacement or an additional card. I do not know whether the parliamentary secretary is in a position to tell us what the cost of a replacement card will be. I think that came up in the second reading debate but my impression was that the parliamentary secretary was not in a position to tell us what that cost would be at that stage. I am pretty confident that there will be a cost. This government does not do anything for free these days—everywhere one turns the government is putting its hand in people’s pockets to get some more money out of them. There is going to be a cost. I do not understand why there needs to be an exclusion from someone applying for the extension of a card prior to six months before the expiry date of the card. The point I make is that if a person has one of these cards and loses it eight months before it is due to expire, why, instead of paying for a replacement card that will last only eight months, would that person not be able to apply for a whole new card that will last for five years and for which they pay $35? I do not understand what the problem is in allowing someone to apply for a new card eight or 12 months out from the expiry of their old card, or even four years after buying their first card, rather than applying for a replacement card because they have lost their card and then having to go through the whole process again eight months later. What is the purpose behind subclause (4) and does the parliamentary secretary know what the cost of a replacement or an additional card will be? Hon JIM CHOWN: The cost of the extra card is yet to be finalised, but going by the cost of a replacement driver’s licence, which is considerably cheaper, we assume the extra card will cost less than the estimated $35. Hon Ken Travers: What is today’s cost of a replacement driver’s licence? Hon JIM CHOWN: I will get back to the member about that shortly. A number of pieces of legislation have provisions similar to the driver’s licence application. This clause mirrors what is required for a Western Australian driver’s licence. The cost of a replacement driver’s licence is $34.80. Hon KEN TRAVERS: It is interesting because when we get to the cost for an aged pensioner, I suspect the parliamentary secretary will tell us how this is so different from a driver’s licence. We are now being told the reason that this is being done is that it is the same as a driver’s licence. I still make the point that just because this provision is in another act does not mean it is logical, sensible or right. It may be that a previous Parliament did not pick it up or see it. Rather than just saying that the provision is somewhere else, there must be logical reasoning behind putting in the bill a clause that will have negative implications for people. Hon Stephen Dawson may lose his ID card about eight months before it expires. He may decide to go to the licensing centre to renew it and get a new one for the next five years. By that stage, Hon Stephen Dawson probably thinks he will have his driver’s licence and he will be very happy. However, he will be told, “Sorry, you have to pay $34.80 to get a replacement card for only two months”, and he will then have to apply for a new card that will last for five years. That does not make sense. I cannot think of a logical reason for clause 5(4). I ask the parliamentary secretary—I do not want to hear that it is in some other legislation—what the logic is behind the exclusion period that prevents a person from getting a new card issued earlier than six months before the expiry date of the existing card. Hon JIM CHOWN: The member is getting his As and Bs mixed up, because there is nothing to stop a person who loses his card from requesting a duplicate card. Clause 5(4) stops somebody from requesting a new card, not a duplicate. Hon KEN TRAVERS: My point is that the government will make them pay $34.80 for a duplicate card, replacement card or whatever we want to call it that may expire in eight months’ time. Why would the government not let people apply for a whole new card that will last for five years? It does not make sense. The

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014] 105 thing that amazes me about young people is the speed at which they get their driver’s licence. I was at the licensing centre on my birthday to sit my driving test. I got the first available appointment, which was at 10 o’clock, but I was a bit disappointed that I could not get in at 9.00 am. These days a lot of young people do not get their licence until they reach their twenties. There is every chance that young people will get an ID card, but lose it towards the end of the period of that card. They may be looking at getting their driver’s licence, but the government is going to put up a financial barrier. One would be reasonably confident that having had their card from age 16, at the age of 21 they would, within the next two, three or four years, get their driver’s licence and no longer need this card. Why could they not pay the one fee if they are prepared to lose that eight months and get a new card that lasts until they are 26? The government will make them pay $70. There is no logic to clause 5(4). Hon JIM CHOWN: I have listened to the member’s debate on this issue. The reality is that if the photo ID card is to receive the same acceptance in the community as an ID card similar to the driver’s licence, we do not want to upset the protocols in place, which have worked. We need to maintain in the community a level of confidence. Protocols for applications and approval are proven protocols. Hon Stephen Dawson questioned whether they will be accepted by financial institutions. If we change proven protocols, we will undermine the confidence of some financial institutions. Clause put and passed. Clause 6: Provision of photograph and signature — Hon KEN TRAVERS: This clause uses the term “provision”, but I want to be clear. I assume again this will operate almost identically to a driver’s licence in that a person will attend at a location and have his photograph taken. It is not like getting a passport and going to a photo booth for a photo on which someone will sign the back. I assume that the only way people can get one of these is the same way as getting a driver’s licence. People will have to attend so that someone can take an electronic image that is added to the database and processed. Am I right in that understanding? Hon JIM CHOWN: Correct. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I will probably get the same answer in that this is the way it is written in the Road Traffic Act! It is probably time to update the legislation so that it reflects what will happen, because it is all written in terms of providing a photograph when it is the intention of having a photograph taken by an authorised officer for inclusion. I imagine the signature will have to be on a set form. For those looking at this legislation, it will be good to have that explanation. Traditionally, if someone is unable to sign their name, an X is treated as a legitimate signature. Is it the intention that that will still be the case? If someone is illiterate will that be considered a permanent disability? How will clause 6(4)(a) operate in that regard? Hon JIM CHOWN: The intention is that a permanent disability is a physical disability. An X or a cross will be accepted in the same way as we accept a formal signature. Clause put and passed. Clause 7 put and passed. Clause 8: Form and content of photo card — Hon KEN TRAVERS: When someone has a disability and is unable to sign, as opposed to making a mark with an X or a cross, what will the card show? Will it just be a blank space or will it identify it? In trying to maintain that consistency so that people understand it, what provisions will there be for people so that they understand why there is not a signature on the card? Hon JIM CHOWN: At this stage, the signature will be a blank space. Obviously, it will be self-evident to the recipient of the identification card that the person suffers some sort of physical disability. Clause put and passed. Clause 9: Duration of photo card — Hon KATE DOUST: Given the time it takes to get a card set up, what sort of wait time will there be for people to receive it? Once they have applied for it and their photo has been taken, how long will it be before they get the card in their hands? Hon JIM CHOWN: The wait time after application and approval will be around five to 10 days. I have just got my new driver’s licence. It arrived in my post box about eight days after application. It is envisaged that the time frame will be very similar. Hon KATE DOUST: Clause 9 refers to regulations. Have those regulations been drafted; and, if so, is a copy of the regulations available?

106 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014]

Hon JIM CHOWN: No, the regulations have not been drafted. In fact, it is normal practice to draft regulations after a bill has passed through the chamber. Clause put and passed. Clause 10: Cancellation of photo card — Hon KATE DOUST: Can the parliamentary secretary explain what circumstances will have to occur for the CEO to consider that the cardholder is no longer an eligible person? Will it simply be that they may have obtained a licence or would there be other circumstances that might have arisen for a card to be cancelled? Hon JIM CHOWN: The answer to the question is that it is if the CEO considers that the cardholder is no longer an eligible person. As stated earlier in the bill, to be eligible, a person has to be an ordinary resident of Western Australia. Hon KATE DOUST: So is that the only criterion that will be applied to cancel an individual’s card or are there other situations in which a card will be cancelled? Hon JIM CHOWN: That is an example under clause 10(1)(a). Clause 10(1)(b) states — if the CEO considers that the cardholder obtained the photo card on the basis of incorrect or misleading information … Obviously, if a person has been granted a card and it has been proved that the information that the person put forward is incorrect or misleading, the card will be cancelled. Hon KATE DOUST: Clause 10(1)(d) states — on such other grounds (if any) as are prescribed. What would those other grounds be, aside from those matters that we have already canvassed? What are “such other grounds”? Hon JIM CHOWN: This is just further futureproofing. An example is that in New South Wales, certain convictions are taken into consideration for the photo identification card. That matter is not policy in this state, but if the policy outcomes change, this will allow future prescription of the requirements for the photo identification card. Hon KATE DOUST: It is interesting that the parliamentary secretary has raised that point. We have already had the discussion that regulations may be set down. Will a potential list of “such other grounds”, as referred to in that paragraph, be prescribed in the regulations? Hon JIM CHOWN: No, not at this stage. As I said, this is futureproofing the bill. It is as simple as that. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I was just looking at this clause. If the person feels aggrieved that the CEO has taken their card off them without due regard, where would they take action? Would they be required to go to the Supreme Court or would they have access to the State Administrative Tribunal? Hon JIM CHOWN: If the card has been cancelled and the person believes that the cancellation has been done on invalid grounds, there is nothing to stop them from reapplying. They can put forward an application. Hon KEN TRAVERS: That may be the case, but I thought that a person might be able to apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of the decision if they felt that they had been treated harshly in having their card taken off them. I think that a lot of people would want that right to appeal if they felt that they had done no wrong. If the reason the card was taken off a person was based on incorrect or misleading information, and they believed that the CEO had completely misunderstood their circumstances and wrongly reached a conclusion on the basis of incorrect or misleading information, the CEO would still be likely not to give them a card if they reapplied because they had just had the card taken off them. They still would not have the ability to have it reviewed so that they could say that they did not do anything wrong. A lot of people out there would, say, as a matter of principle, want to have the option of proving or having it considered by somebody else that they never did anything wrong. I am surprised that we do not have some form of appeal to the State Administrative Tribunal. Hon JIM CHOWN: It would be very rare that this would happen because the gatekeeping provisions on application are fairly stringent. It rarely happens in regard to driver’s licence applications, but let us say that it did happen, as the member has alluded to. The normal process in regard to anything that someone feels aggrieved about would be in place. Therefore, they can go and address the issue with their local member of Parliament; they could actually write to the CEO, or write to the relevant minister—that is, the Minister for Transport or the ombudsman. Hon KEN TRAVERS: But that does not say that the decision can be reversed. They cannot direct the CEO to reverse it. I hope the parliamentary secretary is not suggesting that the minister will direct the CEO to reverse a decision that he has made.

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014] 107

Hon JIM CHOWN: If a mistake is found in regard to the application, and the CEO has deemed that the cardholder’s card is not eligible, and it is not, the Interpretation Act actually lets him correct that mistake. Clause put and passed. Clause 11: Other offences relating to photo cards — Hon KEN TRAVERS: I asked this question, but I am not sure whether the parliamentary secretary completely understood the question I was getting to. It may have been the way I put it in the second reading debate; so I accept that. Does the government intend to have a provision in this bill—the only one that I could see that I think fits, is clause 11(4)—that makes it an offence for someone to present a card for use as entry into a nightclub, to misuse one of these cards by turning up and presenting it or using someone else’s card to gain entry into a nightclub by suggesting that they are over 18 when it is not their card; is this the section where that will occur or would it be that the person would simply be charged under the liquor act for being under age or the like in the pub? I would have thought that there would need to be some sort of provision for when someone actually improperly presents one of these cards to gain entry; that it should be considered. Is this the section where that would be the case? Namely, a young 17-year-old grabs the older brother’s or sister’s ID card, goes down to the pub and says, “Here’s my ID”, to gain entry to the pub. Where would that person be charged, or is it not the intention that they be charged under this legislation? Hon JIM CHOWN: The simple answer to the member’s question about the issues he has raised are addressed under the Liquor Control Act 1988, section 126, subsection 2(a) and (b). Hon Kate Doust: And what does it say? Hon JIM CHOWN: It says — (2) A person who — (a) fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with a requirement under subsection (1); or (b) makes a statement, or produces alleged evidence, that is false or misleading in any material respect in response to the requirement, commits an offence. Penalty: a fine of $2 000. Hon KEN TRAVERS: That was one example, but I can imagine there may be other examples where someone tries to use an ID card to try and get some benefit or use out of that to create the false impression that they are older than they are. It may not necessarily always be under the liquor act; however, would clause 4 be relied upon to prosecute them or is there somewhere else in this bill that I have missed where they will be able to be prosecuted? Hon JIM CHOWN: Most of the issues raised by Hon Ken Travers are covered in the Criminal Code, which has overarching powers in regard to criminal acts such as he has alluded to. Hon KEN TRAVERS: What is the purpose then of clause 11(4)? Hon JIM CHOWN: Clause 11(4) is there to make provisions within the bill to ensure that this card has a high standard. Obviously, we need to state that there are some penalties in regard to offences, such as deceiving with the card, et cetera. Obviously, if a police officer pulls somebody up and asks them for their ID, they are required to provide it. It should be that the card presented is proven to be the cardholder’s identification. This just covers a number of examples such as that. Hon KEN TRAVERS: But there is no requirement for someone to present this to a police officer, is there? Or is the intent that police officers will now be asking people to provide one of these cards when they stop them? Is this the parliamentary secretary’s new Australia card? Hon JIM CHOWN: Under the Criminal Investigation Act, a police officer is allowed to ask for a person’s name and address. Hon Ken Travers: They do not have to provide any proof of it, though. Hon JIM CHOWN: It would be reasonable. Someone can be asked to establish his or her bona fides by a police officer, surely. Hon Ken Travers: You tell me; I do not think you are. I think you are required to provide a name and address. Hon JIM CHOWN: A photo ID card, as we discussed previously, will have the same standard as a driver’s licence, which is used today as an ID card. The ID card is not replacing a driver’s licence, but it is relevant to those people who do not have a driver’s licence in the community, hence the clause.

108 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014]

Hon KEN TRAVERS: The parliamentary secretary is making me very nervous. Hon Jim Chown: I always make you nervous, Hon Ken Travers! Hon KEN TRAVERS: He does! I am wondering whether the police state is coming! Under the current law, if a police officer pulls someone over and he or she is driving a motor vehicle, they will either ask that they present their driver’s licence. If they do not have it on them, the police can require that it be presented to a police station within a certain number of days. There is no actual requirement, although, in other states and the United States, people are required to carry their licence if driving a motor vehicle. When asked to present it, they must present it and it is actually an offence if they cannot. In Western Australia, if someone is driving a vehicle and is pulled over by a police officer, there is no requirement to present a driver’s licence. Likewise, if someone is walking down the street and is stopped by a police officer, he or she is required to give their name and address, but there is no requirement to prove identity. In fact, I think under the Public Transport Authority Act, when a transit officer asks a passenger for his or her name and address, they are required to provide it. However, there is absolutely no requirement for anyone to provide any evidence to substantiate what their name and address is. I am starting to get a bit worried, from the parliamentary secretary’s answers, whether the government is starting to proceed down a path of getting this bill in, and then the next thing will be that it will become compulsory to have either a driver’s licence or one of these cards. Then, the next stage beyond that will be the need for people to show their licence when stopped by a police officer, even though they are a completely law-abiding citizen and there is no reason to do it. Can the parliamentary secretary absolutely guarantee to the house that that is not the government’s intention? Hon JIM CHOWN: I am happy to guarantee that is not the government’s intention. In relation to a statement by the member, under the Road Traffic Act, people are required on request by a police officer to produce their driver’s licence. Hon Ken Travers: Within a certain number of days. Hon JIM CHOWN: Or to present it to the local police station within 24 hours. Hon Ken Travers: Yes, that is what I said. Clause put and passed. Clause 12 put and passed. Clause 13: Register — Hon KATE DOUST: I am just looking at the detail of the information that has to be provided on a register, specifically clause 13(1)(c)—“the cardholder’s last known residential address”. The parliamentary secretary has talked about how this will probably be taken up by a whole range of younger people—predominantly young women; I actually think this card will be taken up by all sorts of individuals, including a lot more senior people, like my mother and a whole lot of constituents I deal with who no longer drive, be they male or female. But I also think it will be taken up by homeless people, because in most cases they do not carry around substantial forms of identity. I imagine that having access to a card like this would be of some advantage to them. But as we know, there are unfortunately a growing number of people in our city who no longer live in a traditional home environment and who may be sofa surfing or living on the streets or in shopping malls or office doorways or in a tent across the road. I am just wondering in relation to “last known residential address”, how far back does that go? How current must that be? That raises other problems around how the card is distributed to the individual and how they will be verified. Given that we have a growing number of people, sadly, in that situation, I am just wondering how that type of information will be managed for those people. For some people their last known residential address could have been years ago and have absolutely no relevance to them anymore at all. How will that be dealt with? Hon JIM CHOWN: There is no ulterior motive with clause 13(1)(c). This is part of the gold standard protocols, but the reality is that if someone does not have an address, the CEO has a discretion to accept that person for who they say they are. Clause put and passed. Clauses 14 to 17 put and passed. Clause 18: Delegation of functions of CEO — Hon KEN TRAVERS: Under clause 18(3) the CEO is required to get the minister’s permission for the purposes of delegating someone with a power or duty if they are not employed by the department. Clause 18(4) allows a class of persons to be specified, so clearly each individual will not need to be named; I assume a person employed by Australia Post or whatever will be able to do it. I assume that in the first stage the intention will be to authorise the same people who are currently able to do driver’s licences and the like outside the department. Have we thought about the classes of persons who are likely to be specified, and do we have a list of the ones

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014] 109 who are currently specified as being approved by the minister in respect of similar clauses in the Road Traffic Act? Hon JIM CHOWN: Any agreements with other entities such as Australia Post will be dealt with under clause 20, but in regard to the member’s question on clause 18(3), the minister has to delegate certain powers, or the CEO has to delegate certain powers approved by the minister. For example, if somebody’s card had to be cancelled, that delegation is to take place and the approval for the cancellation has to come from somebody of authority. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Just so I understand, is the parliamentary secretary saying that the delegations under clause 18 will purely revolve around those actual internal mechanisms about approving or rejecting applications? I will try it from a different angle. My reading of clause 20 is that it is the clause under which another organisation can be set up to do the work on the minister’s behalf—another organisation can be approved. But do the people who work for that organisation also still need to be approved under clause 18 by the minister for doing that work? Under which clause will individuals be approved to do that work for the organisation with which the government has entered into an agreement to provide the functions? Hon JIM CHOWN: That will be dealt with under clause 20. I think we are on clause 18, and subclause (3) is about internal functions in the department and administrating the process for either approving or disapproving photo ID cards. Hon KEN TRAVERS: If that is the case, who are we thinking about approving to do those functions? What are the scenarios in which that sort of internal operation of the department would be approved to be done by somebody outside the department? Can the parliamentary secretary give me an example of who might be approved to do something like that? Hon JIM CHOWN: Clause 18(3) allows delegation to, for example, police or other government departments that are not under the direct control of the CEO or the minister in remote areas of Western Australia to provide an application service for applicants for the card. Hon Stephen Dawson raised the requirements of the Indigenous population for ID cards, and this provides the ability for that delegation to take place. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Do we have any idea, though, of whom the government intends to delegate those functions to? I am trying to understand, because surely if the function is being passed out to somebody else in that sense, would an agreement not be being entered into under clause 20? Hon JIM CHOWN: The answer is no, because the people who would be delegated these provisions—it has happened in the past for licensing provisions—would be, like the example I have already given in regard to the question, the police force or other government agencies, whichever those agencies may well be. Hon KEN TRAVERS: But this goes beyond government agencies, parliamentary secretary; this can go to anyone. It does not limit it to government agencies. If the intent is that it only be other government agencies performing functions on behalf of the CEO, why could we not move an amendment to make it clear that that is our intent? There is a subtle difference between the processing of these documents and when we get to clause 20, we can have that debate about contracting Australia Post to issue these cards on our behalf and about approving it to issue cards. However, the decision-making will be done internally within the department or it may be delegated to a police officer or a local government in some other part of the state. I do not have a fear about contracting that function out to other public service agencies that might be providing it on behalf of the Department of Transport because there is a shared service arrangement if it is a remote area, but I have grave concerns and I want to know what possible examples there would be of delegating these powers to entities outside the public service. If it is not the government’s intent to delegate outside the public service, in my view we should make it very clear in clause 18 that it will not happen. Hon Jim Chown: I have given my response. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I take from the parliamentary secretary’s response that there is some government plan to use people outside the public service for that function. The parliamentary secretary has not said that the government would not. Hon JIM CHOWN: The answer to that question is no. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Why can we not then move an amendment to make it very clear that the delegation under clause 18 can only be to people employed under the Public Sector Management Act? Hon Helen Morton: Why would you want to do that? Hon KEN TRAVERS: Why would the government want to privatise that function? What will the government do? That is what this chamber is about—asking the questions and getting the answers. Why does the minister want to do it?

110 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014]

Hon Helen Morton interjected. The DEPUTY CHAIR (Hon Liz Behjat): Order, members! We are not having a discussion across the chamber. We are in the committee stage of the bill and members are to direct comments to either the Deputy Chair or the parliamentary secretary. I do not want members to engage in conversations across the chamber. Hon JIM CHOWN: I can assure the member that any private partnerships in regard to this bill will be done under clause 20. This particular cause clause that the member seems to be concerned about is virtually a cut-and- paste of the 1974 Road Traffic Act and I have already given an explanation about why it is there. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I have no doubt that those members who sat in this place in 1974 and put through the Road Traffic Act probably did not envisage the sort of rampant privatisation of government services we now see occurring across the public sector. There would have been functions in those days that members on both sides of this chamber would have considered absolutely not negotiable to hand over to people outside the public sector. The Minister for Mental Health asked the question about why we would not want to allow that option in the future. The reason I give is that these are important decisions and functions. I do not want to pre-empt the debate on clause 20, but people approved under this clause will potentially get even more access to very sensitive information that could be very useful for those who want to use it for an improper purpose. When we get to clause 21, one thing I will ask—in fact, we can ask it under this clause as well—is: if we start delegating out, how will the government, the CEO and this Parliament be assured that there has been some rigorous checking into whom these powers are being delegated to? I give the example of people already coming to me expressing concerns about some of the authorised inspection services that have been approved by this government and the lack of rigour in the checking of whether the people running these things are of a suitable nature. The DEPUTY CHAIR: Are you referring to the photo card bill, honourable member? Hon KEN TRAVERS: Yes, I am, absolutely. I am talking about the fact that when powers are contracted out and delegated, there needs to be a rigorous regime behind that, which does not occur in this bill. If the government wants to delegate the power of the public sector to the private sector when very sensitive information that is valuable to criminal elements in the community is being dealt with, there needs to be rigorous protections. The point I am making, as a direct analogy about why this is needed for this bill, is that in another area we are already starting to see this government delegating the role of government, and people are expressing concerns to me that there is not a rigorous framework for the way in which the checks and balances are conducted to ensure the people being delegated to are not unsavoury characters. I have not been able to test the claims that have been put to me, but the point I make is that if we want to delegate powers in this legislation, there needs to be a rigorous framework for not just the delegation, but also what checks and balances will be put in the legislation to ensure there is a rigorous testing of those people before they are given that delegation. There is nothing like that in the bill and I think it is regrettable. Knowing the way in which this chamber now operates, even if we moved amendments, we would not get any joy with them. However, I would like some assurances from the government about what it will do, if it does delegate these powers, to ensure they are not delegated to people of unsavoury character. Hon Helen Morton interjected. Hon KEN TRAVERS: The Minister for Mental Health can make light of this. The DEPUTY CHAIR: Order, Hon Ken Travers! I have already asked you not to engage in discussion across the chamber with anybody other than the parliamentary secretary who has the conduct of this legislation. We have been doing really well so far and I would like to keep it going for the few minutes that remain of this evening’s session. Do you have a question on clause 18 that you are putting to the parliamentary secretary for him to answer? Hon KEN TRAVERS: Yes, I do. People can make light of this, but this is a very serious matter. The government can treat it as a joke, but it is a very serious matter. If this government wants to start delegating functions, I want to hear from the parliamentary secretary about what checks will be conducted. I will ask this under clause 18 and if the parliamentary secretary gives me a satisfactory answer, I may not have to repeat the questions under clause 20. What checks will the government put in place to ensure that when delegating or entering into an agreement with people to perform the functions we have discussed, they are not people who we would not want having access to the sort of information that will be available through this bill? Hon JIM CHOWN: Partnership agreements are not new in any government. They are about providing services to the community at a reasonable cost and in a timely manner. I am sure the member already knows the answer to his question. All contracts between departments and other entities are legally compliant. There are very stringent protocols and rigorous checks put in place before they are accepted as being part of the process. Obviously, in regard to this matter, as described, there are auditing processes by, for example, the Department of Transport, to ensure that all the requirements under the contracts are upheld. In effect, as the member has said, a dodgy outfit is very unlikely to become part of the arrangement; it is virtually impossible for them.

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014] 111

Clause put and passed. Clause 19 put and passed. Clause 20: Agreements for performance of functions — Hon KEN TRAVERS: Who does the government envisage it will enter into agreements with to perform the functions under this legislation? Hon JIM CHOWN: In the country it will be the same people who provide services for licensing requirements: the Bendigo Bank, local government entities, Australia Post, and, where they are situated, Department of Transport licensing officers. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Will the cost estimated in the bill allow those agencies to receive a commission? Hon JIM CHOWN: As a service provision, as stated here, full cost recovery is required. Cost recovery will be examined by the Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation. To answer the question, obviously private providers will require some sort of commission, but that commission will not be onerous. I have no idea what the percentage of the actual card cost will be, but it will be of a standard similar to other service provisions carried out on behalf of government departments. Hon KEN TRAVERS: What checks will the government undertake to ensure either the owners of the organisations the government enters into agreement with or the employees are not associated with groups such as bikies? Hon JIM CHOWN: It is normal with these processes that anyone, including departmental staff, has national and state police checks. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I put it to the parliamentary secretary that there is a big difference between getting a police check and doing a check to see whether people are associated with undesirable people or people engaging in criminal conduct. Someone can pass a police check but they may still be associated with undesirable elements. My view is that the department needs to have a long, hard think about this because bikie groups and organised crime would have a very keen interest in getting access to the information contained in the department’s databases. I make the point that when we pass this bill, I am not comfortable or satisfied that the process will be rigorous enough. To say that we will check that people meet the national police clearance criteria, I am not sure is sufficient to determine whether people are associating with significant undesirable elements in our community and people who would seek to gain, for an improper purpose, information held by the department. I am happy if the parliamentary secretary wants to respond to that but I think that as the department contracts out its services more and more, there is a decided gap in the way it operates. Hon JIM CHOWN: I am happy to respond. The reality is that all these agreements contain a clause that enables the department to terminate the agreement or contractual arrangement if for any reason an employee is associating with undesirable elements within the community, or the department feels the provisions are under threat and the protocols are being compromised. The department also liaises very closely with the police department on intelligence-gathering requirements. Obviously, within any group of people there are people who do not comply with the community’s requirements. We do our best to mitigate all these outcomes to ensure the photo ID card or the driver’s licence application and distribution processes are virtually watertight. I can assure the member that everything is being undertaken that is humanly possible to ensure the process stands up to scrutiny. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I accept that there might be provision in the contracts to terminate them, but often it is too late once we find out the damage has been done. I hope we do not find in the future that groups have infiltrated because of the decision to privatise so many aspects. I am happy to move on to clause 24, which I think is the clause my amendment refers to. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Before we proceed, I want to make the observation that in respect of the Western Australian Photo Card Bill we have a workable machinery of government bill that will deliver what we all apparently require. The points Hon Ken Travers makes about security of information are well made. It is a very pertinent consideration. Members will notice that the structure of the bill is such that it places an onus on the CEO to do all the things that are required in the bill to a standard that we expect of a government agency. That standard does not change because the CEO gets someone else to do it, whether it is another officer bearing a delegation or an agent delivering a service such as receiving an application in a country post office. None of these things are unique. Transactions of similar importance are done by government departments, including this one, all the time in relation to security of people’s information and sensitive documents, whether it is drug control in hospitals, drivers’ licences or other things. That needs to be clearly understood by the committee and clause 20 should be supported. Clause put and passed. Clauses 21 to 23 put and passed.

112 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014]

Clause 24: Regulations — Hon KEN TRAVERS: I move — Page 17, line 5 — To delete “Act;” and insert — Act, provided that the fee referred to in section 5(3)(c) shall not exceed the amount prescribed for the grant of a driver’s licence whether or not by way of renewal to the equivalent class of person in regulations made under the Road Traffic Act 1974 Noting the time, I will not go extensively through all the points that have been made previously. I think we canvassed the debate well during the second reading stage. It is the opposition’s view that the price of a photo ID card should never be higher than the price of a driver’s licence for a particular category of person. An aged pensioner who gets a free driver’s licence should have a free photo ID card. A senior who pays X dollars for a driver’s licence should never pay more than that for a photo ID card. I put that out there as the opposition’s view, and this amendment seeks to achieve that. Those who want to make sure that is the case in the future need to support this amendment because it is clear that that is not the current government’s view. Hon JIM CHOWN: I have given my response. As the member has indicated, we will leave it at that. Division Amendment put and a division taken, the Deputy Chair (Hon Liz Behjat) casting her vote with the noes, with the following result — Ayes (12) Hon Robin Chapple Hon Kate Doust Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich Hon Ken Travers Hon Alanna Clohesy Hon Sue Ellery Hon Amber-Jade Sanderson Hon Darren West Hon Stephen Dawson Hon Lynn MacLaren Hon Sally Talbot Hon Samantha Rowe (Teller) Noes (21) Hon Martin Aldridge Hon Peter Collier Hon Alyssa Hayden Hon Michael Mischin Hon Ken Baston Hon Brian Ellis Hon Col Holt Hon Simon O’Brien Hon Liz Behjat Hon Donna Faragher Hon Peter Katsambanis Hon Phil Edman (Teller) Hon Jacqui Boydell Hon Nick Goiran Hon Mark Lewis Hon Paul Brown Hon Dave Grills Hon Rick Mazza Hon Jim Chown Hon Nigel Hallett Hon Robyn McSweeney

Pair Hon Adele Farina Hon Helen Morton Amendment thus negatived. Clause put and passed. Title put and passed. Bill reported, without amendment. Leave granted to proceed forthwith through remaining stages. Report Report of committee adopted. Third Reading HON JIM CHOWN (Agricultural — Parliamentary Secretary) [9.47 pm]: I move — That the bill be now read a third time. Debate adjourned, pursuant to standing orders. SHARK DRUM LINE PROGRAM Statement HON PHIL EDMAN (South Metropolitan) [9.47 pm]: Tonight I would like to talk about the reopening of commercial shark fishing and wetlining. Firstly, I would like to thank the Australian Labor Party for using my speech on sharks in this house last November as part of its policy decision. Hon Ken Travers: We will adopt any sensible idea. Hon PHIL EDMAN: Perhaps Hon Ken Travers could adopt this one as well. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! Let the member on his feet make his speech. I do not think he needs help from anyone else.

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014] 113

Hon PHIL EDMAN: Mr President, it is refreshing to have the opposition agree with me for once. The whale population seems to be increasing at a rate of approximately 10 per cent, and I believe that given the amount of shark activity it is possible that could be happening as a result of the shifting of plates in the Indian Ocean in 2004 and also the change in the Leeuwin current. It has been suggested that the increase in shark attacks has been caused by an increase in numbers of whales migrating along the Western Australian coast. Since 2004 Western Australia has experienced 22 shark attacks and almost half of them have been fatal. In 2013, after the most recent death from a shark attack, the state government was called upon to do something about the increasing number of sharks sighted along the WA coast. I note that the government has produced a very good website, its helicopter patrols are exceptional and tagging is really good. More specifically, the government was called upon to do something to limit the number of fatalities. Initially, the government’s hands were tied and sharks were protected, but there was outrage from the wider community that a cull had not been ordered. Then, in December 2013, the WA state government received permission from the federal government and commenced its shark hazard mitigation strategy by implementing its drum line policy. Under the shark hazard mitigation to date 16 tiger sharks have been caught on the drum lines and destroyed. I do not know if a tiger shark has killed anyone, but it has not been proved what sort of shark committed the fatal attacks. This has caused further outrage from the wider community, but this time from the other side of the fence so to speak. I became vocal about people using the Shark Shield deterrent, which has been scientifically proven and independently tested. The Shark Shield deterrent is used by the United States Navy as well as the Australian Defence Force. I did a bit more research over the summer break and found that about 99 per cent of divers are now using the Shark Shield. It is far better for people to use a Shark Shield if they want to take some responsibility for themselves, and I maintain the stance that people do need to take responsibility for themselves. I met recently with Hon Ken Baston, the Minister for Fisheries, as well as several personnel from the Western Australian Rock Lobster Fishers’ Federation, the Western Rock Lobster Council, the Rock Lobster Industry Advisory Committee and the Western Australian Fishing Industry Council—there are a fair few! The meeting was held in Fremantle and I was honoured that the minister came down to speak at my request. The history of wetlining was discussed with us because I was not familiar with it, as well as shark fishing. I learnt that back in 2007 the Labor Minister for Fisheries at the time, Hon Jon Ford, announced the closure of commercial line and gillnet fishing in the metropolitan fishing zone between Lancelin and south of Mandurah. It was the opinion of those fishermen that commercial shark and wetline fishing licences should be reinstated. They implied that this would reduce the number of sharks, and that those caught could be sold for consumption. I have learnt from these organisations that bull sharks are actually bronze whalers, or whalers or bronzies. In fact, as the fisheries minister would remember, they are not sure where the name “bull shark” came from, because for the past 50 years the fishermen have called them bronze whalers or bronzies. They said that the bronzies, or whalers or bull sharks, are actually good to eat. Not so long ago fish and chip shops sold it and we probably thought it was dhufish or flake. I dine out regularly, not that it shows much, and I am disappointed that there is such a small number of fresh, locally caught fish on the menu these days. It seems that imported fish or fish from outside Western Australia are the main types of fish available in our restaurants. I remember the Essex Restaurant in Fremantle, which is no longer there. The local cray fishermen who could wetline would supply all the fish used by the Essex Restaurant. Hon Sue Ellery has probably been to the Essex. It is shut now, but it was an excellent seafood restaurant. My suggestion is that commercial shark fishing and wetlining be reinstated on a trial basis, maybe seasonally. This would provide fresh, locally caught fish for consumption by Western Australians, assist with job creation and reduce the number of sharks. In my opinion, our oceans have changed and maybe it is time that we looked at making the right choices and changes, including looking at maybe reinstating these fisheries. PERTH HILLS FIRES Statement HON ALANNA CLOHESY (East Metropolitan) [9.52 pm]: Tonight I rise to speak about the devastating Perth hills fires in which 56 homes were lost in Parkerville, Stoneville and Mt Helena on 12 January. I put on the record my sympathy for those who lost their homes and those whose homes were seriously damaged. I also extend my condolences to the friends and family of Mr Ron Shaw, who died while preparing his property for the arrival of the bushfire. I wanted to take this opportunity to acknowledge the enormous range of community members who stood, and in fact are still standing, side by side with those people who lost their homes and whose homes were seriously damaged. Hon Samantha Rowe and I had the opportunity to meet some of these amazing people when we visited the Brown Park Community Centre’s evacuation centre and the Mundaring evacuation centre and talked to local people about their experiences. I was overwhelmed by the contribution they were all making at the time and are continuing to make as the community tries to recover from this. When we first arrived at the Brown Park evacuation centre we came across the rapid relief team, which was set up out the front of the evacuation centre to

114 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014] provide food and support to people whose lives had been affected by the bushfire. That was all staffed by volunteers. I understand that they worked around the clock for six days and six nights to provide support. They did this through public donations of food and other practical items, such as water, newspapers, milk and even pet food. That was an incredible feat. I would also like to acknowledge the staff of the Mundaring Shire, the Department for Child Protection and Family Support, Western Power, Telstra, the WA Police and the State Emergency Service for the incredible work that they did. The community rallied around very strongly. People have provided some amazing stories of support, such as the Mundaring counselling service providing free trauma and crisis counselling, and the Swan View Child Care Centre providing free childcare to families. There was an incredible outpouring of support from the people of Perth more broadly, particularly on social media. People offered their spare rooms for people to stay in and a whole range of things. In fact, Volunteering WA was overwhelmed by offers of support from the people of Perth. There were even children on school holidays who decided to muck in and help with the clean-up, and people offered support for families who had animals and offered to stable horses and the like. There were also the volunteer firefighters who came from right across the metropolitan area to help fight the fires, and the local hairdresser who assisted by providing free haircuts to people affected by the fires. The Mundaring branch of Bendigo Bank partnered with the Salvation Army to create a bushfire appeal, chipping in $10 000 and urging other Bendigo Bank branches to do the same. The Lord Mayor’s Distress Relief Fund has also seen an amazing response. As of today, its total is sitting at around $2.2 million, donated not only by the people of Western Australia but also from national and international sources. For those who have not yet had the opportunity to make a donation, there are still a couple more weeks before that fund closes. These are just a few examples of the range of support that was provided to the people of the Perth hills during this awful fire. I put on the record my acknowledgement of the support that has been provided and I applaud the people of Western Australia for the support that they have given to the people of the Perth hills. QUESTIONS ON NOTICE Statement HON NICK GOIRAN (South Metropolitan) [9.59 pm]: I rise this evening to grumble. Specifically, I want to grumble about the process at the moment for answers to questions on notice. I am not here to ask questions for the fun of it. If I ask a question of my colleagues, it is because I am seriously trying to get to the bottom of a matter. I asked a question as far back as Tuesday, 26 November. I am trying to get to the bottom of a serious matter about the Insurance Commission of WA. When I read standing order 108(2), it interests me no end to see that it states — When a question on notice remains unanswered after 9 sitting days, the Member to whom the question is directed shall advise the Council, at the conclusion of the period for questions without notice on the next sitting day, the date when an answer is expected to be provided. There are a few things I want to say about that. First of all, members will probably tell me that I am going to have to be a bit more patient because the part that states “after 9 sitting days” means that it does not kick into effect until tomorrow. I asked the question on Tuesday, 26 November. I have not gone back to check whether we had, in those final three weeks, any days that were normally scheduled to be sitting days but in the end were not. I know a few odd things happened at the end of last year, but I cannot recall whether we had what some people might refer to as a day off, which we all know does not exist. Let us imagine for a moment, without checking the record, that that did not happen. That means that I asked the question on Tuesday, 26 November and we had three sitting weeks. By anyone’s calculation, that is nine sitting days. I am sure that people will say that the day I asked the question does not count so there have been only eight sitting days; and today is the first day back, so that is nine sitting days. This kicks into action only after nine sitting days. The member to whom the question was directed at the conclusion of the period for questions without notice on the next sitting, which will be tomorrow at around five o’clock, needs to advise me when I am to expect an answer. This assumes, of course, that I do not get an answer tomorrow. Apart from the fact that that is a rather convoluted process, I might just say in passing—no doubt members opposite will agree—that it is a fairly unsatisfactory situation when the response potentially tomorrow could be that the member will tell me a date when the answer is expected to be provided, which might be in the never– never. I think there was once a discussion in this place about someone providing an answer stating that it would be in the fullness of time or something absurd. That is not my point. My point is that surely there has to be some adherence to the spirit of the standing order. We have just had a massive recess period over summer. There was no Parliament during the whole month of January. Presumably people in the various government departments are still working. Not everyone has taken leave for eight, nine, 10 or however many weeks it has been. I presume someone must be doing something. How it is possible that potentially tomorrow I am looking at getting a response saying, “I am going to provide you with an answer in the fullness of time” is beyond belief.

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014] 115

Let us imagine for a moment that we had had four consecutive sitting weeks. In fact, that did happen at the end of the schedule last year; there were four consecutive sitting weeks for the Legislative Council. If I had asked my question only a couple of days earlier, there would have been an obligation under this standing order for the response to be provided. As it so happened, I got around to doing it only on Tuesday, 26 November. The relevant department then had all of the month of December, all of the month of January and the best part of February, yet I still do not have an answer. Hon Ken Travers: I suspect that when you get the answer, it won’t answer your question anyway! Hon NICK GOIRAN: Possibly, although the last time the department was helpful. I am hopeful that that will continue this time. It did not give me the answer to the first part, so we will see. It seems to me that there might be a case for the Standing Committee on Procedure and Privileges, which has responsibility to look at the general running of the standing orders from time to time, to consider this particular standing order and whether it is achieving what members really want it to achieve. As I say, it seems a bit odd to me that I can ask a question on 26 November, yet here I stand on 18 February with no answer to an important issue that I am trying to get to the bottom of. Maybe with some clever drafting and some collaboration between the various parties in the chamber we could formulate a better set of words that might ensure that this is done. It seems to me that if the Legislative Council is in recess for two months, it is not that unreasonable to expect that the department might provide a response on the very next sitting day when we return. It is not as though it has been put under a lot of pressure; in fact, it has been under a lot less pressure, because if the sitting schedule had been any different there would have been an expectation to provide a response at an earlier time. As I said at the start of my comments, I felt the need this evening to grumble a little during my member’s statement. We will see whether there is a response tomorrow. Even if that is the case, I still think there is a point to be made. I note that on the list of questions yet to be answered there are questions that were asked after the date that I asked my question—26 November. The point for those members is that the various departments have had more than two months in which to get to the bottom of the matter. Hon Ken Travers: I think one of the problems now is that some—not all—ministers’ officers don’t provide the answer until the ninth day. They will have it sitting there on their desk and they sit on it and wait until the ninth day. Some ministers don’t do that. I think that is something that needs to be looked at. Hon NICK GOIRAN: Hon Ken Travers, that is what I am saying about people not complying with the spirit of what is intended. I would have thought that the idea of saying that an answer should be provided essentially within nine sitting days is to give them a maximum period to try to get to the bottom of things. If they really cannot get to the bottom of it at that stage, they should say when they intend they will do it. It does not mean that they will provide answers only after nine days. If they can answer the question within two or three days, they should do that. I think that having had two months over the summer recess is more than adequate time in which to answer the question. In particular in this case, it is not as though it is a new topic. I had asked a question about the Insurance Commission of WA. A very useful answer was provided. Then I asked for a set of data about preceding years. It should not be that difficult. As I say, we will see what happens tomorrow and, hopefully, there will not be a need for me to make a further contribution tomorrow evening. QUESTIONS ON NOTICE Statement by President THE PRESIDENT (Hon Barry House): Members, just before we adjourn, as a follow-up to the contribution of Hon Nick Goiran, I make an observation. During the Christmas–new year period, I was in Adelaide. We know that that jurisdiction has completed its parliamentary term and is leading up to an election on 15 March. I took a bit of notice of some articles that appeared in the media there in which the opposition had grumbled that 57 per cent of all questions during that four-year parliamentary term had not been answered. I thought that was a pretty fair sort of grumble. The response from the Deputy Premier was that most of that information could have easily been obtained from public reports by the members’ research officers. Members can weigh that up how they wish. The other point I would like to indicate to Hon Nick Goiran is that he is a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Privileges and there is the ability to have an own motion adopted by the committee and for the committee at any stage to look at any particular standing order. I do not usually make a contribution, but it is the first day back and I could not help it! House adjourned at 10.08 pm ______

116 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014]

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Questions and answers are as supplied to Hansard.

MINISTERIAL OFFICES — TWITTER ACCOUNTS 591. Hon Ken Travers to the Leader of the House representing the Premier: I refer to question on notice No. 294, and ask: (a) what records are kept regarding the use of departmental equipment; (b) what records were checked in providing the answer to question on notice No. 294; (c) were any media advisors or communications officers asked about the use of departmental equipment; and (d) if yes to (c), please identify them? Hon Peter Collier replied: (a)–(d) The Department of the Premier and Cabinet advises All devices issued to departmental employees are monitored on usage. This can be viewed as details on sites visited and duration of download volumes. Internet logs were checked. The department advises it is not possible to view the specific content of internet transactions. A recent survey by the department of authorised employees who have access to social media for official purposes confirms that no employee accessed the named twitter accounts. The department has an internal record of authorised employees who have access to social media for official purposes, however due to privacy considerations it is not considered appropriate to release these names. MINISTERIAL OFFICES — TWITTER ACCOUNTS 592. Hon Ken Travers to the Leader of the House representing the Premier: (1) Have any ministerial media advisors or communication officers, employed by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, established or operated any Twitter accounts since 30 June 2012? (2) If yes, what is/are the name(s) of the Twitter account(s)? Hon Peter Collier replied: The Department of the Premier and Cabinet advises (1)–(2) Yes. Employees permitted to use social media on departmental devices established twitter accounts principally to monitor media activity. The Department’s Code of Conduct advises staff on both authorised and personal use of social media. The Department has an internal record however due to privacy considerations it is not considered appropriate to release the names of the twitter accounts. ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS — GOVERNANCE AND LEADERSHIP PROGRAM 611. Hon Robin Chapple to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs: I refer to the Minister’s answer to my question without notice, dated 25 June 2013, regarding Royalties for Regions funding to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs for the Governance and Leadership Development Program, and I ask: (a) has the business case now been finalised; (b) if no to (a), why not and when will it be finalised; (c) if yes to (a), when will it be considered by the relevant authorities and the results notified; (d) does the Minister still advise that funds will be available in the 2013–14 financial year budget for the program; (e) what consultation regarding this matter has taken place with the Kimberley Land Council, Kimberley Language Resource Centre and Kimberley Aboriginal Law and Culture Centre since the combined Annual General meetings held at Milba Community near Halls Creek in September 2010; (f) have any tangible discussions occurred on this matter during the past three years; and (g) if yes to (f), please provide details?

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014] 117

Hon Peter Collier replied: (a)–(d) This matter should be referred to the Minister for Regional Development. (e)–(g) Information provided by a number of Aboriginal organisations, including the Kimberley Land Council, Pilbara Native Title Service, Kimberley Aboriginal Law and Culture Corporation, Kimberley Language Resource Centre, attendees of the Pilbara Futures Forum, Native Title Prescribed Body Corporates and Native Title Claimant Groups was considered at the development stage of the Governance and Leadership Program. However, the Program has recently been transferred to the Department of Regional Development and they are now working with the Western Australian Aboriginal Advisory Council to further develop and finalise the business case. STOLEN WAGES REPARATION SCHEME 615. Hon Robin Chapple to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs: With regard to the Stolen Wages Reparation Scheme Western Australia, I ask: (a) is the Minister aware of the claim of Mr Alec Ungiljung of Mt Barnett Community and Mt Elizabeth Station in the Kimberley whose application was refused because the properties he worked on, Glenroy Station and Glenroy/Mt House Tablelands, are not within the scope of the scheme; (b) is the Minister also aware that Mr Ungiljung, who is now around 80 years of age, grew up on various central Kimberley Stations and worked on them his entire life from the age of around 15 years, without wages; (c) is the Minister further aware that Mr Ungiljung considers that the Stolen Wages Reparation Scheme is inherently unfair to many Aboriginal station workers, including himself, who never received wages for the work they did and that he now considers it is incumbent upon governments of all persuasions to treat its constituents in a fair and reasonable manner; and (d) is the Minister also aware that Mr Ungiljung and many other Kimberley Aboriginal people want the Government to apologise and make proper amends for presiding over the policies that allowed for the withholding of income from Aboriginal people by institutions, businesses and the Government itself for many years, and that he would like the Minister to imagine what that feels like and what sort of restitution the Minister would seek if the situation were reversed? Hon Peter Collier replied: (a) Yes. (b)–(d) I am aware of the statements made by Mr Ungiljung in relation to his application to the Stolen Wages Reparation Scheme. STOLEN WAGES REPARATION SCHEME 616. Hon Robin Chapple to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs: I refer to the Stolen Wages Reparation Scheme Western Australia, and I ask: (a) is the Minister aware of the claim by Mr Billy Duncan, formerly of Envoy and Mistake Creek Stations Northern Territory and Nicholson Station in Western Australia, whose application for stolen wages has been denied by the State Government; (b) does the Minister understand that Mr Duncan did not attend school and instead worked on various stations from about the age of eight years, for which he received no payment; (c) is the Minister further aware that when Mr Duncan finally did receive payment for work on Nicholson Station it was in no way commensurate with the long hours he worked and the skills which he brought to the task; (d) is the Minister also aware that Mr Duncan considers the Stolen Wages Reparation Scheme Western Australia to be unfair since he, like so many others working on stations, were subject to discriminatory treatment that was sanctioned by the Government of the day and that therefore he considers it to be a government responsibility to make amends; (e) does the Minister accept that Mr Duncan is disappointed at the Government’s response to station workers whose claims for stolen wages are being denied; and (f) will the Minister please reconsider establishing a new scheme that addresses Mr Duncan’s and other station workers’ concerns and which truly seeks to make amends for the discriminatory practices of the past?

118 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014]

Hon Peter Collier replied: (a) Yes. (b)–(e) I am aware of the statements made by Mr Duncan in relation to his application to the Stolen Wages Reparation Scheme (the Scheme). (f) The Scheme will not be reviewed or reopened. It should be noted that the State Government invests heavily in measures to improve life outcomes for Aboriginal people. As an example, the Productivity Commission’s 2012 Indigenous Expenditure Report found that Aboriginal expenditure by the Western Australian Government in 2010–11 was approximately $2.3 billion. This includes spending in areas such as early childhood and education services, health services, community support services and economic participation services. These investments are, to a large degree, based on recognition that the disadvantage experienced by many Aboriginal people is a result of discriminatory legislation and policy that existed during the period 1905–1972 STOLEN WAGES REPARATION SCHEME 617. Hon Robin Chapple to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs: I refer to the Stolen Wages Reparation Scheme Western Australia, and I ask: (a) is the Minister aware of the request by Bonnie Seela of Ringers Soak community in the Kimberley for the Government to work with Aboriginal people in the Kimberley to review the scheme with a view to developing something fairer and more robust; (b) is the Minister aware of Ms Seela’s claim that the amount of $2,000 is insufficient and unfair when taken against the number of years she spent working at Balgo Mission; and (c) can the Minister explain how the ex gratia payment amount of $2,000 for Ms Seela and others was arrived at, and explain how she can access the records that were used in the claims process? Hon Peter Collier replied: (a)–(b) Yes. (c) The State Government’s response to the issue of stolen wages was largely based on advice from the Stolen Wages Taskforce which acknowledged that the lack of surviving records and the passage of time meant that it was not possible for the WA Government to identify and repay the actual amount of monies that were withheld. Therefore, the $2,000 ex gratia payment offered was not an attempt to repay wages that were withheld, but rather an acknowledgement that the practice of stolen wages did occur. Ms Seela was assessed as being eligible for the payment based on information provided in her application to the Scheme. Ms Seela can obtain a copy of her application by contacting Ms Lucy Gunn, Executive Director, Community Development at the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. KIMBERLEY REGIONAL INVESTMENT BLUEPRINT 622. Hon Stephen Dawson to the Minister for Agriculture and Food representing the Minister for Regional Development: (1) I refer to the Kimberley Regional Investment Blueprint, and ask if the Minister can please advise the timeframe for completion of the the Kimberley Regional Investment Blueprint? (2) Who are the stakeholders contributing to the Kimberley Regional Investment Blueprint? (3) What funding has been allocated to the development of the Kimberley Regional Investment Blueprint? (4) Please provide a breakdown on what the funding has been spent on so far? Hon Ken Baston replied: (1) The anticipated timeframe for the completion of a draft Kimberley Regional Investment Blueprint is the end of February 2014. (2) The Stakeholder engagement phase of the Kimberley Regional Investment Blueprint is currently underway. The 44 (forty four) stakeholders or groups contributing up to 1 December 2013 comprises: (a) Kimberley based Industry, Community and Aboriginal representatives; (b) Kimberley based State, Commonwealth and Local Government representatives; and (c) Perth based Industry and State Government representatives. (3) The Kimberley Development Commission has been allocated $150 000 for the development of the Kimberley Regional Investment Blueprint.

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014] 119

(4) Kimberley Regional Investment Blueprint funding has so far been spent on consultancy costs associated with, (a) Research $29 730 (b) Stakeholder engagement and consultation $47 077 (c) Component drafting $30 169 MARGARET RIVER PERIMETER ROAD 641. Hon Adele Farina to the Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Environment: I refer to the decision of the Environmental Protection Authority not to subject the Margaret River Perimeter Road to the environmental assessment process, and I ask: (a) can the Minister please detail the reasons for the decision that an environmental impact assessment was not necessary; (b) has an appeal has been lodged against this decision, and has the outcome of the appeal been determined; (c) if yes to (b), when was it determined; and (d) if no to (b), when is a determination expected? Hon Helen Morton replied: The Minister for the Environment has provided the following response: (a) The Environmental Protection Authority determined that the proposal was unlikely to have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, environmental impact assessment was not necessary because the amount of vegetation to be cleared was small and would not affect the overall values of the Bramley National Park, and because traffic noise could be managed to meet appropriate noise level criteria. (b) Yes and yes. (c) 21 August 2013. (d) Not applicable. MARGARET RIVER PERIMETER ROAD 642. Hon Adele Farina to the Minister for Agriculture and Food representing the Minister for Regional Development: I refer to the 2012–13 Annual Report of the South West Development Commission and its references to the Margaret River Perimeter Road, and I ask: (a) exactly what work was completed on stage one of the Margaret River Perimeter Road during 2012–13; (b) when is stage two expected to commence; and (c) will the funds for stage two be administered by the South West Development Commission? Hon Ken Baston replied: (a) Planning work undertaken by Main Roads WA. (b) Yet to be determined. (c) No. SOUTH WEST DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION — EXPENDITURE 643. Hon Adele Farina to the Minister for Agriculture and Food representing the Minister for Regional Development: I refer to the South West Development Commission endorsed expense limit and note that the 2012–13 budget estimate was exceeded by more than $1.5 million in the reported actual cost of services for 2012–13, what was the cause of this cost blow out? Hon Ken Baston replied: The expense limit has increased due to the sale of surplus land and allocation of proceeds to Cabinet endorsed projects, as well as timing variations on committed expenditure. SOUTH WEST DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION — PROJECTS 644. Hon Adele Farina to the Minister for Agriculture and Food representing the Minister for Regional Development: I refer to the South West Development Commission’s key efficiency indicators for service to regional development as detailed in the South West development Commission’s 2012–13 Annual Report, and I ask:

120 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014]

(a) 2012–13 shows a 22 per cent decrease in staff project/service hours from 2011–12, what was the cause of this decrease; (b) if the staff engaged in far less project and servicing work, to what alternate activities was their time committed; (c) how many projects did the South West Development Commission play a direct role in the delivery of in 2011–12; (d) how many projects did the South West Development Commission play a direct role in the delivery of in 2012–13; and (e) the total operating cost of the Commission decreased by approximately six per cent from 2011–12 to 2012–13, yet staff project hours decreased by 22 per cent over the same period, can the Minister please explain this discrepancy? Hon Ken Baston replied: (a) Annual leave and staff vacancies. (b) Not applicable. (c) Sixty three. (d) Fifty seven. (e) Annual leave and staff vacancies. SOUTH WEST DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION — PROJECTS 645. Hon Adele Farina to the Minister for Agriculture and Food representing the Minister for Regional Development: I refer to the South West Development Commission’s key efficiency indicators for service to regional development as detailed in the South West Development Commission’s 2012–13 Annual Report, and I ask: (a) the average cost per hour of service for regional development for 2012–13 was estimated to be $178 but the actual figure was $202, what was the cause of the 13.5 per cent increase in this cost; (b) page 75 of the annual report suggests the decrease in project hours and the increase in the average cost per hour is the result of a reduction in staff, yet the 2013–14 Budget papers indicate there were 24 full time equivalents at the South West Development Commission in both 2011–12 and 2012–13, are these two documents not at odds with one another; and (c) please detail the reductions in staff as cited in the 2012–13 Annual Report? Hon Ken Baston replied: (a) Reduction of allocated project budget compared to initial estimates and increased annual leave above initial estimates. (b) No. (c) Two positions were vacant for part of 2012/13 and were subsequently abolished as part of a restructure commencing in 2013/14. SOUTH WEST DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION — CAPACITY BUILDING BLUEPRINT 646. Hon Adele Farina to the Minister for Agriculture and Food representing the Minister for Regional Development: I refer to the South West Development Commission 2012–13 Annual Report and the references it contains to the capacity building blueprint, and I ask: (a) what is the capacity building blueprint; (b) the report states that $192,500 was spent on this in 2012–13, is the blueprint now complete; (c) if yes to (b), has it been publicly released and if it hasn’t, when will it be; (d) if no to (b), when will it be complete and will any further costs be incurred to complete it; and (e) how does the capacity building blueprint relate to the South West regional blueprint? Hon Ken Baston replied: (a) The reference refers to two separate activities for which the South West Development Commission received funding in 2012/13. These activities are capacity building and development of a South West Regional Blueprint.

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014] 121

(b) No. (c) Not applicable. (d) (i) 28 February 2014. (ii) Yes. (e) There is no intention to develop a document titled Capacity Building Blueprint. There will be one document titled South West Regional Blueprint. SOUTH WEST DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION — REGIONAL INVESTMENT BLUEPRINT 647. Hon Adele Farina to the Minister for Agriculture and Food representing the Minister for Regional Development: I refer to the South West Development Commission 2012–13 Annual Report and the references it contains to the regional investment blueprint, and I ask: (a) what is the regional investment blueprint; (b) the report states that $118,641 was spent on this in 2012–13, is the blueprint now complete; (c) if yes to (b), has it been publicly released and if it hasn’t, when will it be; (d) if no to (b), when will it be completed and will any further costs be incurred to complete it; (e) how does the regional investment blueprint relate to the South West regional blueprint; (f) what is the total cost of the South West regional blueprint; and (g) what is the total cost of all blueprints being produced by the South West Development Commission? Hon Ken Baston replied: (a) The regional investment blueprint is an aspirational document setting out a strategy for regional development within the region. (b) No. (c) Not applicable. (d) (i) 28 February 2014. (ii) Yes. (e) There will be one document titled South West Regional Blueprint. (f)–(g) Not available until document is finalised. SOUTH WEST DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION — AUSTRALIND BYPASS 648. Hon Adele Farina to the Minister for Agriculture and Food representing the Minister for Regional Development: I refer to land lots along the Australind Bypass nearby roads in Bunbury, and I ask: (a) in relation to each of the following parcels of land (properties), was the South West Development Commission (SWDC), at any time, the registered owner of: (i) Lot 9 DP 2571 Newton Road; (ii) Lot 8 DP 2571 Newton Road; (iii) Lot 7 DP 2571 Newton Road; (iv) Lot 6 DP 2571 Newton Road; (v) Lot 5 DP 2571 Newton Road; (vi) Lot 4 DP 2571 Newton Road; (vii) Lot 205 DP 30712 Australind Bypass; (viii) Lot 12 DP 2571 Australind Bypass; (ix) Lot 25 DP 61124 Thomson Road; (x) Lot 52 DP 1856 Australind Bypass; (xi) Lot 17 DP 2571 Australind Bypass; (xii) Lot 26 DP 61124 Australind Bypass; and (xiii) Lot 25 DP 61124 Thomson Road; and

122 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014]

(b) if yes, in relation to each property specified in (a): (i) what was the date of purchase; (ii) what was the purchase price; (iii) what was the purpose for which the property was purchased; (iv) what was the zoning of the property at the time of purchase; (v) what date did SWDC dispose of or sell the property; (vi) why did SWDC dispose of or sell the property; (vii) what was the zoning of the property at the time of disposal or sale; (viii) was the property sold or disposed of by public tender; (ix) if yes to (viii), will the Minister please detail the process and tenderers; (x) if no to (viii), why not; (xi) what was the SWDC or the State paid for the property; (xii) to whom was the property sold; (xiii) if conditions applied to the sale or disposal of the property, please specify the conditions; (xiv) will the Minister please table the Cabinet Minutes and the SWDC Board Minutes relating to the purchase and sale of the property; and (xv) if no to (xiv), why not? Hon Ken Baston replied: (a) (i)–(vi) Yes. (vii) Yes, but under the description Part Lot 11. (viii) Yes. Part only. (ix)–(xiii) The lots have not been owned by the South West Development Commission under these titles. The Commission has owned various parts of the physical land described within these titles under previous lot names. These were Lots 15, 16, 17 and 52 of Jubilee and Ince Rd. (b) (i)–(xiii) [See paper {1187.] (xiv) The Board minutes relevant to the decision to sell the land are tabled [See paper 1187.] Cabinet minutes are not tabled. (xv) Protocols relating to access to Cabinet documents apply. BOARDING AWAY FROM HOME ALLOWANCE 649. Hon Stephen Dawson to the Minister for Education: (1) I refer to the Boarding Away from Home Allowance, and ask how many students accessed this fund in the following years, within each region of Western Australia: (a) 2007–08; (b) 2008–09; (c) 2009–10; (d) 2010–11; (e) 2011–12; and (f) 2012–13? (2) How many kilometres away do students need to reside from their nearest school in order to qualify for the allowance? (3) How many additional year seven students is it anticipated will apply for the allowance with the changes to transition to high school over the following years: (a) 2014–15; (b) 2015–16; and (c) 2016–17?

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014] 123

(4) What was/is the budgetary funding allocated to the Boarding Away for Home allowance for the following years: (a) 2011–12; (b) 2012–13; (c) 2013–14; (d) 2014–15; and (e) 2015–16? (5) What percentage of funding for the Boarding Away from Home allowance for the following years is made up of Royalties for Regions money: (a) 2008–09; (b) 2009–10; (c) 2010–11; (d) 2011–12; (e) 2012–13; (f) 2013–14; (g) 2014–15; and (h) 2015–16? Hon Peter Collier replied: (1) (a) [See paper 1184.] (2) The Department of Education does not determine the conditions of eligibility in order to qualify for the allowance. Families must meet the eligibility conditions determined by the Australian Government Department of Human Services, (Centrelink) for the Assistance for Isolated Children (AIC) Scheme. Information on eligibility should be sought from the Minister for Human Services. The primary eligibility criteria for BAHA for Isolated Children and Students in Respite is the receipt of the AIC from Centrelink. The students must also be enrolled in a Western Australian primary or secondary school (Kindergarten to Year 12). The conditions of eligibility for BAHA for Agricultural Colleges Special Subsidy and Gifted and Talented Education are that the parent is not in receipt of the AIC; and that the student attends a WA Agricultural College or the City Beach Residential College. (3) (a) 2014/15 0 (b) 2015/16 159 (c) 2016/17 169 (4) (a) 2011/12 $4.165 million. (b) 2012/13 $4.165 million. (c) 2013/14 $4.165 million. (d) 2014/15 is still to be determined. (e) 2015/16 is still to be determined. (5) The percentage of funding for the Boarding Away from Home Allowance paid to students eligible under the Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of Education and the Department for Regional Development and made up of Royalties for Regions funding is as follows: (a) 2008–09 — 39.25%. (b) 2009–10 — 39.25%. (c) 2010–11 — 38.29%. (d) 2011–12 — 37.29%. (e) 2012–13 — 37.29%. (f) Not available as the payments have not been made for 2013. (g) Not available as the rates are still to be determined. (h) Not available as the rates are still to be determined.

124 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014]

PRISONS — MOBILE PHONES 650. Hon Amber-Jade Sanderson to the Attorney General representing the Minister for Corrective Services: For each of Western Australia’s prisons, how many unauthorised mobile telephones have been found in each of the following years: (a) 2010–11; (b) 2011–12; (c) 2012–13; and (d) 2013 (to date)? Hon Michael Mischin replied: (a) 27 (b) 19 (c) 40 (d) As at 26 November 2013, there were 29. Note: The numbers reflect mobile phones which have been seized following searches of prisoners, prisoner’s accommodation, work areas and visitors and which are provided to the Department’s Justice Intelligence Services for processing FIONA STANLEY HOSPITAL — STAFF 653. Hon Sue Ellery to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Health: (1) What is the monthly cost of government employed staffing at Fiona Stanley Hospital? (2) What is the anticipated expenditure on such staff to 30 June 2014? (3) What is the total anticipated expenditure on payments to Serco to 30 June 2014 for services provided to Fiona Stanley Hospital? Hon Alyssa Hayden replied: (1) The actual monthly expenditure on Government-employed staff at Fiona Stanley Hospital in December 2013 was $1,671,468. (2) The total anticipated expenditure on staff is expected to be $24.3 million for the whole of 2013/2014. (3) The total anticipated expenditure on payments to Serco for 2013/2014 is expected to be $61.2 million. POWER SUPPLY INTERRUPTIONS 655. Hon Alanna Clohesy to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Energy: In each of 2012 and 2013 (to date), how many power supply interruptions, listed by cause of interruption, have occurred in the localities of: (a) Mundaring; (b) Stoneville; and (c) Parkerville? Hon Peter Collier replied: (a)–(c) [See paper 1185.] POLICE OFFICERS — NUMBER 657. Hon Samantha Rowe to the Attorney General representing the Minister for Police: (1) What was the authorised strength of each policing district, regional and metropolitan, on 1 November 2013? (2) For each of the policing districts in (1), what was the actual strength? Hon Michael Mischin replied: (1)–(2) [See paper 1186.] WESTERN POWER — GERALDTON CAR CRASH 679. Hon Darren West to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Energy: I refer to the Western Power infrastructure in Geraldton involved in a car crash on 15 November 2013, and Chief Executive Paul Italiano’s previous claims of responsibility for assets involved in fatalities, and ask:

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014] 125

(a) can the Minister for Energy confirm that poles around Geraldton are frequently less than 70cms away from the road, in breach of the standard required by Western Power; (b) how many Western Power poles in Geraldton breach the 70cm minimum distance, and if that information is unavailable, will the Minister for Energy undertake to find out as a matter of urgency; and (c) given Western Power’s acceptance of responsibility for the role their assets played in the death of Amber Finch in 2011, will the Minister for Energy confirm the Government has a clear duty of care to replace these poles around the Geraldton central business district? Hon Peter Collier replied: (a) Western Power has advised 130 out of 529 poles in the Geraldton central business district are less than 0.7m from the road. The poles in Durlacher Street were originally installed further from the road edge however subsequent widening of the road has reduced this distance. It is the responsibility of any third party constructing or widening a road to contact Western Power and fund the cost of relocating any affected power poles. (b) See answer to (a). (c) As infrastructure across the state is changed to meet demand, it is the responsibility of all parties to consider and mitigate safety risks. In the case of Durlacher Street, it is clearly the responsibility of the relevant third parties to fund the costs of relocating any affected power poles. Western Power will work with the City of Geraldton to provide design options and costs associated with moving these assets MARINE PARKS — COSTS 681. Hon Rick Mazza to the Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Environment: Will the Minister please provide full costs for all marine parks within Western Australia including: (a) costs for reviewing, planning, gazetting and establishing the parks including those for stakeholder consultation in the preparation of management plans; (b) costs for the full time equivalent employees employed in relation to protection, management and administration; (c) accommodation costs for staff accommodation; (d) costs of marine craft used for the purpose of protection, management and administration; and (e) costs of motor vehicles for the purpose of protection, management and administration of these parks? Hon Helen Morton replied: The Minister for Environment has provided the following response: The full cost for all marine conservation reserves within Western Australia established under the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984 for 2012/13 was $9 045 880 which includes the amounts below: (a) $1 255 002; (b) $3 716 276; (c) $820 785; (d) $408 928; and (e) $379 654. KARRI REGROWTH — HECTARES 682. Hon Darren West to the Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Environment: I refer to question on notice No. 1015 in the other place, and ask of the 49,950 hectares of post-clear felling regrowth karri available for wood production: (a) how many hectares date from clear felling conducted before selective logging was introduced in about 1940; (b) how much of the regrowth in (a) has been thinned; (c) how many hectares date from clear felling conducted after the practice was reintroduced in 1967; and (d) how much of the regrowth in has been thinned? Hon Helen Morton replied: The Minister for Environment has provided the following response.

126 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014]

(a) 4 230 hectares (b) 3 290 hectares (c) 44 390 hectares (d) 9 410 hectares POLICE OFFICERS — MULTICULTURAL BACKGROUNDS 688. Hon Kate Doust to the Attorney General representing the Minister for Police: I refer to the Premier’s media statement on 16 November 2011, which committed the Government to increasing the ratio of officers from Aboriginal and multicultural backgrounds within Western Australia Police, and I ask: (a) what is the current percentage of fully sworn police officers from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds; (b) what is the current percentage of fully sworn police officers from Aboriginal backgrounds; and (c) what is the target that the Government is setting for each of (a) and (b), and within what time frame? Hon Michael Mischin replied: (a)–(b) Western Australia Police can only request that employees provide cultural background information on a voluntary basis. As there is no way to determine the proportion of employees that have chosen to provide such information, it is not possible to accurately determine the total percentage of officers who are from an Aboriginal or a culturally and linguistically diverse (CaLD) background. Western Australia Police records for October 2013 indicate that 107 officers identified as Aboriginal, representing 1.7 per cent of sworn strength. A further 271 officers identified as being from a CaLD background, representing 4.4 per cent of sworn strength. As noted above, these percentages do not reflect the total number of officers who are Aboriginal or are from a CaLD background. (c) The intent of the Step Forward recruiting campaign is not to attract a specific number of officers who are Aboriginal or who are from a CaLD background, but to highlight to the public that Western Australia Police reflects the diverse community it serves, and that the organisation encourages, respects and values diversity within its workforce. WOMEN’S HEALTH SERVICES 691. Hon Nick Goiran to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Health: For 2013–14, what funding is budgeted to be expended on each program or initiative directed specifically at women’s health? Hon Alyssa Hayden replied: WA Health budget holders including health services and a small number of specific sections of the Department of Health deliver health services to all of the population, including women. It is not possible to provide information on the level of funding for each program or initiative as the information systems are not capable of isolating and accurately capturing the specific expenditure for any particular demographic group. FREIGHT TRAINS — AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT 695. Hon Lynn MacLaren to the Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Environment: (1) Are trains in the Western Australian freight network required to have filtering devices fitted to their exhausts? (2) If yes to (1), for each device please advise: (a) the name of the device; (b) the emissions filtered; and (c) the amount of emissions filtered? (3) If no to (1), why not? (4) If no to (1), what plans does the Government have to introduce emissions filtering devices to freight trains? Hon Helen Morton replied: (1) No.

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 18 February 2014] 127

(2) (a)–(c) Not applicable. (3)–(4) The Western Australian Government has supported the development of a nationally consistent approach to air quality management. The Council of Australian Governments identified air quality as a priority issue of national significance and agreed the need to develop and implement a National Plan for Clean Air to improve air quality and community wellbeing. The National Plan for Clean Air includes the development of cost-effective actions to reduce air pollution. The proposed measures incorporate projects focused on diesel trains including development of emission standards, accelerated replacement of old locomotives and driver assistance software to reduce fuel use.

______