Mr Colin Barnett; Acting Speaker; Ms Rita Saffioti; Mr John Day; Mr Terry Waldron; Mr Bill Johnston; Mr Peter Watson

Extract from Hansard [ASSEMBLY — Tuesday, 10 June 2014] p3585a-3597a Speaker; Mr Mark McGowan; Mr Ben Wyatt; Mr Colin Barnett; Acting Speaker; Ms Rita Saffioti; Mr John Day; Mr Terry Waldron; Mr Bill Johnston; Mr Peter Watson

INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS — GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT Matter of Public Interest THE SPEAKER (Mr M.W. Sutherland): Today I received within the prescribed time a letter from the Leader of the Opposition in the following terms — I wish to raise the following as a matter of public interest today. That this house condemns the Barnett government for mishandling projects thereby exposing taxpayers to millions of dollars in extra compensation and damages, including the new Perth Stadium, the nib Stadium redevelopment, Elizabeth Quay and the Balmoral South Iron Ore Project. The matter appears to be in order. [At least five members rose in their places.] The SPEAKER: The matter can proceed, but before it does, I call to order for the first time the members for Perth and Carine. MR M. McGOWAN (Rockingham — Leader of the Opposition) [3.38 pm]: I move the motion. This is an important subject matter because we are dealing with the appropriate and proper handling of public money. We all know that every single government in the history of this state has built projects and provided approvals; indeed, that is what governments do. It is standard practice on the part of governments in Western Australia. All the public facilities around this state are testament to that, as is every single mining and construction project in Western Australia over the last 180 years or so. It is very important that, as much as possible, public money is not wasted. It is also very important that these projects have smooth and transparent approvals processes. Any person in Western Australia who wishes to make an investment and receive an approval should have the right to the understanding that the processes are transparent and fair—transparent and fair for all applicants—and that approvals are not based on favouritism or prejudice. That is the way the business environment in this state should operate. However, we have seen examples historically of it not operating that way. We do not wish to see those incidents repeated in Western Australia. This motion is not about blowouts. Indeed, if it were about blowouts, we could talk about the $300 million blowout of Fiona Stanley Hospital, the $200 million blowout of Perth Children’s Hospital, the $3 billion worth of blowouts identified by the Auditor General or other financial disasters, such as the loss of goods and services tax revenue because of the hopeless deal that was signed in 1999 that has so penalised this state and that will continue to penalise it into the future. I could talk about all those things, and we have talked about all those things in the past. This motion is about the failure of process and lack of transparency and prejudice in decision-making. Today it was revealed that, as a consequence of the budget, a $4.7 million payment will be made to Golfwest not to operate a golf course. The Premier told us that there would be no additional cost for government land in relation to the stadium. A few weeks ago it was revealed that Allia Venue Management, the company operating nib Stadium, was being paid in excess of $8 million not to operate a stadium. It does not have to worry about all the costs and expenses and aggravation of operating a facility; it gets paid not to do it! We saw the Grand Palace Chinese restaurant paid not to make fried rice, sweet and sour pork or Szechuan beef. A total of $7.25 million was given to this small proprietary limited company so it cannot operate a Chinese restaurant and not have all the aggravation from this government in the future. We have seen Serco, the government’s favourite company, paid $118 million to operate a hospital without patients. If a company wants to do business in Western Australia under this government, it is far better off not doing that business and getting paid for it by the government because it gets a far better deal. That is how it works in Western Australia today. Companies do not have to do the work; they just collect the money under this government. There are four examples of it. We saw the $30 million discount for land purchased at Crown Perth. Crown got a $30 million discount without any justification provided to this Parliament. We saw $30 million worth of land at Elizabeth Quay given away to Ritz-Carlton a few weeks ago. Mr J.H.D. Day: What’s your evidence for that? Mr M. McGOWAN: The minister said that. He gave the land to that company. We now see $1.6 million worth of land on the Albany foreshore being given away. We saw a $15 million royalty holiday given to Karara Mining to take our iron ore and not pay a fee for it. Then we saw Mr Sage, a well-known donor to the government, receive a significant benefit, for which no justification has been provided. This government has given away more than $200 million of taxpayers’ money without transparency, in my view, and often without a public benefit. We might argue about the land at Elizabeth Quay, saying that a hotel will be built there. Hotels are being built around Western Australia at the moment —

[1] Extract from Hansard [ASSEMBLY — Tuesday, 10 June 2014] p3585a-3597a Speaker; Mr Mark McGowan; Mr Ben Wyatt; Mr Colin Barnett; Acting Speaker; Ms Rita Saffioti; Mr John Day; Mr Terry Waldron; Mr Bill Johnston; Mr Peter Watson

Mr C.J. Barnett: Not for 25 years. Mr M. McGOWAN: I opened one at Crown Perth in 2005. The Westin hotels chain is establishing hotels in Western Australia but it has to buy the land. If a business happens to be favoured, it gets the land for nothing. That is what we are saying. Where is the transparency? Where is the process? Why were others not able to compete? That brings me to the issue of the moment, which is the Balmoral South iron ore mine. How can it be that Western Australian taxpayers are now liable for damages to Mr Clive Palmer? Mr C.J. Barnett: No, they’re not. Mr M. McGOWAN: I hear the Premier say that they are not. He always mutters these things across the chamber. I want to quote page 50 of the arbitration judgement of a former High Court judge, Mr Michael McHugh, one of the most respected jurists in the country. His judgement, which is binding on the state, states — The failure of the Minister to give a decision within that time means that he is in breach of the State Agreement and is liable in damages for any damage that the Applicants may have suffered as the result of the breach. That is what he had to say in his judgement, which emerged last Friday. It is as clear as crystal that the state government will be liable in damages because of the failure of the minister to make a decision. The Minister for State Development, the Premier, may not like Mr Palmer. He may have a personal vendetta against him or a personal dislike for him. He has expressed it in this place before. He has expressed it publicly. That may be the case, and many people may agree with him, but that is no reason to prejudice the interests of the people of Western Australia in his decision-making. Today he said in question time that he rejected the application. There was no capacity for him to do that under the state agreement act. Mr McHugh, in his judgement, has made that plain. Thereby, the taxpayers of Western Australia are liable in damages as a consequence. The Premier might have that personal view of Mr Palmer. Admittedly, not so long ago—in 2010—Mr Palmer was over here addressing The 500 Club fundraising events for the Liberal Party. He was introduced by Mr Norman Moore at those events with some absolutely laudatory commentary about Mr Palmer. Mr Palmer offered to fly National Party members around the state campaigning. All the documents are here. I have the photographs of the special, very close relationship between the Liberal and National Parties and Mr Palmer. Admittedly, at that point he was saying that I, the humble member for Rockingham, should be expelled from the Parliament of Western Australia. In fact, if I recall correctly, he called me an idiot, and I think he put out a press release to that effect. The Premier asks why I am doing the bidding of Clive Palmer and says that I have this very special relationship with Clive Palmer. I have never even seen the bloke. I have never spoken to him. I have seen him on the television. I have seen him emerging from his vehicles. That is the extent of it, apart from him demanding that I be expelled from the Western Australian Parliament. If the Premier thinks that is a close relationship, maybe he should reconsider that line of attack and maybe he should answer the questions. What is the liability for Western Australia? Will he table the advice that he received, which he claimed said that he rejected the application? We have heard the Premier say these things before, as he might recall. We have had debates in this place about these things in which the Premier has had to apologise to this house for misleading it. I want to see the advice. I want to know what the taxpayers are potentially up for. I want to know why the Premier has placed the taxpayers of Western Australia in this position of rendering us potentially liable for hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation. I want to know what that liability is because I think the people of Western Australia deserve to know. We have the example of Synergy and Western Power. The Premier’s commentary on that was completely false. His commentary on the Insurance Commission of Western Australia was completely false. The Premier now says he has received advice from the department; he should table that advice. He should give us that advice so we can see whether he is telling the truth about it. Otherwise, my suspicion is that because he personally does not like him, and because he personally — Mr C.J. Barnett: It is not true. Mr M. McGOWAN: It is true! The Premier says it all the time. It is true that when he first became Premier, he passed legislation about Mineralogy. It is true he has done that. It is true that he said today he had a relationship going back some — Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Mr M. McGOWAN: He did! Mr C.J. Barnett: No, I did not. It was the WA Gallop government.

[2] Extract from Hansard [ASSEMBLY — Tuesday, 10 June 2014] p3585a-3597a Speaker; Mr Mark McGowan; Mr Ben Wyatt; Mr Colin Barnett; Acting Speaker; Ms Rita Saffioti; Mr John Day; Mr Terry Waldron; Mr Bill Johnston; Mr Peter Watson

Mr M. McGOWAN: The Premier passed legislation—namely, the Iron Ore Processing (Mineralogy Pty. Ltd.) Agreement Amendment Bill. There it is! It has the Premier’s name on it. He does not even remember the legislation he passed, but in any event — Mr C.J. Barnett: It was the Gallop government! Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr M. McGOWAN: I will quote it for the Premier. Here we go — I thank members for their support of the Iron Ore Processing (Mineralogy Pty. Ltd.) Agreement Amendment Bill … The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, through the Chair, please. Premier and member for Victoria Park, let the Leader of the Opposition speak. Mr M. McGOWAN: Just to conclude, we need the evidence and the advice. We need to know what the taxpayers are up for; we need to know why the Premier elected to do what he did, and whether he did that on the best of advice or whether he did that based on his own personal prejudice. MR B.S. WYATT (Victoria Park) [3.51 pm]: I want to make a few comments with a bit more detail concerning the Balmoral South iron ore project. The Premier said in question time today that he sees the ruling of the arbitrator largely as a technical one. It is significantly more than a technical ruling by the arbitrator, referred to arbitration pursuant to the state agreement act. The Premier posed the hypothetical question: what would the damages be? They could be considerable. If, at some point, project four is approved—that is, the August 2012 submission is approved—those damages may very well be the loss of profits between the time the Premier as minister failed to make a decision about that submission and then ultimately by the time that project is finally approved. The damages could be considerable. I do not know what they would be. The Australian Financial Review has made the suggestion that it could be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. I asked the Premier today, “What’s your advice about the exposure to the taxpayer?” The Premier did not answer; he did not even attempt to answer. I accept that it is somewhat unusual how this confidential—up until last week—commercial arbitration came to be public knowledge; it is very odd. Mr C.J. Barnett: It was around one o’clock—in the morning—in the Queensland Parliament. How kosher is that! Mr B.S. WYATT: It is. I am not suggesting for a minute, but as the Premier pointed out, it is up to the Queensland Parliament to make quick decisions about that. But here we have the previously confidential commercial arbitration decision. There are three points in the decision of former High Court Justice Michael McHugh. The minister had only three options; namely, he could approve the August 2012 proposal, he could defer it or he could insert conditions precedent to it. As we can see, at some point we will get to an approval of the project. The former justice did make the point that it is not deemed—at no point is there deemed approval—but at some point it will get to approval. Indeed, the state’s own contentions accepted that because at no point did it make the argument that it was very much within the bailiwick of the Minister for State Development to reject that proposal. Indeed, it was the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court of WA that specifically made the point that the Premier could not reject the proposal. Yet the Premier told us today, and I quote him, that that proposal was judged by the Department of State Development to be manifestly inadequate and was rejected. I put the question to the Premier, “Did you get legal advice before you rejected that proposal?” Bearing in mind that the state did not raise that argument about the entitlement to reject, I asked whether the Premier got legal advice. The Premier’s response was, “I would imagine that the department would have had legal advice.” When dealing with a very litigious person, and dealing with a very contentious issue, I would have thought the government would get legal advice. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Mr B.S. WYATT: It is a contentious issue! The Premier thinks it is technical — Mr C.J. Barnett: You’ve never overseen a major project! You do not know how it works! Mr B.S. WYATT: Neither has the Premier! The SPEAKER: Members!

[3] Extract from Hansard [ASSEMBLY — Tuesday, 10 June 2014] p3585a-3597a Speaker; Mr Mark McGowan; Mr Ben Wyatt; Mr Colin Barnett; Acting Speaker; Ms Rita Saffioti; Mr John Day; Mr Terry Waldron; Mr Bill Johnston; Mr Peter Watson

Mr B.S. WYATT: Let me think—Oakajee, Browse! The one that the Premier is doing, he seems to have stuffed up, because he did not make the key decision that was required to be made. I am sorry if this is sensitive to the Premier. Mr C.J. Barnett: It’s not sensitive. Mr B.S. WYATT: It is sensitive to him. I can see that already. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr C.J. Barnett: That’s the issue! The SPEAKER: Premier! Mr B.S. WYATT: Three arguments were put by the state, and every single one was rejected outright by Mr McHugh—every single one. Indeed, despite the fact that the Premier had accepted and approved four previous co-proponents, including one whereby the minister even went back and sought further information, who did what Mr McHugh said should have been done—that is, consult—as the Premier said, he rejected it, despite the fact that the Supreme Court of WA said, “You can’t do that.” As the Leader of the Opposition outlined, we now have a situation, as found by the arbitrator, Mr McHugh, in which the state is liable for damages that the applicants may have suffered as result of the breach. The Premier can get up here to ask, “Why are you making Clive Palmer’s case?” I am actually making the case for the taxpayers of WA. Why has the Premier failed to make that decision that now has a former High Court justice saying that the state is now liable for damages? That is a perfectly legitimate question by the people of Western Australia. Indeed, it was even more comprehensive than that. At paragraph 57 of the decision, it states — It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the attempt to categorise the August 2012 submission as not being a proposal — That was the argument made by the Barnett government — is an attempt to circumvent the Court of Appeal’s ruling that the Minister has no power to reject a proposal … They are pretty tough words for a judge! The Premier attempted to circumvent a previous decision by the Court of Appeal on a Supreme Court decision. Then he comes in here and says, “I just view the arbitrator’s decision as a technical issue.” It seems fairly clear that the damages could be substantial, and who is going to pay those damages if and when there is a finding? The people of Western Australia! They are the people for whom I am asking these questions. The Premier has to outline to us now whether he had any advice about the likely damages as a result of his failure, as found by the former justice of the High Court. Did the Premier seek legal advice as to the decision he made to reject that proposal? Did he seek it? We heard the Premier say, “I presided over many, many, many, many different large state development projects”; therefore, he must have known that he had no power to reject. The Premier had the obligation and the power to consult and to seek further information, but he rejected it and now we find ourselves in this situation. A number of questions need to be answered. The Premier did not do it at question time, and I look forward to him getting to his feet to answer these questions. He knows as well as I do that this is a much more broader and contentious issue than his flippant response that this is largely a technical one. MR C.J. BARNETT (Cottesloe — Minister for State Development) [3.58 pm]: When this matter of public interest’s wording was made available to members, it talked about the Perth Stadium, the nib Stadium redevelopment and Elizabeth Quay, and tacked on the end was the Balmoral South project. Members opposite have spent, I would say, two-thirds of their time talking about Balmoral South. Mr B.S. Wyatt: I spent all my time! Mr C.J. BARNETT: Yes, all of the member for Victoria Park’s time, and most of the Leader of the Opposition’s time. The others just gave a sort of scant comment as they went through, which just tells me that this motion is all about the interests of the Balmoral South project. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: It is! Members opposite have come into this place advocating for the Balmoral South project, which may well find itself in dispute through the courts with the state government. The opposition has suggested that it involves hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ money. It seems to be advocating for the bank balance of Clive Palmer! I really wonder what motivates members opposite in this. I find it extraordinary that they would come into this Parliament —

[4] Extract from Hansard [ASSEMBLY — Tuesday, 10 June 2014] p3585a-3597a Speaker; Mr Mark McGowan; Mr Ben Wyatt; Mr Colin Barnett; Acting Speaker; Ms Rita Saffioti; Mr John Day; Mr Terry Waldron; Mr Bill Johnston; Mr Peter Watson

Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, we listened in silence. Mr B.S. Wyatt: No, you did not! The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr I.M. Britza): Member for Victoria Park! Members of the opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT: I find it extraordinary that a parliamentary party, and a significant one such as the Labor Party, would come in advocating for what I clearly see to be in the interests of Clive Palmer and his companies! Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Victoria Park! Mr C.J. BARNETT: I will come back to that — Mr M. McGowan: You said it was a fair question. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Yes, and I will answer it. I want to refer to a few other things. Other members will speak on this. The opposition referred to the government paying Golfwest $4.7 million. We want to build a major stadium. The whole precinct is, basically, government land, but a business is leasing the site to run a golf course, so we have to buy it out. Is there anything very strange with that? No. Is there anything very strange with buying out the Chinese restaurant interest to build Elizabeth Quay? Is there any difference with nib Stadium? It is probably more complicated in that case. What was Labor going to do? The Labor Party was going to redevelop Subiaco Oval and knock over, from memory, 40 houses on Roberts Road. Was the Labor Party going to tell those people that they were not going to be paid for that? Was that the Labor Party’s position? That would have probably cost $60 million in compensation. That was the Labor Party’s policy going into the election. The Labor Party went into the election with a policy of resuming through compulsory reacquisition 40 houses on Roberts Road for its stadium. Opposition members come in here and complain because we treat commercial interests legitimately. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: The hypocrisy is amazing! However, I will get back to the Balmoral South project. I will provide a bit of history here. I was the Minister for Resources Development, as it was known in the 1990s, when negotiations began with Mineralogy over its projects in this state. Those negotiations began in 1994, which is a long time ago. Mineralogy had acquired the leases over the Fortescue magnetite deposits in 1986 from a company called Hanna Mining. In 1994, negotiations took place on a state agreement for their development. Those negotiations were essentially completed in 1998. From memory, Clive Palmer was very keen that the state agreement be introduced and ratified through Parliament because the agreement was, basically, agreed. I spent hours, if not days, at the table in discussions, laughter, rows or whatever we want to call it, negotiating this agreement with Clive Palmer. At the time I made it very clear to Mr Palmer that the state would introduce that agreement into Parliament and ratify it only if the state was convinced that the project was about to proceed. Clive Palmer did not have the money to develop it. It would be introduced only if Mineralogy had partners and customers and was advanced in environmental and other approvals so that we could be sufficiently confident that the project would proceed. I refused to introduce it, as I have done with other projects, until I and the department were convinced that the company was at the stage of proceeding. The Gallop government came into power and very quickly put it through Parliament and ratified the state agreement act. I have not looked back, but I am sure that I made some comments when that came through. What happened? The first project was something known as Austeel, which involved some very well-known steel companies and equipment suppliers around the world. That project collapsed; it did not go anywhere. Clive Palmer still had the agreement act though, did he not? That failed. Then CITIC Pacific Mining came along and Clive Palmer sold it the rights to develop for $415 million, as reported. He became an extraordinarily wealthy man without having put a shovel in the ground. That is the reality. In my view, the Gallop government bringing that agreement through ahead of its time made Clive Palmer an extraordinarily wealthy person. Good luck to him. That is what happened. Now the state is talking about state-owned mineral resources and wanting to see developments take place. Clive Palmer is now in dispute with CITIC. He is causing damage to the reputation that we, and particularly this state, enjoy with China. That is in litigation and who knows where all that will go. Accusations have been made by CITIC—I think publicly—that money that was meant for the project was diverted into campaign purposes. I do not know whether that is true, but they are the sorts of issues that are dealt with through legal processes. Clive Palmer is very opportunistic. He made a lot of money out of this state, which has funded some of his other projects, such as coalmining. He has been very clever and very successful. However, he has not developed a mine in Western Australia. Unlike most other major resource companies that put in the effort and money to

[5] Extract from Hansard [ASSEMBLY — Tuesday, 10 June 2014] p3585a-3597a Speaker; Mr Mark McGowan; Mr Ben Wyatt; Mr Colin Barnett; Acting Speaker; Ms Rita Saffioti; Mr John Day; Mr Terry Waldron; Mr Bill Johnston; Mr Peter Watson design and build the mine, Clive sold it. He sold the rights that the Gallop government gave him for over $400 million. That is what happened. Members opposite should be conscious of that when they deal with someone such as Clive Palmer. Mr B.S. Wyatt: You know we are dealing with proposal 4 of the state agreement? Mr C.J. BARNETT: I know. As I said in question time, the Balmoral South project is part of the Mineralogy agreement, which was negotiated with me, but was deliberately not brought into Parliament by me. Mr B.S. Wyatt: He has still got the same rights. Mr C.J. BARNETT: No, there is a big difference—only when it is ratified. Mr B.S. Wyatt: He’s still got the same rights to sue you. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Why is the member for Victoria Park advocating that Clive Palmer take legal action? That is very strange. Mr M. McGowan: You verbal all the time; you put words in people’s mouths. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Tut, tut. The Leader of the Opposition has upset me! Going back to the Balmoral South project, it is covered under the agreement act. As I said in question time, Clive Palmer put in a proposal, as required under the agreement act, for the development of another resource. As I also said in question time, this was not only to build a mine—anything but. It involved a mine, a slurry pipeline, a desalination plant, dredging of a shipping channel, a conveyor, a trestle jetty, a ship-loading facility capable of dealing with capesize vessels and so on. It is not only a mine under the Mining Act; it is a large and complex proposal requiring a state agreement to extend leases over the access to the natural resources and give the company the right to build infrastructure and all those things. It is a typical state agreement–type proposal. Under that, a proposals mechanism is laid out in the agreement act. The department and the government expect to see substantive progress on the proposal before we sign off on it and give that person the right to develop or sell it. On behalf of the public, we take care of the ownership of the natural resources. On the advice given to me by the department, the proposal put in was inadequate in a range of respects. The proposal was not developed to the stage at which the government could properly or legitimately say, “Yes, sign off on that agreement” — Mr B.S. Wyatt: Was that put to Mineralogy? Mr C.J. BARNETT: Listen; I am going through it. I will come back to the earlier part of this correspondence, but the department said — Separately, the Department will write to Mineralogy and International Minerals to identify areas within the proposal that lack clarity, information and commitments. The proposal was inadequate. The arbiter found, as I said in question time, that regardless of whether it was inadequate, the proposal needed to be treated as a proposal and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the department and the minister to assess it and respond rather than to reject it. I accept that ruling. The government has decided not to appeal that, although people have argued that there is a case to appeal. We will accept the arbiter’s decision. That is the extent of it. Would it have got through an assessment? I suggest probably not. The department’s recommendation to me as minister was — That you sign the attached letters to Mineralogy and International Minerals advising that you cannot accept the proposal as valid under the State Agreement, as it proposes actions already approved under the Sino Iron Pellet Project. It went on to say — … areas within the proposal that lack clarity, information and commitments. Some of these things — Tabling of Paper Mr M. McGOWAN: The Premier is clearly quoting from an official document and I ask that he table that document. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I will give it to the opposition; sit down. There is no secrecy about that. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr I.M. Britza): Thank you, Premier. Debate Resumed

[6] Extract from Hansard [ASSEMBLY — Tuesday, 10 June 2014] p3585a-3597a Speaker; Mr Mark McGowan; Mr Ben Wyatt; Mr Colin Barnett; Acting Speaker; Ms Rita Saffioti; Mr John Day; Mr Terry Waldron; Mr Bill Johnston; Mr Peter Watson

Mr C.J. BARNETT: This is the advice to me from the department and the department also received advice from the State Solicitor’s Office. The opposition talks somewhat ironically about process. What could be better than that? The department gave me clear advice to sign a letter to reject it. Probably the advice should have been to assess it and then reject it. The department, with advice from the State Solicitor’s Office, gave me clear advice. Mr B.S. Wyatt: There’s a problem, don’t you think? Mr C.J. BARNETT: There is a problem because maybe the advice was not technically to the point. I accept that. Mr B.S. Wyatt: You’re now exposing the taxpayer. Mr C.J. BARNETT: The opposition comes in here and builds up Clive Palmer, this champion of Australian industry, this impeccable person, apparently, who is in litigation all around the country, advocating his cause over the ownership of resources that belong to the people of Western Australia. Members opposite ought to look at what happened when they tabled and passed through this Parliament in 2002 that Iron Ore Processing (Mineralogy Pty. Ltd.) Agreement Act. Who spoke to Clive Palmer? Did he have lobbyists involved? Who is speaking to the opposition today? They are the more pertinent questions. Members opposite talk about process. The process has been absolutely clear and proper. I will table the correspondence and the advice that I followed as minister. Maybe, as the arbitrator said, legally, it was not the correct approach but the overwhelming issue for people opposite, who have rarely got a project off the ground, is the development of the project, not little legal clauses within the agreement. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Members opposite do not get it. This is why they will probably never get a project off the ground. The clear advice of the department is that progress on approvals, as someone said, is manifestly inadequate. This project was not in a state to go forward, and that is the critical issue. It is about managing big projects. As I have said publicly, having dealt at various times with dozens of state agreements over my time in Parliament, the agreements lay down a method of facilitating a development project. They can be complicated and new issues can arise during approvals, construction or marketing processes or whatever else. Even changes in technology and environmental changes can impact. However, the overwhelming role of a state agreement is to be a facilitation document—to set the procedures for developing the project. I would have thought that when most people—maybe not Clive Palmer—are advised that a proposal is inadequate, they would simply sit down with the department and ask, “Okay; where are the weaknesses, what do we need to improve, what do we need to do more work on so that it becomes something that the government is in a position to accept?” Most people would do that. That is my experience with major projects and all the big companies in Western Australia except Clive Palmer, who wants to litigate. That is the problem the state has when dealing with him. Mr B.S. Wyatt: On that document you just tabled, you said that the department wanted to go back to Mineralogy Pty Ltd and say that it was inadequate. Mr C.J. BARNETT: That is what normally happens. Mr B.S. Wyatt: Did the department do that and then what happened? Mr C.J. BARNETT: The department wrote to him and he has taken legal action. Mr B.S. Wyatt: There was no — Mr C.J. BARNETT: I am not involved at that level. The normal course — Mr B.S. Wyatt: A reasonableness test was applied. Mr C.J. BARNETT: If something is inadequate or in error or there is another environmental issue, the normal course is to negotiate and deal with the department and try to improve things. This proposal was not just a bit short; it was manifestly inadequate. It was not a proposal that the state of Western Australia should proceed to develop. I will allow time for the Minister for Planning and the Minister for Sport and Recreation to talk about some of the other allegations. Mr M. McGowan: Are we liable now? Mr C.J. BARNETT: I do not know. Clive Palmer has not sought damages. Mr M. McGowan: If he does? Mr C.J. BARNETT: I do not know whether we are liable.

[7] Extract from Hansard [ASSEMBLY — Tuesday, 10 June 2014] p3585a-3597a Speaker; Mr Mark McGowan; Mr Ben Wyatt; Mr Colin Barnett; Acting Speaker; Ms Rita Saffioti; Mr John Day; Mr Terry Waldron; Mr Bill Johnston; Mr Peter Watson

Mr M. McGowan: If we are? Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Leader of the Opposition is barracking for Clive Palmer; I understand that. The Leader of the Opposition is on Clive Palmer’s side. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: All the Leader of the Opposition — Mr M. McGowan interjected. The ACTING SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT: All the opposition wants is trouble for the government because it has a lousy record on big projects. I think I have had a bit to do with big projects. Most of them have — Mr B.S. Wyatt: Most of them haven’t gone anywhere. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I could bore members opposite for 10 minutes going through the projects I have successfully been involved in, but I will spare them that. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: That came from the member for West Swan about process—she and her electorate officer. Give us a break! I table the document. [See paper 1695.] MS R. SAFFIOTI (West Swan) [4.14 pm]: It is always nice for the Premier to provide some gutter talk at the end of his speech! Again today there has been no clarity about the exposure to the state. The opposition wants to know what advice this government has received on this project and what is the exposure to the state. Mr C.J. Barnett: It has just been tabled. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: Are we liable for millions? Yes, the Premier had concerns about Mineralogy; he had concerns also about the Gorgon project. Remember them? He never brought in a state agreement to facilitate development on Barrow Island; the Labor Party did that, because he was concerned about Gorgon. No wonder there was a recession in 2000–01 and no wonder state final demand is predicted to be zero next financial year. State final demand has fallen for the March quarter and for the year ending 31 March. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Victoria Park! Ms R. SAFFIOTI: Domestic activity is falling. Western Australia had a recession the last time the Premier was the Minister for Resources; Development and now state final demand is zero. The last time that happened, in 2000–01 we were in recession. Mr C.J. Barnett: Palmer’s puppets. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: The Premier says just anything. We know he is under pressure when he does not address the issue and gets in the gutter. He has constantly made imputations about why members on this side moved this matter of public interest. We have moved this motion because we understand that state taxpayers are liable for tens of millions of dollars. Mr C.J. Barnett: Who told you that? Ms R. SAFFIOTI: The Premier has not provided any advice to refute that. Mr M. McGowan: He doesn’t know. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: He may not have asked the question, but we need to know. That is the critical factor. He might sit there thinking that it is not a serious matter, but it is serious. Time and again decisions have been made that have put the state’s finances at risk in the long term. The government lost the AAA credit rating. He does it again and again. The Premier has made short-term decisions that expose the state. Only after years and years do we pull out all the information. Process is important, as are accountability and transparency in this place, yet he continues to thumb his nose at them.

[8] Extract from Hansard [ASSEMBLY — Tuesday, 10 June 2014] p3585a-3597a Speaker; Mr Mark McGowan; Mr Ben Wyatt; Mr Colin Barnett; Acting Speaker; Ms Rita Saffioti; Mr John Day; Mr Terry Waldron; Mr Bill Johnston; Mr Peter Watson

Mr C.J. Barnett: Transparency from you. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: The Premier can sit there pumped up and say whatever he likes; I do not care because I have no respect for how he manages this state. He does it again and again. He is wasting millions of dollars and he has no respect. The community agrees with us. The community has lost all confidence in what he is doing—broken promises, deal after deal. The community has seen through the Premier and he knows it. They know that he lied at the last election about promises and they know that deal after deal — Withdrawal of Remark The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr I.M. Britza): You cannot impugn him personally; you need to withdraw that statement. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: The Premier has constantly impugned every member on this side for the past 20 minutes, but that is okay; I will withdraw. He does it again and again. The ACTING SPEAKER: Thank you. Debate Resumed Ms R. SAFFIOTI: This is a serious matter. How it came to the public was not our doing but it is out there now. As the Minister for State Development, he has the responsibility to come to this house and tell us exactly what has happened. He should have made a ministerial statement on this issue; it is significant. Time and again we have to go through freedom of information, we have to go to the Queensland Parliament or anywhere to find information. Seriously! Mr C.J. Barnett: How did you find out from the Queensland Parliament at one o’clock on Friday morning? Several members interjected. The ACTING SPEAKER: Members! The member for West Swan has the call. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: I read the paper. I pick up the newspaper from the lawn and read it. That is how we found out how this happened. I know that is shocking and it may be bad process! Again and again there is a lack of transparency and accountability. As I said, the Premier can say whatever he likes about me and about us on this side of the house, because the community has worked him out and I know that everyone on his side knows that. They have worked him out. Several members interjected. The ACTING SPEAKER: Members! Ms R. SAFFIOTI: The key thing is that the more the Premier attacks me, the more my popularity grows. He can keep doing it. Attack away! Several members interjected. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: Attack away! The ACTING SPEAKER: Okay, members! Thank you. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: In my last few minutes I want to mention the Allia deal plus a couple of others and highlight again exactly how bad this government is at handling these key projects. Firstly, I will talk about Allia Venue Management. We have heard about the $8 million. The government has already paid $1.9 million in compensation for the redevelopment of nib Stadium and we know that another $1.3 million has to be paid. I know it has to be paid because when I asked the Minister for Sport and Recreation a question about it in April, he said that the state would be liable for another $1.3 million. I thought, “Geez, why isn’t it in the budget papers?” The government knew about it in early April, so why is it not in the budget papers? Why was Treasury not informed? I thought the Treasurer or Treasury might know about another payment to Allia of $1.3 million. I asked, “Where is the $1.3 million? Where is this other compensation payment to Allia? Where is it in the budget papers?” The Treasurer responded — As to the other sum of $1.3 million, I think the member will have to ask the Minister for Sport and Recreation. We do not know anything about it. The Treasurer drew up a budget and knew nothing about it! This is from the Treasurer, who had just handed down the budget! I thought someone would have thought, “This Allia issue is pretty significant; let’s work out our total exposure.” The Treasurer said —

[9] Extract from Hansard [ASSEMBLY — Tuesday, 10 June 2014] p3585a-3597a Speaker; Mr Mark McGowan; Mr Ben Wyatt; Mr Colin Barnett; Acting Speaker; Ms Rita Saffioti; Mr John Day; Mr Terry Waldron; Mr Bill Johnston; Mr Peter Watson

My advice from Treasury is that it does not know anything about the sum that the member just referred to. Treasury was not asked for supplementary funding for it, and therefore it is not in the budget to my knowledge. Again and again the government makes decisions that Treasury knows nothing about. The $4.7 million Golfwest deal was decided in November 2012 but was not made public until last week. The opposition asked about it time and again. In November 2012 we asked whether it was in the December midyear review and were told that it was not. There was a little asterisk that indicated we had paid some money but it has taken 18 months of question after question to get the information. This government is not transparent and it is not accountable for taxpayers’ money. MR J.H.D. DAY (Kalamunda — Minister for Planning) [4.23 pm]: This motion refers to four projects but, as the Premier has pointed out, most of the opposition’s focus has been about the last one mentioned, the Balmoral South iron ore project. That is really what the issue is all about. The Premier has very adequately covered the issues and questioned the motives of the opposition for raising the issue in the way that it has. My particular role is to deal with the matter of Elizabeth Quay. The assertion was made by the Leader of the Opposition that there has been a failure of process. The motion itself refers to mishandling projects, which obviously includes Elizabeth Quay. How has it actually been mishandled? What is the failure of process for the Elizabeth Quay project? The reality is that there is absolutely no failure of process in any way. A decision was made to go ahead with the Perth Waterfront project, which is now known as the Elizabeth Quay project. This is something that had been proposed for about 30 years. Something like 10 proposals were made over that period and this government made the decision to go ahead with the project. It did not just announce it and put out some fancy drawings, as the former Labor government did in early 2008 with its “Dubai-on-Swan” project, which was an overstated development right on the waterfront itself. Arrangements had to be made to deal with the land for the Elizabeth Quay project and any structures within the land that might be developed, as well as any businesses that happened to be there. Just one business—a Chinese restaurant named Grand Palace Restaurant and Reception—was located there. The reality is that the operators of that business had a lease that was granted by the City of Perth, which had responsibility for the management of the building. It was a surprisingly very generous lease for a 10-year period with three 10-year options. Effectively, the lease was for 40 years. It was a very long lease indeed. That lease was granted not by this state government or the previous Labor state government, but by the City of Perth. We have to wonder why the lease was for so long, but the reality is that it was granted. People have legal rights to leases or property that they own. Does the opposition suggest that those legal rights should be removed? Is that the case? The other question that needs to be asked — Mr M. McGowan: Are you saying that the net present value is potentially $20 million a year? Mr J.H.D. DAY: I am certainly not saying that it is potentially $20 million. I have said that the leaseholders, as I understand it, have now put in a claim to the Supreme Court. It is not publicly revealed through the court but I know that it is in excess of $20 million. Does the government agree that that is justified? Of course it does not agree that it is justified. Mr M. McGowan: Do you agree it is more than $7.5 million? Mr J.H.D. DAY: No. We do not necessarily agree that it is more than — Mr M. McGowan: You signed up to it! Mr J.H.D. DAY: It is actually $7.24 million, which is what the operator has been paid so far. That was based on professional valuation advice provided to the Western Australian Planning Commission and that amount was then paid by WAPC. What would the opposition have done? The opposition said that it would do a project and it put out fancy plans in early 2008. How would the opposition — Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr J.H.D. DAY: I am very happy to do that. I have another two minutes to do it. Mr P. Papalia interjected. The ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Warnbro! The minister is giving his explanation and I suggest you hear him out. There are only two minutes left. Mr J.H.D. DAY: It is valid to ask what would the opposition, the alternative government of this state — Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr J.H.D. DAY: The government that was in office up until September 2008 was actually proposing — Mr P. Papalia interjected.

[10] Extract from Hansard [ASSEMBLY — Tuesday, 10 June 2014] p3585a-3597a Speaker; Mr Mark McGowan; Mr Ben Wyatt; Mr Colin Barnett; Acting Speaker; Ms Rita Saffioti; Mr John Day; Mr Terry Waldron; Mr Bill Johnston; Mr Peter Watson

The ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Warnbro, I call you to order for the first time. I do not want any more interjections. Let us hear the minister. Mr J.H.D. DAY: How would — Mr P.B. Watson interjected. The ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Albany! Mr J.H.D. DAY: Although I do not really expect a clear answer, it is valid to ask how the Labor Party in government, as it was up until 2008, would have actually dealt with this issue. It would have faced the same issue. The Grand Palace Chinese restaurant operated within the Florence Hummerston building. I understand that the project proposed by the Labor government at the time would have had the same effect on the Florence Hummerston building. Mr W.J. Johnston: If that is what you want. That is the way to solve that problem. Mr J.H.D. DAY: Which is to? Mr W.J. Johnston: You resign and I will get appointed as the minister! We will see what happens. Mr J.H.D. DAY: I would like to hear an explanation about how the Labor Party would have actually dealt with the issue. The former Labor government never really had to face it because it was very good at announcing projects and drawing up plans. That is what happened with the Perth City Link project. I remember during the 2005 election campaign a big splash was made about how that project would go ahead in that term of government. Absolutely nothing happened on the ground prior to the 2008 election. It took a change of government for work to actually get underway. The Elizabeth Quay project on the waterfront, again, was announced but nothing was achieved on the ground in any way by the Labor Party; therefore, it never really had to face these issues. The one big project that the Labor Party did undertake in the Perth CBD was Perth Arena. It is funny that we have not heard that referred to today. What was the initial budget for that? It was something under $200 million. That project was started by the Labor government—to its credit, it actually started one major project in the CBD. The final cost was $520 million or $530 million. The Labor government was in a big rush to get a major project underway. But it did not do the groundwork. It did not have the proper administrative or oversight structures in place within government. It was big on making announcements but not on implementing them in a financially responsible way. There is absolutely no truth in the suggestion that there has been a mishandling of this project. The reality is that people do have property rights. Arguments are put to me on this side of the Parliament from time to time that reflect the very high aspirations that people have in relation to the value of their land and their property rights. What I always seek to do, and what is appropriate to do through the Western Australian Planning Commission and so on, is ensure not only that there is a fair outcome, but that the interests of the taxpayers of Western Australia are adequately protected. That is what is occurring in relation to this issue. The operators of the Grand Palace Chinese restaurant, Wang Nominees, lodged a writ of summons in the Supreme Court on 7 April. That means that the issue will be resolved in the Supreme Court, and obviously both sides will need to abide by that decision. They have been paid $7.24 million. That is based on the professional valuation advice. Whether they should receive anything further is up to the court. We believe that the amount they have been paid is fair and reasonable. It does reflect the very long lease that was in place, and they are obviously in a very fortunate position. The alternative is simply not to do these projects. That is the issue. If we are going to do things, we have to face up to these issues, and we have to wear the criticism that comes from the opposition, which is flimsy and does not stand the test of real scrutiny.

MR T.K. WALDRON (Wagin — Minister for Sport and Recreation) [4.32 pm]: I want to refer to the part of the motion that refers to the stadium and the golf club. I also want to touch on nib Stadium, although I think I have covered that I do not know how many times in this place over a period of time. I think we have done that one to death, but I will comment on it. Just so that members will understand, Golfwest had a lease. As the Minister for Planning has said, people have leases. Golfwest also had a course controller agreement with the Burswood Park Board to manage the golf course and operate the pro shop and provide professional golf services. Klemap Pty Ltd held a lease and a functions agreement to provide catering services at Burswood Park golf course. The term of these agreements was from 1 February 2009 to 31 January 2014, plus a five-year option. Because the full tenure of the lease and agreement was unable to be exercised, a deed of settlement and release was reached with the respective entities and the state government. Both those deeds contained confidentiality clauses. However, at budget estimates the member for West Swan asked me a question about this matter, and I gave her the answer that I would look and

[11] Extract from Hansard [ASSEMBLY — Tuesday, 10 June 2014] p3585a-3597a Speaker; Mr Mark McGowan; Mr Ben Wyatt; Mr Colin Barnett; Acting Speaker; Ms Rita Saffioti; Mr John Day; Mr Terry Waldron; Mr Bill Johnston; Mr Peter Watson get advice, and she then asked the Premier later on. I therefore consulted, and I have released the information. So the information is out there and I will tell the Parliament that information. An amount of $4 694 234 was paid to the golf course operators, including $94 234.88 paid by the Burswood Park Board as a refund of rent paid. An amount of $600 000 was paid to Klemap Pty Ltd. Mr D.J. Kelly interjected. Mr T.K. WALDRON: I have got only five minutes, and I want to answer what has been raised here. These figures were arrived at following a negotiation period. The figures were negotiated properly between the respective parties. The negotiations were undertaken by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, in consultation with the State Solicitor’s Office and the Office of Strategic Projects, which is obviously part of Treasury. We always knew and expected that when we went to do a major project such as the stadium, there would be these costs, because the golf course was there and the agreements were there. That is part of the cost of providing Western Australia with a major new asset. The ACTING SPEAKER: Members, there is a constant drone — Mr B.S. Wyatt: It’s the minister! The ACTING SPEAKER: — and I am struggling to hear the minister. I want to hear him, and I think Hansard does as well. So I would rather that members keep their conversations down, please. Mr T.K. WALDRON: A drone! I have always been known as a bit of a buzzing bee, member for Victoria Park! The Premier touched on this, and so did the Minister for Planning, and talked about what Labor wanted to do. Kitchener Park was Labor’s preferred option. Let us look at some of the issues involved with that. We are talking about costing taxpayers money and saving taxpayers money. One of the issues is that the land was leased to the West Australian Football Commission for 99 years. So there was an issue at Subiaco straightaway. It also required the resumption of 32 private properties and the relocation of 66 Homeswest units on Subiaco Road. The member for West Swan had a go at the Premier because he said Roberts Road. She knew what he meant. The likely cost was between $50 million and $60 million just to do that. The member for Albany talked about looking after football. Have a listen! That is not to mention the disruption to the individuals in those houses and the considerable time frames required to negotiate those resumptions. That would have meant that there would need to be a staged construction at Subiaco, with reduced capacity, which would cost a lot of money, and significant disruption to football and other stadium users. The member for Albany wants to make sure that footy is looked after. Mr P.B. Watson: Have a look at Adelaide Oval! Mr T.K. WALDRON: I have got three minutes, Mr Acting Speaker, and there are a couple of things I need to say. Members opposite do not want to hear this, because this is the truth. Another issue at Subiaco Oval and Kitchener Park is that there would be no prospect for broader precinct activation. Yet, in spite of all this, members opposite still say Subi was the way to go. At Burswood, the state owns the land. Yes, we had to negotiate a settlement with the operators, and we have done that. What have we got? We have got a magnificent greenfield site, with no resumptions required; great opportunities for precinct activation; and a site that will allow us to expand on the size of the stadium and extend it in the future if that is demanded. During the week, Kate Roffey, chief executive officer of the Committee for Melbourne, came out here. Everyone says to me that we need to be like Melbourne. We need to have sports precincts like those in Melbourne. She says that we are way in front of the game. She says that our planning and what we are doing here is way in front of the game. They have got issues in Melbourne. They have some good facilities, but they have some big issues as well. I will now briefly cover—because I have covered it umpteen times—Allia Venue Management. I will shorten this, because I know that the member for West Swan has heard it a hundred times. I can only tell members the truth and what happened and why we did these things. The government had two options. They were to either redevelop nib Stadium or build a new stadium on a greenfield site. It would probably cost us $300 million to do that. Talk about costing taxpayers money! We had a $101 million redevelopment at nib Stadium, which we did for $95 million. So there was a $6 million saving there. Plus, we did all the extra stuff. On Saturday night, when the South Sydney Rabbitohs played at nib Stadium, there were 20 500 people there—a capacity crowd. Why? It is because it is a damn good stadium! It is what our sports wanted. It is what the state wanted. It was a good deal for the people of Western Australia, and particularly for the supporters. I know this. There are a few supporters

[12] Extract from Hansard [ASSEMBLY — Tuesday, 10 June 2014] p3585a-3597a Speaker; Mr Mark McGowan; Mr Ben Wyatt; Mr Colin Barnett; Acting Speaker; Ms Rita Saffioti; Mr John Day; Mr Terry Waldron; Mr Bill Johnston; Mr Peter Watson over there—the member for Albany, the member for Collie, the member for Victoria Park and the member for West Swan. I notice they do not mind going to nib Stadium and being entertained and enjoying the new facilities. They bag nib Stadium all the time, yet they are very happy to utilise it. Do members know why? Because it is a good project. Several members interjected. The ACTING SPEAKER: Members! Thirty seconds, minister. Mr T.K. WALDRON: It is a great project, and it is great value for the state. Had we gone down Labor’s road and done what they said we should have done, it would have delayed that and we probably would not have that stadium, and we still would have had to pay out Allia. So the state and the taxpayers would have been worse off. MR W.J. JOHNSTON (Cannington) [4.38 pm]: I want to address a couple of issues. I was interested in the Premier’s comments about how the Iron Ore Processing (Mineralogy Pty. Ltd.) Agreement Bill 2002 had been brought in prematurely. So I read his second reading speech contribution, given that he was the Leader of the Opposition at the time, and he does not say that once. Not once does he say that. In fact, what he said is — I say from the outset that the Liberal Opposition supports this agreement Bill relating to the Mineralogy Pty Ltd project. Not once did the then Leader of the Opposition say that the bill was premature. That is the problem with this Premier. When he is speaking, he is not telling the truth. The question is whether he is lying or not. We all know he is not telling the truth. So is he telling a lie, or is he just making it up as he goes along? The Premier comes in here, having been party to a coalition that received tens of thousands of dollars from Mr Palmer, lauded him and gave him life membership of the Liberal Party in this country, and then he says that we are the ones who are in bed with Mr Palmer! Mr Palmer was the state director of the National Party. Several members interjected. The ACTING SPEAKER: Members on my right, let us hear the member out. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Mr Palmer was the state director of the National Party in the 1980s in Queensland. He has never been a member of the Labor Party. Several members interjected. The ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Wanneroo! Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: They talk about the special relationship with the member for Pilbara! Does the Premier stand up and talk about Mr Palmer’s special relationship with the member for Pilbara or the member for North West Central? No, he comes in here and hurls abuse at this side of the chamber. He makes imputations but is not prepared to make an allegation because he is too weak. We know how weak he is. Now the problem for the Premier and the Liberal Party is that the people of Western Australia are on to him, and we saw that on the front page of The West Australian newspaper on Monday. They know the dishonesty that has come out of the Liberal Party election campaign. Fully funded, fully costed—that is what the Premier and the Liberal Party said, and now we all know that it was not true. It was not true when it was said and it is not true now. The Premier comes in here and makes unfounded, unrealistic and untrue allegations about this side of the chamber, but is not prepared to tell the truth at any time in this debate. At any time in this debate, he is not prepared to tell the true facts. It is interesting; people should read the advice that was tabled by him before they vote in favour of the disgraceful performance by the Premier on the Balmoral South project. The Premier has been caught out. He has messed up! Several members interjected. The ACTING SPEAKER: Members! Point of Order Mr P.B. WATSON: Mr Acting Speaker, you were on your feet and the Premier was interjecting. If anyone on this side of the house did that, they would be called to order. Then, when the member was talking, they were all interjecting, and not once did you call anyone to order. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr I.C. Blayney): Thank you, member. Division Question put and a division taken, the Acting Speaker (Mr I.C. Blayney) casting his vote with the noes, with the following result —

[13] Extract from Hansard [ASSEMBLY — Tuesday, 10 June 2014] p3585a-3597a Speaker; Mr Mark McGowan; Mr Ben Wyatt; Mr Colin Barnett; Acting Speaker; Ms Rita Saffioti; Mr John Day; Mr Terry Waldron; Mr Bill Johnston; Mr Peter Watson

Ayes (17)

Ms L.L. Baker Mr F.M. Logan Mr J.R. Quigley Mr B.S. Wyatt Mr R.H. Cook Mr M. McGowan Mrs M.H. Roberts Mr D.A. Templeman (Teller) Ms J. Farrer Ms S.F. McGurk Ms R. Saffioti Mr W.J. Johnston Mr M.P. Murray Mr C.J. Tallentire Mr D.J. Kelly Mr P. Papalia Mr P.B. Watson

Noes (33)

Mr P. Abetz Ms M.J. Davies Mr A.P. Jacob Dr M.D. Nahan Mr F.A. Alban Mr J.H.D. Day Dr G.G. Jacobs Mr D.C. Nalder Mr C.J. Barnett Ms W.M. Duncan Mr R.F. Johnson Mr J. Norberger Mr I.C. Blayney Ms E. Evangel Mr R.S. Love Mr A.J. Simpson Mr I.M. Britza Mr J.M. Francis Mr W.R. Marmion Mr T.K. Waldron Mr T.R. Buswell Mrs G.J. Godfrey Mr J.E. McGrath Mr A. Krsticevic (Teller) Mr G.M. Castrilli Dr K.D. Hames Mr P.T. Miles Mr V.A. Catania Mrs L.M. Harvey Ms A.R. Mitchell Mr M.J. Cowper Mr C.D. Hatton Mr N.W. Morton

Pairs

Ms M.M. Quirk Mr M.H. Taylor Ms J.M. Freeman Mr D.T. Redman Dr A.D. Buti Mr B.J. Grylls Mr P.C. Tinley Mr S.K. L’Estrange

Question thus negatived.

[14]