Legislative Council

Tuesday, 30 March 2010

THE PRESIDENT (Hon Barry House) took the chair at 3.00 pm, and read prayers. TEMPORARY ORDER 7 — NON-GOVERNMENT BUSINESS Statement by President THE PRESIDENT (Hon Barry House): Honourable members, you will be aware that we are now operating under temporary orders. I have a short statement about those new orders. Temporary order 7 provides that non-government business on a Thursday morning shall be allocated according to the proportion of representation of the non-government political groups. Accordingly, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Greens (WA) have agreed to a schedule that encompasses the remaining scheduled sittings during the application of the temporary orders. I table a copy of that schedule for the information of members. The schedule must be adopted by the house prior to its application. [See paper 1880.] Motion On motion without notice by Hon Norman Moore (Leader of the House), resolved — That the schedule for non-government business tabled by the President be adopted and agreed to. DEPARTMENT FOR CHILD PROTECTION — INTERIM CARE CENTRE, WANNEROO Petition Hon Michael Mischin presented a petition, by delivery to the Clerk, from 138 persons expressing their disagreement with the purchase of the house at 22 Kentia Loop, Timberlands Estate, Wanneroo, by the Department for Child Protection for use as an interim care centre for abused juveniles. [See paper 1875.] PLUTO LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS PROJECT Petition Hon Robin Chapple presented two petitions, by delivery to the Clerk, from 10 and 30 persons respectively opposing the proposed establishment of the Woodside LNG land-based Pluto development on site A and B on the Burrup Peninsula. [See papers 1876 and 1877.] URANIUM MINING — BAN Petition Hon Robin Chapple presented a petition, by delivery to the Clerk, from 43 persons opposing uranium mining in Western Australia. [See paper 1878.] SHACK SITE COMMUNITIES Petition Hon Sue Ellery (Leader of the Opposition) presented a petition, by delivery to the Clerk, from 242 persons requesting that the government assist in the preservation of shack site communities in Western Australia. [See paper 1879.] PERTH STORMS — TEMPORARY CHANGES TO VEHICLE LICENSING LAWS Statement by Minister for Transport HON SIMON O’BRIEN (South Metropolitan — Minister for Transport) [3.03 pm]: In recognition of the hardship being faced by many vehicle owners, today I announced temporary changes to the way that the Department of Transport will deal with vehicles which have been declared repairable write-offs by insurers due to superficial hail damage and which are retained by the current owner. A repairable write-off is a vehicle that insurance assessors deem as uneconomical to repair, but it is not a statutory write-off. Under existing arrangements insurance companies are required to report both statutory and

1078 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010] repairable write-offs to the government. The vehicle is then placed on the Written-Off Vehicle Register, a national database that assists governments around Australia to fight the illegal rebirthing racket. Presently, the Department of Transport advises the owner of a vehicle to surrender his plates and to cease driving the vehicle until such time as the vehicle is inspected for structural integrity by a WOVR-approved inspection centre and passes a roadworthy examination at a vehicle examination centre or an authorised inspection station. It is only then that a repairable write-off can be re-registered. Although these existing arrangements are suitable during normal circumstances, they are impractical at a time when so many people have been adversely affected by a freak storm. It is estimated that between 30 000 and 40 000 vehicles will be written off as a result of last Monday’s storm, compared with only 10 000 write-offs for all of 2009. Many of the repairable write-offs we are seeing at the moment are vehicles which are both structurally and mechanically sound but which have only aesthetic hail damage to their outer panels. I am advised that this being the case, many individuals will choose to negotiate with their insurance company and agree to retain their hail-damaged vehicles. In recognition of the pressure placed on vehicle owners due to last week’s storm, the state government will allow temporary changes to the way in which repairable write-offs are handled. Vehicle owners whose car is declared a repairable write-off due to superficial hail damage and who opt to retain their hail-damaged vehicle rather than permanently surrender it to their insurer will be able to continue to drive their vehicle. However, a number of conditions will be placed on these vehicles. The conditions include the following. Only repairable write-offs that have been assessed as having superficial hail damage by the vehicle owner’s insurer are eligible to take part in this scheme. Only vehicles retained by the original owner are eligible to take part in the scheme—this will not apply to hail-damaged vehicles sold at auction. Vehicle owners will be required to have their vehicles inspected at an accredited inspection station at a reduced rate of $59.70—normally it is $85.60—before their registration is due, otherwise their vehicle registration will not be renewed. Affected vehicles cannot be transferred or sold until this inspection has been completed and the vehicle passed. I reiterate for the benefit of the house that this scheme applies only to vehicles that have surface hail damage. For all other vehicles, the existing arrangements will be enforced. Consideration of the statement made an order of the day for the next sitting, on motion by Hon Ed Dermer. PAPERS TABLED Papers were tabled and ordered to lie upon the table of the house. AGRICULTURE AND RELATED RESOURCES PROTECTION (EUROPEAN HOUSE BORER) AMENDMENT REGULATIONS 2010 — DISALLOWANCE Notice of Motion Notice of motion given by Hon Giz Watson. TREASURER’S ADVANCE AUTHORISATION BILL 2010 Second Reading Resumed from 23 March. HON KEN TRAVERS (North Metropolitan) [3.09 pm]: The opposition will support this bill, although opposition members have many questions to ask and we are deeply concerned about the state of the state’s finances under the administration of the current government. We are dealing with a bill to authorise the expenditure this financial year of payments for extraordinary or unforeseen matters, or to make advances for certain purposes. The bill will allow expenditure in that area to increase over and above what has already been provided for under the Financial Management Act 2006, which is three per cent of the original budget brought before the house last year; an additional $681 million in rounded terms, contributing to a total Treasurer’s advance this year of some $1.15 billion over and above the amount budgeted for when the budget came before the house. This is the second highest Treasurer’s advance amount in this Parliament’s history; the largest was the one we dealt with in this chamber last year. They were both brought before this chamber on behalf of the current Treasurer, Hon Troy Buswell, at a time when the government is consistently telling us that it is dealing with tough economic times and reduced revenue. I will return to that later in my speech, because we are not facing reduced revenue to the extent that the Treasurer would have us believe. I accept that revenue is not growing as fast as it did a few years ago, but it is nonetheless not declining to the extent that some would have the general community believe. This is record, unbudgeted, out-of-control expenditure by a Treasurer who is not in control of his portfolios or the budget. We see this Treasurer make both little and big errors on a daily basis, and this Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill sums up the biggest error of the lot, and reveals that the Treasurer for two years has been unable to control the government’s expenditure. The current government has both the gold medal and the silver medal for budget blow-outs.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010] 1079

Hon Nick Goiran: Where did you borrow that phrase from? Hon KEN TRAVERS: I just made it up myself, actually. Members opposite can treat this as a humorous debate, and they are welcome to do that; I suspect that they are led by a Treasurer who sees everything as a joke—a Treasurer who does not understand his responsibilities in managing the state’s finances the way he should. I will briefly touch upon the comment I made about the state’s revenue streams. I want to look at the budget aggregates at the time of the Pre-election Financial Projections Statement and compare it to the revenue streams listed in the midyear review, which is the most recent document Parliament has available by which to judge the income of the state. At the time of the Pre-election Financial Projections Statement for the 2009–10 financial year, revenue was expected to be $20.86 billion. According to the midyear review, the revenue in 2009–10 will be $20.884 billion. There has been an increase in the revenue predicted at the last election. Why is this government facing such difficult circumstances? Because of its uncontrolled expenditure growth. It has brought the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill 2010 before us and asked for authority to spend this additional money because it has not been able to manage its budget properly. As everybody knows, the Liberal Party entered into an agreement with the National Party to form a coalition government. It can call it whatever it likes, but it is a coalition because both parties have representatives in the cabinet, and they have an obligation to follow cabinet solidarity, despite whatever fancy terms it uses. Hon Max Trenorden interjected. Hon KEN TRAVERS: It can use fancy terms, Hon Max Trenorden, but it is a Liberal–National coalition government. I respect this government’s right to have agreed to the royalties for regions program. I expect that one day we will find that there has not been a net increase in expenditure in regional Western Australia, but we will wait to see how that pans out over time. Hon Max Trenorden: You never go there! Hon KEN TRAVERS: I went there twice during the recent recess. If Hon Max Trenorden asks Hon Philip Gardiner, he will tell Hon Max Trenorden that I did, because he saw me there, as did Hon Max Trenorden’s mate Hon Terry Waldron, MLA. I can list the councils that I visited in the Wheatbelt. Hon Max Trenorden: That’s who it was! Hon KEN TRAVERS: I would be curious about whether I visited more places in the member’s electorate than he did during the break! Hon Sue Ellery: You did, because he was in Thailand! Hon KEN TRAVERS: There we go! So I probably did visit more places than Hon Max Trenorden over the last couple of weeks! Hon Nick Goiran interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! Hon KEN TRAVERS: Governments have to manage and make savings in their expenditure, and this government has been unable, unwilling or incapable of doing that. I am not sure which of those it is, but it is one of them because the end result is that it has requested the second highest ever Treasurer’s advance. The intent of the Government Financial Responsibility Act 2000 and the Financial Management Act 2006 was that the budget would be set at the start of the year, and that at that time we would be told what the expected full- year impact of that budget and the forward estimates would be on the state’s finances. After that, the midyear review occurs, which shows how the budget is tracking after the first few months of its operation, and whether it is tracking correctly or whether budget blow-outs will be expected. After the midyear review, we are then provided with an update on the state’s finances just before the middle of the financial year. When we received that update in December, it showed that there would be a surplus of $51 million this year. That amount is very close to the borderline, considering that the Premier has stated that the government will never budget for a deficit. Does it come as any surprise that, weeks later, we are presented with a Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill that will lead to a deficit budget this year? Were the figures presented to us now included in the midyear review? No, they were not. Some were but others were not. I hope that the Treasurer’s representative in this house will table the document that outlines where the government expects this Treasurer’s advance to be expended. I hope that document will give us a bit more detail. Last year, members of the Legislative Council were lucky enough to be given some detail—certainly a lot more than was given to the bear pit that normally occupies this chamber—so I hope that document will give us a breakdown of those items of expenditure. I believe that document will show that an interesting new phenomenon is developing in the way this government is managing its budget. The government is complaining that revenue is not growing fast enough. However, as I

1080 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010] have demonstrated, government revenue this financial year is slightly higher than what the government expected it to be when it came into office. That document will show also that some decisions were made before the midyear review, and some decisions were held back. We will probably never know, but I suspect that cabinet engaged in a deliberate strategy to not incorporate those expenditure blow-outs in the midyear review, because that would have meant that the budget would be in deficit. I challenge the ministers of this government to tell me whether they still expect the government to produce a budget surplus this year; and whether they will be bold enough to put their jobs on the line and resign their commissions if the government does not produce a budget surplus but instead produces a budget deficit. I believe that the passage of this bill will result in this state budget going into deficit. I believe that the ministers know that and the government knows that. I believe that the government has deliberately tried to hide that from the people as part of this midyear review. During the committee stage we will go into more detail about the items in this document that are described as “Decisions made” and “Issues under consideration”. One of the “Issues under consideration” is the additional $210 million for the health budget. That item was originally left out of the document by the Treasurer, in one of his supposedly “careless moments”. We can wonder about whether it was a deliberate act, but we will take the Treasurer’s word for it and accept that it was done in a careless moment. Over the next couple of days, we will demonstrate that that additional $210 million for the health budget was not “unforeseen and/or extraordinary”. The reason that the Department of Health needs this additional funding is because of the poor management by this government of the health budget. When the head of the Department of Health was called before a parliamentary committee and was put on oath and was required to answer questions truthfully, he said that the Department of Health would need between $200 million and $250 million in additional funding. However, the government listed that additional funding as an issue under consideration. It did that for two reasons—so that it did not need to incorporate that additional amount into the midyear review, and so that it could continue with its facade and say in September of this year, when the state’s finances are finally reported, that it had not budgeted for a deficit. The problem is that even though the government may have chosen to leave an item out of its budget, that does not mean that it has not budgeted for that item. The government may have dishonestly budgeted for that item, but it has nonetheless budgeted for it. The same situation is occurring not just in health but in many other areas of government expenditure. The government is telling us that these are extraordinary and/or unforeseen items of expenditure. The agencies knew about these items of expenditure before the midyear review was brought down. However, these items of expenditure were not brought before cabinet. These items will now be considered as part of the cabinet process for next year’s budget. In the meantime, the agencies have been given a wink and a nod and have been told that they can spend that money. That is what we will see as we go through the detail of this bill. That is an extraordinary situation, and all those members of the government who have taken the oath as ministers—starting with the Treasurer—should be hanging their heads in shame. Hon Jim Chown: What about your administration of the Perth Arena project? That was three times over cost— on your watch! Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! Members, you see, if I allow one interjection, it spreads like a disease; so we will not have any interjections. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Hon Jim Chown will have the smile wiped off his face when he talks about the issue, as the smile was wiped off the face of the Treasurer last week when he started to run around this chamber cock-a- hoop, trying to refer back — Hon Nick Goiran: We were here last week. You were not in last week. Who knows what you were doing! Hon KEN TRAVERS: Two weeks ago the Treasurer was running round cock-a-hoop about that report, but the smile was wiped off his face very quickly when the real problem with the state’s finances and the blow-outs that are occurring in the government’s budget started to be refocused on. If I were sitting on the government side, I would be clinging to whatever I could find to try to make out that the former Labor government members were bad financial managers and that these government members are good financial managers. They are sitting in a government that holds the record for the two biggest expenditure blow-outs ever by a state government. When we brought in the Financial Management Act 2006, we believed that a three per cent advance would be enough. For the first couple of years the state was in a booming economy, which we are now in once again, but this government does not have the money for hospitals or for library books. This is again the richest state in the nation, yet the government does not have the money for that. It can try to cling to one project and try to hang all its issues off that, but when we look at the totality of this government’s budget management, we see that it is a complete disgrace. We will go through it all. We have a couple of days here to spend on this bill. We will go through each and every one of the line items. We will see where this money is being wasted. Government members ask us as an opposition where we would make savings. I have put it on the record before and I will put it on again: we would get rid of Roe Highway stage 8. I tell Hon Max Trenorden that I would get rid of it so that

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010] 1081

I could put some money into planning for the York bypass and the construction of the Toodyay bypass—both important areas in his electorate. That is what I would be doing, and they would represent a smidgen of the money that is going into the Roe Highway stage 8 project. A lot of money would still be saved. The government of Hon Max Trenorden has completely ignored both those important projects. Hon Max Trenorden: Why did your minister damn the Toodyay one? Hon KEN TRAVERS: I am happy to have that debate, but it is probably for another time. If Hon Max Trenorden recalls, the community did not agree on the location. I have met with the council on this matter. It agreed that at the time it was appropriate to defer it. It was deferred and it was coming back on. Hon Max Trenorden: It was not deferred by the council; it was deferred by the minister. The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon KEN TRAVERS: It was deferred because there was no community agreement on the route. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! I know the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill is concerned with the state’s finances, but I do not think it extends to a discussion of every project of the state, otherwise we will be here for some time. Hon Ken Travers knows the rules. He has the floor. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Mr President, I agree with you, although when we look at the breadth of the blow-outs across this government, it does allow us to pretty much cover every item, because there are not too many portfolios in which the government does not have a blow-out. That is the problem we face today, because there is not a minister sitting below the Treasurer who is able to manage and control the expenditure in his or her portfolios. There is no doubt in my view that the proposals were not put forward and were not considered as part of the midyear review. They were deferred to artificially enhance the state’s figures; each and every one of those cabinet members knew that the figures they brought before us as the midyear review were inaccurate. They were not going to be the final figures for the financial year. In fairness to the Treasury officials, I remember the honourable Tim Marney—who is an honourable man but not “the honourable”—coming before the upper house Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations and saying that he did the right thing and he did not cook the books. I agree with that. He did not cook the books, because he can rely only on the figures that he is given by cabinet. It is at the cabinet level that this charade has occurred, and this facade has been made around this state’s budget figures. The true circumstances have not been allowed to be put forward through the cabinet process. Everybody knows that. It was not a surprise or an unforeseen or extraordinary circumstance that health needed an additional $210 million. Every man, woman and child in Western Australia knew that that was the case because the former head of the Department of Health told them. However, he was run out of that position because, before a parliamentary committee at which he is required to answer questions truthfully, he had the decency to tell the truth. For that, the Treasurer ran him out of that position. It is funny that that was the very same amount that the Treasurer managed to leave out of the document that he put to the other place to explain the Treasurer’s advance bill. It is the same amount of expenditure over which he got rid of Mr Flett. I believe that Mr Flett was doing a very good job controlling the health expenditure. I do not know anything about Mr Snowball. I have not had much to do with him. However, I know that it will probably take him another six to 12 months to get to the point at which Mr Flett was at in managing that cost pressure within government. Health is not the only area in which this sort of thing is occurring. Another interesting thing about the document that I will go through is that a range of offsets have been allocated to agencies. The agencies are expected to make the offsets either in grant savings, fleet savings or procurement savings. I look forward to hearing whether the parliamentary secretary is able to answer my questions when this bill reaches the committee stage. At the time of introducing this Treasurer’s advance to Parliament, and even at the time of the midyear review, the government would have had some idea about whether it was on track to achieving those savings. The bottom line is that the government does not have that information. It has told the departments to make the savings and to get on with it. What happens if the departments do not make those savings? That is a question I look forward to the parliamentary secretary answering, either in her response to the second reading debate or during the Committee of the Whole. What will happen if those savings factored into the calculations for the money required under this Treasurer’s advance are not made? What will happen if the grants savings, fleet savings and, most importantly, procurement savings cannot be made? Often people think that it is easy to aggregate up. The other side of procurement savings is that care must be taken, particularly in regional Western Australia, to ensure that local businesses are not damaged. When we aggregate up into big contracts, which is often how these procurement savings are made,

1082 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010] we run the real risk of destroying local regional businesses in this state when purchasing goes into a central pool. I look forward to hearing from the government about the pressure testing it has done on this matter. I have spoken to a couple of my mates who are involved in banking. I was intrigued to ascertain how a banker who was managing a client who wanted the authority to borrow more money would go about it. Borrowed money will be required to fund this Treasurer’s advance bill. In a commercial sense, bankers look to the borrower’s interest tax depreciation amortisation, which is not dissimilar to the way in which the credit agencies look at the financial targets of the state. In the same way, the government has its financial targets, which we do not know. I challenge the parliamentary secretary to tell us during the passage of this bill those new financial targets for this state. I suspect that we will be getting very close to, or exceeding, most of those targets. If the health expenditure is increased by $210 million this year, next year the health budget will probably need to start with an amount of $210 million over and above the amount included in the forward estimates. I would love to know what the targets are in all our financial management. That is the first thing a banker would do and expect from his client and that is what I think we should expect from the government today. We would want to look at the underlying profitability; in our case, it is about the operating surplus. When are we going into deficit and how long will we stay there for? Again, that is a question I challenge the parliamentary secretary to answer before we pass this bill. What is our ability to service our debt? Has the government engaged in activities to try to inflate and to try to improve? Is it paying its debtors later? Has the government sold down its stock? Has it changed the way in which it goes about paying its debts? The reality is that when we look through the budget papers those are all the sorts of things that the government was doing. One issue that sits within this is the revaluation of assets. I think the government had the increased depreciation included in this Treasurer’s advance because it had revalued its assets, which I suspect in the totality of the finances of this state makes them look better, but the government has not included the expenditure growth. The government would be pressure testing the figures. I do not know whether this government has put any of these figures under pressure; it just accepts it and moves on in a process whereby ministers are proceeding to expend money even though no formal decision of cabinet has been made, but simply on a wink and a nod, which is not a good process. If members were bankers, they would be looking at the management controls. What we see here is that there are no controls; we have a Premier with a long history of ignoring the advice of Treasury. When the Premier was a minister in the last Court government, he was one of the four big spenders who used to just spend money without authority and we are seeing it happen again; however, the difference is that now he is the Premier he has no controls over him and the Treasurer is allowing that to occur. We do not have the management and at the end of the day, the other thing a banker would tell us is that cash is king and now we are not operating on a cash basis in surplus. That is something we should be very worried about as a state because that is a downward spiral to losing the AAA credit rating. Hon Jim Chown: Like Queensland where the Labor Party has lost it and it’s selling its own assets and running an $80 million deficit. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich interjected. Hon Jim Chown: A Labor Party that was actually in surplus for many years up until the global financial crisis— is that what you’re alluding to here? Under Labor — The PRESIDENT: Order! This is a wide-ranging general debate and every member has the opportunity at some stage during the debate to make their contribution if they like, but they have to do it by substantive speech; they cannot do it by interjection. Hon KEN TRAVERS: If Hon Jim Chown thinks that the financial management in Queensland is bad and that it has an evil Labor government, I urge him to go away and have a thorough look through the books in Western Australia because if he is making that assessment about the Queensland government, when he makes those same examinations of our state’s finances he will see that this government is heading to that same position. I am not here to defend the Queensland government; that is its job to worry about it. I do not know the specific circumstances. I do know what is happening in Western Australia; that is, we have record expenditure growth. I also know that if we equate it with business, if our expenses are growing and we cannot control them, which the government cannot, we have two options to somehow increase our revenue. In business there are two ways that we could increase our revenue—we either increase the price that we sell our goods for or we increase the volume of the goods that we sell—or we can control our expenditure growth. However, this government has not been able to decrease its expenditure growth and it is increasing its revenue side, in this case, through taxation and fines. The government is increasing fines to fund it, and it is increasing the cost at which it sells goods. The government is now making the agriculture department operate almost completely on a cost-recovery basis; therefore, it is increasing prices for sales and it is increasing taxes. The government has deferred tax cuts that were promised to people as part of its election commitments. That is how it is doing it. Anyone will tell us that, in the long term, that is unsustainable for a business. It can be done for a short time but not forever. The government has had two years. I am not seeing any sign that, given the management structures and controls in

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010] 1083 place and the incompetent manner in which this bill has been introduced, we will not see the same thing repeated next year. That will be three years in a row. It will get to a point at which we cannot control it; it will be beyond the ability of this government to control it—and the Labor Party will have to come in and clean up the mess. That is the bottom line. As we did eight years ago, after four years in a row of deficit budgets under the Court government, we will return to the sort of scenario in which the government has run up the credit card and it will be time to pay it off. I listened to the federal leader of the Liberal Party on the radio this morning when he was talking about the Liberal Party looking to lower taxation, to provide smaller government and to do all those sorts of things. The Liberals like to create this mythology in this state and throughout the country, yet where is the history that demonstrates their capacity to fulfil their policies? Two weeks ago the same bloke who said he wanted smaller government was making the biggest ever possible promise about paternity leave. He cannot have it both ways. He is either about small government or about a big idea on paternity leave. He cannot argue for both policies at the same time, and that is the inherent inconsistency. Members on the other side believe their own rhetoric. They do not look at the figures or at the budget bottom line and ask: what is the reality of what we are doing? They talk the mythology and believe the mythology. Hon Helen Bullock: They like to dream. Hon KEN TRAVERS: They do; they love to dream. The reality is sitting in the books. We do not have to be Rhodes scholars to work it out. If we add what is in this document—I have the correct one, not the one that was missing the health expenditure, and for the benefit of Hansard it contains the details of excesses and new items in the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill 2010—to the figure in the Government Mid-Year Financial Projection Statement 2009–10, we end up with a very different set of key budget aggregates from those in the midyear review. It is not a $51 million surplus; it is a deficit. We do not know what the deficit is. I wonder whether the government will have the decency to bring this before us, but there is at least more than $400 million in additional expenditure. We can therefore assume that we are probably looking at around a $350 million deficit, but I do not know. The government could tell us something to the contrary, but we know that it cannot fund hospitals or library books. In a state as rich as Western Australia, that is a disgrace. In the year out from 2009–10 we are already budgeting for a $336 million deficit, and for the year after that, a $125 million deficit. If we add that extra $350 million this year, even if the government can get its expenditure growth under control next year and has the same expenditure as it had this year, it will probably be looking at a $700 million deficit. The year after that, if we add the $125 million, the deficit will be close to $1 billion. That is the reality. I have faith in members opposite. I reckon they can add up what is in the Treasurer’s advance authorisation and in the midyear review. I understand it was not there at the time of the midyear review. However, we are being asked to pass a bill while flying blind and to go forth without the proper information that I think was intended to be before the house under the Government Financial Responsibility Bill 2000, as outlined when it was introduced, and what is expected under the Financial Management Act 2006. Members on the other side need to understand these things, and they need to take them up with their government. I assume members opposite want to stay in government. However, I am happy if they sit back and do nothing, because we will come in and fix the mess! Hon Nick Goiran: For someone who did not come into the chamber all last week, it should not be you. You are a disgrace. The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon KEN TRAVERS: I hope Hon Nick Goiran never feels like I did on Tuesday of last week. Even though he sits on the other side, I hope he never gets the bug that I had last week or feels the way I did. Even though sometimes I sit in this chamber and do not enjoy listening to members opposite, none of it was as painful as the pain that I went through last week. I hope that Hon Nick Goiran never faces that pain. Even though I understand the member took on the role of the Leader of the Opposition last week, I would prefer to have been here rather than where I was last Tuesday. The PRESIDENT: Order! Members know that this chamber is run by a set of standing orders. It is also run by a set of customs and conventions, and one of those conventions is that members do not refer in adverse terms to people outside the chamber. Quite frankly, members do not know what people are doing outside the chamber, and they have no right to know. We do not need a discussion on what members do outside the chamber. We need a discussion on the business of the house in this chamber. Hon KEN TRAVERS: For that reason, Mr President, I did not go into graphic details about last week. In summary, we are being asked to approve the second largest Treasurer’s advance—some eight per cent of the total budget. We are going through a process in which the government expects to expend eight per cent of the total budget with minimal or little oversight by the Parliament, which is one of the Parliament’s primary roles. I remember Hon Peter Collier giving members in this house a lecture. I am not sure I completely agreed with his

1084 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010] analysis of the separation of powers, but I do understand that one of the roles of Parliament under those powers is to approve the expenditure of the government. I would have thought that, with Hon Peter Collier’s background, he would understand that one of the important roles of this place is to approve expenditure. We are now seeing a process by which not far off 10 per cent of the state budget is operated through this Treasurer’s advance. At the time this Parliament passed the Financial Management Act, it thought that three per cent would be enough. I accept that there was a period of massive growth when revenue and costs were growing and the Labor government was not able to keep within that three per cent. However, this government claims we do not have those boom times and we do not have that growth, when in fact we do. The government claims that we do not have that growth, but expenditure is growing above and beyond anything we have seen before and is well over three per cent. It is getting up around three times that three per cent, which was provided for in the Financial Management Act, and that was obviously considered a reasonable amount all those years ago. It was not that long ago—it was only in 2006. This government is operating a process that means the midyear financial review does not give an accurate picture of the state’s finances just prior to the presentation of that document. This government is still getting the revenue which was predicted in the Pre-election Financial Projections Statement that was released when it was elected, and on which it should have based all its election promises. The revenue has not changed. However, the government has not been able to control its expenditure. Over the next couple of days during the committee stage, hopefully, this chamber can get some proper explanations from the government. I can assure Hon Nick Goiran that I will be in this chamber over the next three days helping and working with my colleagues to ask those questions to get those explanations so that we understand whether the government has added in savings that are achievable or put in savings that are not achievable. We have to act like bankers that have a recalcitrant borrower coming before them who is not able to control expenditure, who does not have the management in place to do it and who has limited ability to grow the revenue streams without hurting the people of Western Australia. That is what the government is doing with some of the revenue streams that it is growing. The government is significantly hurting ordinary working families by increasing fees and charges across the board. That is the end result of outrageous expenditure growth. I am more than happy—it is probably not for this debate—to debate this issue with members opposite, because there are areas in which I believe the government can save money. Government members challenge us to identify where the government can save money. I have provided an example of how the government can save money. I am happy to provide many more examples of areas in which the opposition believes that the government can save money during another debate. The example I provided today would save the government $550 million. That money alone would go some way towards wiping out the additional capital that we are being asked to approve. There are other areas. With those words, I conclude my speech. I hope that the parliamentary secretary has the ability to provide the house with a more accurate picture of what the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill 2010 means for the state’s finances. That is the great challenge if this government wants to be seen as open and accountable, which is what it is always professing. The parliamentary secretary should provide that information during her reply or during the committee stage. HON LJILJANNA RAVLICH (East Metropolitan) [3.54 pm]: I welcome the opportunity to comment on the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill 2010, a bill that governments sometimes need. I put on the public record that I would like to have been able to say that the community should be alert, but not alarmed. However, I cannot say that because the public should be alarmed about the magnitude of money that the Treasurer’s advance seeks. The bill seeks to increase the Treasurer’s advance limit for the current financial year to $1 150 million, which represents an increase of $680 million to the current approved limit. Hon Ken Travers has already made mention of the interesting aspects of the bill. This is the second largest Treasurer’s advance, with last year’s being the largest, which is very concerning. The amount sought by the government reflects the abuse of the intent of a Treasurer’s advance authorisation bill. The bill exists to allow for the supplementary funding of annual appropriations for unseen and other extraordinary events during the financial year, as well as the short-term repayable advances to agencies for working capital purposes. When I consider the areas for which the appropriations are sought, it does not seem to me that much of what is needed was unforeseen or, indeed, extraordinary in any way, shape or form. What is particularly concerning is that there has been a massaging or a potential manipulation of the budget to leave certain appropriations out of the budget and to deliver a $51 million surplus, as was the case in the last budget. The government then simply sought a Treasurer’s advance authorisation some six months later. The way in which the Treasurer is allowing agencies to participate in this type of behaviour—the Treasurer himself must be complicit—is very concerning. For example, in the area of health, surely the Treasurer would have known that there was significant pressure on the health system. Hon Ken Travers and I and a number of other members, including Hon Giz Watson, who is the chair of the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations, heard from the former Director General of Health about some of the pressures that are currently on the health system. When we look at the information that was provided by the former Director General of Health, we can only conclude that there is massive pressure on health. For example, we know that there has been significant population growth in Western Australia. That

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010] 1085 has to be factored into the demand for health services. We know that the level of activity in health has increased. We also know that right across the whole area of services, in particular mental health and palliative care, demand is growing at a very rapid rate. If we have significant demands on the health system, we do not end up with an expense growth for health of 3.1 per cent; a 3.1 per cent expense growth would not indicate that there are these enormous pressures on the health system. When we reach the committee stage, I want to explore what has happened in health, because I think that some very interesting areas need to be looked at. Certainly, one of the areas that needs to be investigated is the Royal Perth Hospital redevelopment, and whether it is possible to operate both Fiona Stanley and Royal Perth Hospitals, what implications there might be for the state’s finances and whether any consideration has been given to these issues in the formulation of this budget. We also know that the clinical services framework, which has been talked about at some length by this government, should also be complete now. What are the implications for the health budget of the now complete clinical services framework? I am assuming it is complete because it was near completion in October 2009. I imagine that by this time we have a clinical services framework, and that would clearly have significant implications for this budget. We want to know why this framework has not been factored into the budget. We also want to know some of the detail surrounding that whole issue. When we look at the current appropriations and the amount of money that is being sought through an advance appropriation, it is quite clear that it cuts across a breadth of agencies for a variety of things. The only thing we can conclude is that ministers are very sloppy. They have not in fact dealt with these issues through the normal budgetary process but have sought funding through the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill. Apart from those points that I have made, there is also the issue about re-cashflowed items. One of the things about this government is that it seems to be creating its own nomenclature on the way through as a part of how to deal with the problems that it is creating as it goes about delivering the budgets, the midyear reviews, the Treasurer’s advance authorisations and so on and so forth. This is a very interesting new concept that has been devised, no doubt by Treasury or perhaps even the Treasurer, and we need a sense of what it really means. I refer to the concept of “re-cashflowed” items. It is not clear what is meant by that; there are different definitions for different items. Is this just a general term? What does it mean? Is it a deferred item, or a cut to a budget allocation? Can a “re-cashflowed” item disappear into the ether, never to be seen again? The opposition will follow this very carefully. I will briefly touch on the issue of inappropriate prioritisations. There has been a lot of wasteful spending by this government. For instance, it claims that it has revenue problems and that revenues have been down as a result of the global financial crisis. The global financial crisis took the wind out of the state’s sails for at least 18 months; some would even argue that it continues to this day. I know that in the small business sector, an area that is one of my shadow responsibilities, the inability to secure finance means that small businesses cannot fully get back on their feet, as they so desperately want to. That is creating some problems. There is therefore no doubt that the global financial crisis has had some impact on the state’s revenues. However, any person with a modicum of commonsense would think that if that was what the government was up against, it would have cut its cloth to suit its budget. Instead, we have rampant spending by the Treasurer; it certainly starts from the top, in any case. I have said numerous times in this place that a fish rots from the head. We know that the “Thought Bubble” Premier is very quick to make announcements on the run without having any idea about how they are going to be funded. There have been some incredible examples of spending. Certainly, governments might entertain the idea of undertaking some of these things during times of high-level economic activity, but our levels of economic activity have not been high; in fact, they have been very, very low. New departments are being created because ministers cannot get along with each other. When the creation of these new departments spans nine months and the ministers are still squabbling over the transfer of funds, as is the case with the departments of education and training, we have to ask ourselves what the government’s priorities are and why it does what it does. Why does it spend uncontrollably when it simply does not have revenue coming in and there are all sorts of pressures on its finances? The bill under the consideration of the house, the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill 2010 is, indeed, a very sad reflection on the way in which the finances of the state are managed by this government. I look forward to being able to raise some of my issues and very serious concerns during a later stage of the proceedings. HON GIZ WATSON (North Metropolitan) [4.04 pm]: I will make a couple of comments on the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill 2010. The Greens (WA) agree that it is a substantial advance, and we are quite concerned that it is so far above the three per cent amount that is allowed for as the default position under the Financial Management Act 2006. I wish to highlight a couple of areas that may be responded to during the second reading response, and perhaps be explored in a bit more detail during the committee stage. My first query is about the additional allocation of money to the Department of Environment and Conservation. As a result of the debate on the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Amendment Bill 2009, and also by looking at the

1086 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010] midyear review, members are aware that the government’s decision to defer the introduction of the increased landfill levy would have impacted on the revenue of the department unless it was topped up by consolidated revenue as referred to in the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill 2010 second reading speech. The second reading speech stated that at the time of the midyear review, this type of additional appropriation was expected to be around about $20.8 million. Since the midyear review, certain of the additional sums anticipated at that time have been revised in the amount now sought in this bill. No mention is made in that part of the second reading speech about additional funding for the Department of Environment and Conservation. The Treasurer has since provided details of the breakdown of the recurrent appropriations that make up the total amount sought in the bill, which show a different sum relating to the deferral of the increased landfill levy—that is; a gross amount of $30 million. A net amount of $36.5 million is referred to, which is quite different from the $20.8 million outlined in the second reading speech. My question to the parliamentary secretary representing the Treasurer will be: which is the correct sum—the $20.8 million referred to in the second reading speech, or the $36.5 million later detailed by the Treasurer? I will ask that question in more detail when we reach the committee stage. Those sums are significantly different, and it is important that the house knows which is correct. My next question will be whether that sum will mean that the Department of Environment and Conservation will be affected by the delayed implementation of the increased landfill levy. If DEC will be affected by the delay, will this bill mean that DEC will be better or worse off; and, if DEC will be worse off, why has a decision been made to further cut the budget of an agency that is already under significant budgetary pressure? I have a related question about the new appropriation of $1.15 billion that will contribute to the move from having an Environmental Protection Authority service unit as part of the Department of Environment and Conservation, as it was in the 2009–10 budget, to the creation of the new Office of the Environmental Protection Authority. I am specifically concerned about the possibility that the Office of the EPA may have less money allocated to it than the EPA service unit did under previous budget estimates. The second area that the Greens (WA) are concerned about is the first home owner’s grant. The second reading speech refers to two different sums of additional appropriations for first home owner assistance; an amount of $120 million, which dates back to the midyear review, and another amount of $115 million as referred to in this bill. The detailed figures released by the Treasurer confirm that the $115 million figure is additional to the $120 million referred to in the midyear review. As I understand, this bill seeks an additional $235 million for the first home owner grant. I make an observation about how readily this and previous governments have allocated money to first home owners while severely neglecting other important housing initiatives. For example, the renewable energy sector has had to go cap in hand for additional funding to deal with making homes energy efficient and prepared for not just climate change, but things such as the very steep increase in power bills. In last year’s budget, a fixed amount was allocated from consolidated revenue for the government’s mishandled and now inferior net feed-in tariff for renewable energy. However, that amount has been dwarfed by the amount that has been allocated in this bill for first home owners. I am concerned about the government’s priorities in this area. I am concerned that the government will just continue to build more and more houses and not do anything to encourage people, in a serious way, with real money, to transition to renewable housing, with ultimately lower energy and running costs for the people who live in those houses. The third area I want to touch on is the additional funding that is proposed to be provided for corrective services. In the second reading speech, the figure is $72.3 million. However, in the tabular information provided by the Treasurer on 16 March, the figure is $39.5 million. There is quite a difference between those two figures. I would, therefore, like to get some clarification from the parliamentary secretary as to which of those figures is correct. A large chunk of the increased funding for corrective services will be used to cater for the increase in prisoner numbers. As we all know, prisoner numbers in this state are continuing to escalate. This state now has the highest rate of imprisonment as a proportion of the population of any state in Australia. It is interesting that the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill is supposed to deal with “unforeseen and/or extraordinary events during the financial year”. I would argue that the growth in the prisoner population is certainly not unforeseen. It is, in fact, entirely predictable. It is the direct result of the legislation that we—when I say “we”, some of us tried not to pass it—have passed in this Parliament. It is also the direct result of the changes in the practices of the Prisoner Review Board. Therefore, it is entirely predictable that there will be a blow-out in the funding required to provide basic accommodation in our prisons. I recently discovered some interesting information about the cost of running prisons. There is currently a very high level of double-bunking in our prisons. That means that the cost per prisoner is reduced. However, if prisoners were accommodated in the way that they arguably are entitled to be accommodated—that is, with one cell for each prisoner—the cost of accommodation would be even higher. I therefore believe that we are seeing only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the escalating costs of incarceration. It is probably self-evident, but I have said in this place many times that instead of increasing the size of our prisons, we should be investing in

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010] 1087 rehabilitation programs within prisons so that we will reduce the number of people who re-offend and are returned to prison. All those programs are incredibly difficult to deliver in crowded situations. It is incredibly difficult for prison officers to manage the situation and for those who are providing those important services in prison to be able to do that when prisons are so very overcrowded. I think those are the main issues I wanted to raise on the Treasurer’s advance. I look forward to some more detailed questions and answers when we move into committee. HON SUE ELLERY (South Metropolitan — Leader of the Opposition) [4.15 pm]: I want to make a few comments on the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill. Before I do that, at the risk of inviting further interjections, which I really do not want to do, some members on the other side made some interjections at the beginning of the debate when Hon Ken Travers put the proposition that we would be supporting the bill but applying a higher degree of scrutiny to it. I just wanted to make some comments about that, because the role of a responsible opposition, of course, with bills such as this is to ensure, as a general principle, that it does not hold up supply but that it does indeed apply a higher level of scrutiny. That is the role of a responsible opposition. Indeed, if some of the newer members opposite were not convinced of that, I would draw their attention to the role played very well, I think, by Hon George Cash, a former member of this place, with exactly this kind of legislation. He applied a higher level of forensic—on some occasions—scrutiny to bills such as this. He took the time that he needed to do that. But, ultimately, as responsible oppositions, those oppositions supported the passage of a bill. Our job is to apply that level of scrutiny. We ought not back away from it; nor should we be attacked for it. If the motivation behind the interjections was concern about wasting the time of the house, I will ask some of those members to perhaps reflect on the role of backbenchers in this place supporting government legislation and to perhaps reflect on the events of last week. Hon Nick Goiran: Well done! That is so cute. What a joke. That is the best that you can come up with to explain your position. Hon SUE ELLERY: What? The role of a responsible opposition is to do indeed exactly what I have just outlined. With due respect to Hon Nick Goiran’s newness to this place, perhaps he ought just keep his mouth shut. Hon Nick Goiran interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon Nick Goiran has an opportunity to make a contribution to this debate if he wants to. Hon Giz Watson: I bet he won’t! Hon SUE ELLERY: Just in case Hansard did not pick up that interjection from Hon Giz Watson, I am happy to put it on the record. I bet he will not, but I invite him to do that. Hon Ken Travers: And to give a speech on this bill, just in case there is any doubt about it. Hon SUE ELLERY: That is correct. I invite Hon Nick Goiran to tell us about his views on this legislation. There is under the Financial Management Act an automatic limit on the amount that the Treasurer can spend, beyond which he needs to seek parliamentary approval. It is not unusual—indeed, it is common practice—to seek approval for additional expenditure. What is extraordinary about the global figure that is in the bill that is before us today is the amount and that it is in fact the second highest amount in the history of such bills seeking approval. If we cast our minds back to when the highest amount was sought, we recall that in fact it was last year and the same government. The net amount of the additional appropriation that is being sought is $1.15 billion. It is actually $1.279 billion of additional expenditure, but that is being offset by some $129 million worth of savings or deferrals. The midyear review, which comes at the midpoint of the financial year, told us that there was to be an estimated surplus of some $51 million. It also told us that from the May budget to the point of the midyear review, revenue was increased by about $184 million, but expenditure had increased in that same period by about $543 million. On top of that, we know that major projects have been promised, but full funding has not been allocated to them. Those projects include the Perth waterfront, the Subiaco Oval, the rectangular stadium, the Ellenbrook railway line, the Midland hospital, the western suburbs police complex and the capital expenditure for Western Power. What the second reading speech tells us about this appropriation, which we are being asked to support, is that it is about cost pressure. I repeat, there is nothing unusual about that. It is common practice for a government to come to the house and seek more money—for example, in the area of health, which is the area which seeks the biggest amount. However, there are other areas for which the government may seek additional funding. These include, in health, the cost of an increase in throughput through our public hospitals, or additional expenditure required for particular equipment; in child protection, extra funding to meet the costs associated with funding high-needs children placements; and, in education, additional funding to cater for an expected higher cohort of

1088 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010] students. It can apply to a range of things for which departments can identify cost pressures, and those are the elements for which additional expenditure are sought. In the detail of the global amount that is sought in this bill there are two categories of expenditure that we are being asked to authorise. The first includes areas that I have outlined in respect of cost pressures. The second is a document that was probably tabled in the Legislative Assembly, but was provided to us in the course of our briefing; it is headed “Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill 2010: Details of Excesses and New Items for the 2009–10 Financial Year”. I expect that a version of that document will be provided to us in the course of Committee of the Whole in this place. The category that is not referred to in the second reading speech is identified under each agency heading of the document to which I just referred. Under the main heading, there is a subheading, “Issues under consideration”. The explanation that has been given to us—I will be interested to hear the comments of the parliamentary secretary on this—is that some items under that heading are not cost pressures. They do not arise from a current budget pressure. In fact, they are not subject to any financial decision by cabinet to date. They are projects for which the respective ministers have been given, if you like, a nod and a wink—that is my phrase, not the officers’ phrase; I do not want them to be accused of using this language—that the full funding for the projects will be provided in the next budget. They want to start some of the preparation work on those projects, so an allocation of money has been sought in this bill that Parliament is being asked to authorise. The items that go under that heading “Issues under consideration”, but which are not existing cost pressures clearly linked to the existing budget, bear no relationship to the current budget. They are new items that we have been advised are still under consideration for the 2010–11 budget, but the ministers have been given reasonable comfort that they will be included in that budget. The ministers want to get on and start some of the work; therefore, we will be asked to authorise that kind of expenditure. This is occurring in the context of expenditure growth that is sitting somewhere around 13.6 per cent—the parliamentary secretary can correct me if I have this figure wrong. I am advised that the lowest level of expenditure growth in any month of this government has been around 13 per cent and that expenditure growth continues to rise. It comes in the context of a very slim surplus, which we argued at the time of the midyear review was in fact a Clayton’s, or smoke and mirrors, type of surplus. I think my colleague Hon Ken Travers made the point that we understand—I am interested in whether the government can make some comments about this on the record—that some ministers were asked to withhold putting in requests for further expenditure so that the midyear review surplus figure did not in fact reflect anything greater than the $51 million target that the government was aiming to achieve. We have been advised that there has been no cabinet sign-off on the full project numbers of those items that appear under the heading “Issues under consideration” in the document that I have identified already. We have to wait until the next budget to see whether, in fact, cabinet does give approval for the full expenditure related to that budget item in this second category of appropriations; however, we are expected to sign off on it now. The other issue I wanted to comment about, and which my colleague Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich raised, is the introduction in the document that we were provided with of a term that I am not familiar with—namely, “recashflow”. It appears in a couple of — Hon Ken Travers: Sounds very Orwellian. Hon SUE ELLERY: It sounds something! It appears in a couple of places in the document that I identified earlier. I think the first time that it appears is in a list of decisions made under the heading “South West Development Commission (SWDC)”, as the term “Recashflow of Election Commitments” with an amount of some $4.5 million. That term appears in several places in that document. I think what it means is the reinstatement of money that had been previously promised but then withdrawn or did not appear in the budget documents. It does raise some alarm bells about the level of transparency, so I think we need a detailed explanation from the parliamentary secretary about where in the grand scope of accounting terms “recashflow” fits and whether it is appropriate language to use in this document. The financial documents that we are talking about are serious matters. Unlike the members of the government, of course, we do not have the benefit of a cabinet submission giving us the details of why a precise amount of money is sought and all the details that sit behind each of the allocations. We have the material that is provided to us by the government. It might choose to give us some and not others, so we then have to use the parliamentary process to dig below that. Therefore, the words used in the documents given to assist us are very important and they are not words to be used lightly. It is not clever to use weasel words—if, in fact, that is what this term is—in a document of this nature that has this level of gravitas associated with it. This is from a government that has promised open and transparent government, but it is from a Treasurer who I think many Western Australians have formed the view is a bit reckless and a little sloppy around the edges perhaps with some of the elements of his Treasury portfolio. Therefore, I counsel that we get a very clear and unambiguous definition of what in the context of this document the term “recashflow” means.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010] 1089

With those comments, I indicate again that we will support the bill, but, as a responsible opposition, we will apply a high level of scrutiny to the detail of why the government says it needs to seek approval from Parliament for the second highest amount for a Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill in the history of Western Australian government. Debate interrupted, pursuant to temporary orders. [Continued on page 1100.] QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE PREMIER — OVERSEAS TRAVEL 76. Hon SUE ELLERY to the Leader of the House representing the Premier: (1) Is the Premier undertaking any overseas travel in the next calendar month, 22 March to 22 April? (2) If yes — (a) what is the destination of each visit; (b) when is the Premier visiting each destination; (c) who will be accompanying the Premier on each visit; and (d) what is the cost of each visit? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)–(2) The Premier will be visiting the United States of America within the next month. Due to security arrangements, more precise details will not be released until the trip has been completed and the Premier has returned to Western Australia. As with all travel by members of Parliament, the final cost and report on the visit will be tabled in Parliament. HARDSHIP UTILITY GRANT SCHEME — FINANCIAL COUNSELLING SERVICES 77. Hon SUE ELLERY to the Minister for Child Protection: That is an open and transparent government! Hon Norman Moore: Are you going anywhere yourself? Hon SUE ELLERY: No; I am staying here. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon SUE ELLERY: Thank you, Mr President. (1) Is the minister aware that there is a four to six-week waiting period to get an appointment with a financial counsellor for the hardship utility grant scheme—or HUGS assistance? (2) Can the minister advise whether additional funding will be provided for financial counselling services to specifically ensure that staffing resources are adequate, as opposed to the grant amount, to deal with the impact of the Barnett government’s increase in electricity prices? (3) Does the minister acknowledge that many of the new applicants for HUGS assistance are not people who cannot manage their money but people whose income levels cannot accommodate the spike in energy prices? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: I thank the member for her question. (1)–(3) Yes, I am aware that in the city there is a four to six-week wait. I had a meeting with WACOSS yesterday and we discussed the HUG program and the burden electricity prices are placing upon people and whether the waiting period can be improved. I have just spoken to Hon Peter Collier, the Minister for Energy, and a $16.8 million increase has just been given for the hardship program rather than for the HUG scheme. Hon Sue Ellery: Is that for staff or the grant amount? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: I was just going to say that the question would be better asked of the Minister for Energy. Certainly, within the last six months there has been an increase of approximately $5 million for the hardship program. This other increase from the Minister for Energy, will, I hope, decrease the waiting period. In

1090 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010] the country, the wait is not as long as the four to six-week wait in the city. I have been out into the regions and asked about the situation. There is a bit of a waiting period but the local people in the financial counselling services know the people who are coming in. Assistance is easier to provide in a country town than it is in the city. SYNERGY — NEW BILLING SYSTEM 78. Hon KATE DOUST to the Minister for Energy: I refer to Synergy’s new billing system (1) Since the commencement of the new billing system, how many residential customers have been affected by receiving their accounts late? (2) How many customers are continuing to receive their accounts late or not at all? (3) What was the cost of the new billing system? (4) What has been the cost of the new billing system’s faults through — (a) lost revenue, interest or otherwise from the late payment of bills that were sent late; and (b) extra resourcing to fix the problem and to respond to customer complaints? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. This answer is valid as at 3 March. (1) Synergy received section 68 approval to implement this new billing system in 2007. Synergy is in the process of generating a report to identify this number, and I will table the answer as soon as it is available. It should be noted that Synergy has sent in excess of 2.5 million bills since the implementation of its new billing system. (2) At 1 March 2010, 9 730 identified customers were affected. (3) In 2007, Synergy commenced the implementation of a new business transformation program that included the redesign of business processes and training, the creation of a new organisational structure based on new roles and positions and the implementation of a new technology system. The capital cost of the new billing system was $38.4 million as part of the wider transformation program. (4) (a) It would require undue resources, if not be impossible, for Synergy to provide an accurate figure in response to this question; however, as an estimate, Synergy is confident these costs are below $750 000. (b) Synergy anticipated it would require extra resources in the lead-up to and after implementation of its new billing system. This was to accommodate training required before implementation and in anticipation of backlogs and early system issues following implementation and increased average handling times while staff became accustomed to the new system and processes. The additional resourcing is approximately $165 000 a month and is accommodated within the existing operational budget. COCKBURN CEMENT — DUST POLLUTION 79. Hon SALLY TALBOT to the Minister for Environment: I refer the minister to the recent media reports about unacceptable levels of lime dust and odours from the operations of Cockburn Cement Limited that has affected surrounding suburbs. (1) Is it true that the Department of Environment and Conservation relies solely on information provided by the Kwinana Industries Council and a consultant firm employed by CCL for all wind-borne emission data in relation to this operation? (2) What advice can the minister give about the apparent inconsistency between the data being used by DEC to monitor the current licence conditions, which show no increase in dust and other pollution, and the public acknowledgement by DEC officers that there are hundreds of complaints from residents actually experiencing this pollution? (3) What action will the minister take to address the residents’ concerns regarding the pollution from CCL? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: I thank the member for the question. I cannot give specific responses to some of the questions because they are quite technical, but I am happy to provide further information to her. Hon Sally Talbot: You have had your staff down there to sort it out.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010] 1091

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: Just let me answer the question! (1)–(3) I am aware of community concerns about Cockburn Cement; it has been raised with me through letters from concerned members of the community. In addition to that, departmental staff and officers from my office have met with some community members and, I think, with an opposition member, Mr Fran Logan, to discuss this. Issues surrounding the impact of dust and other pollutants have been raised and I have asked the department for advice on those health impacts. I cannot give the member a specific answer about the licensing of Cockburn Cement, but I can say that the department is currently reviewing the licence. I understand that it will be looking at improving the dust and monitoring requirements in all of those sorts of things in order for Cockburn Cement to step up, because the department has been concerned as well. I understand that probably later this week the department will be issuing for public comment draft amended conditions to the licence. That will allow members of the community to put forward their concerns, and I certainly encourage them to do that. Once the department has had the opportunity to review those comments from the community, and from anyone else for that matter, a licence will be issued. That will then be subject to appeal. Obviously, that will go through the normal processes. With respect to Cockburn Cement, if I recall, a proposal relating to burning recycled fuel oil was referred to the Environmental Protection Authority. It is proposed that “not assessed” public advice be given under part 5. That is currently under appeal. The Appeals Convener will provide me with advice in due course. As I understand it, there have been appeals relating to that matter. MARINE PARKS AND RESERVES AUTHORITY — ANNUAL REPORT 80. Hon GIZ WATSON to the Minister for the Environment: I refer to marine conservation and the annual report of the Marine Parks and Reserves Authority. (1) Has the Marine Parks and Reserves Authority provided the minister with advice to adopt a three-year work program to substantially complete a system of representative marine protected areas for the state as envisaged by the 1994 report of the Marine Parks and Reserves Authority selection working group? (2) If yes to (1), does the minister intend to implement such a program? (3) If no to (2), why not? (4) If no to (2), is the minister committed to completing the establishment of a system of representative marine protected areas for the state? (5) If yes to (4), what is the minister’s time line and program? (6) If no to (4), why not? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)–(3) I regularly meet with the Marine Parks and Reserves Authority to discuss marine parks and reserves. On 3 October 2009, the Premier and I announced that a marine park would be established in the Camden Sound area of the Kimberley, consistent with feedback from consultation for the government’s Kimberley science and conservation strategy. I have made it clear that establishment of a marine park in the Camden Sound area is a priority. (4)–(6) The Liberal–National government has already shown its commitment to the establishment of marine parks and reserves as is demonstrated by the creation of the Walpole and Nornalup Inlets Marine Park on 8 May 2009 and the 3 October 2009 commitment to establish a marine park in the Camden Sound area. DALMARINE PTY LTD — DAMPIER MARINE FACILITIES 81. Hon KEN TRAVERS to the Minister for Transport: (1) Is the minister aware that Dalmarine Pty Ltd has asked the Minister for Regional Development to help obtain approvals and land for new commercial marine facilities at Dampier? (2) Is the minister aware that the Minister for Regional Development has referred the issue to the Dampier Port Authority, an agency for which he has responsibility, and that the Dampier Port Authority has publicly denied its responsibility to resolve this issue? (3) Which minister is responsible for resolving Dalmarine’s land tenure and approvals requirements? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: (1)–(3) The honourable member has asked a question with complex technical matter, which clearly requires some reference. Several opposition members interjected.

1092 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010]

The PRESIDENT: Order, members! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: If the honourable member wishes to place the question on notice, or provide some notice of the question, I will consider it for him. REGISTERED TRAINING ORGANISATIONS — FUNDING 82. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH to the Minister for Training and Workforce Development: I refer to the question I asked last week about cuts to funding for the Access All Areas 2010 program. (1) Will the minister guarantee that that access program will be continued and funded at current levels into the future? (2) Will the minister guarantee that stage 2, which calls for applications for access program funding, will continue; and, if not, why not? (3) Is the minister aware that unpredictable funding arrangements are making it difficult for registered training organisations to plan for future courses; and, if so, what does he intend to do about that? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)–(3) Any future funding for training will be considered in due course during the budgetary process. That is all I am prepared to offer at this stage. As a former minister, Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich would understand that I have no intention whatsoever of explaining what will be in the budget. I know exactly what will be in the budget. As a former minister, Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich is well aware that ministers fight tooth and nail to get all that they possibly can. The funding for this particular project will be considered during the budgetary process. Funds are short for both private and public providers. The Deputy Prime Minister articulated today exactly what we have said. We have a great relationship with the federal government and the Deputy Prime Minister as a result of the Productivity Places program. The federal government is kicking in about $120 million and we are providing another $60 million to do as much as we possibly can to ensure that we have an effective training sector. I am very conscious of the concerns within the whole of industry, plus the registered training organisations. I can assure the honourable member that I have regular communication with RTOs. As always, particular projects will be part of the budgetary process and the budgetary considerations. PERTH STORMS — SEWERAGE INFRASTRUCTURE NETWORK 83. Hon ALISON XAMON to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Water: I am not quite sure who will take this question. I refer to the recent storm and subsequent power outages in Perth on Monday, 22 March this year. (1) In the Water Corporation sewerage infrastructure network, how many sewage pumping stations were without power for any length of time in the aftermath of the storm, and for what length of time? (2) What is the estimated volume of untreated sewage that was discharged into rivers, wetlands, parks, stormwater and drainage systems, streets and other areas in the Perth metropolitan area in the period when pumping stations were not powered? (3) What is the entire capacity of overflow storage tanks in the Water Corporation? (4) What are the public health concerns for coming into contact with untreated sewage in an urban environment? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Water, who is away from the immediate confines of the chamber on urgent parliamentary business, I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The parliamentary secretary has asked me to convey the following answer to the member, which I now do — (1)–(3) Following the storm event, approximately 130 pump stations were left without mains power. Some of these sites had backup diesel generators to maintain pumping capability. The remaining information requested is currently being collated by the Water Corporation and will be available in approximately mid-April 2010 when this work has been completed. If additional information becomes available earlier, it will be provided to the member through the minister’s office. (4) Please refer this part of the question to the Minister for Health as it falls within the responsibilities of the Department of Health.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010] 1093

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIVE SERVICES — YOUTH SERVICES REVIEW 84. Hon MATT BENSON-LIDHOLM to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Corrective Services: I refer to the Department of Corrective Services review of its requirements for youth services that it funds across the state. (1) How was the review conducted and will its findings be made public? (2) Were any of the existing youth services given an opportunity to participate in the review; and, if not, why not? (3) Have funding levels been cut to any existing services; and, if so, which services and by how much? Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. However, the minister advises that it is not possible to provide the information requested within the time required and asks that the honourable member place the question on notice. RESOURCES SECTOR — MINES SAFETY INSPECTIONS 85. Hon ED DERMER to the Minister for Mines and Petroleum: I ask this question on behalf of Hon Jon Ford, who is unable to attend in the house at this time. Some notice has been given of the question. I refer to mines inspectors and inspections since 26 November 2009. (1) How many mines inspectors did the Resources Safety division of the Department of Mines and Petroleum have employed on actual mines safety inspections at the start of December 2009, in January 2010 and in February 2010? (2) How many inspections were carried out, and where, in the months of December 2009, January 2010 and February 2010? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. This answer is correct as at 30 March. (1) The number of inspectors of mines employed by the Resources Safety division of the Department of Mines and Petroleum who carried out site inspections during this period is as follows: in December 2009, 29; in January 2010, 25; in February 2010, 32; and in March to date, 26. (2) The number of the site inspections carried out during this period is as follows: in December 2009, 144; in January 2010, 118; in February 2010, 159; and in March 2010—that is, to 30 March 2010—128. I table the attached documents that detail the exact location of each site visit. Please note that some sites were visited more than once. I seek to have that table incorporated into Hansard. Leave granted. [See paper 1881.] The following material was incorporated —

List of locations of each site visited in December 2009

ANT AND SUNDAY HILL PROJECT ESPERANCE SALT/PINK LAKE SALT OPS OREBODY 23/25 ARGO UNDERGROUND EXPLORATION – KARRATHA PADDINGTON GOLD MINE ARGYLE DIAMONDS AK1 FLYING FOX PERSEVERENCE ARGYLE DIAMONDS UNDERGROUND FLYNN DR – NEERABUP / WA PILLARA LIMESTONE ATHENA UNDERGROUND MINE FLYNN DRIVE – NEERABUP / PINJARRA REFINERY CARRAMAR SAND BANNOCKBURN GOLD PROJECT FROGS LEG PLUTONIC GROUP BINDOON BAUXITE QUARRY GERALDTON PORT BERTH 4,5 QUINNS ROAD – NEERABUP/RCG PTY LTD BODDINGTON BAUXITE MINE GOSNELLS RALEIGH UNDERGROUND BODDINGTON GOLD GROUP GREENFIELDS TREATMENT PLANT RED HILL / HANSON BULLABULLING GOLD OPERATION GWINDINUP SALLY MALAY GROUP BULLEN DECLINE HARLEQUIN DECLINE (CNGC) SALT CREEK MINE BUNBURY GROUP / CABLE HOMESTEAD UNDERGROUND SAND QUEEN MINE BUNBURY PORT AUTHORITY HOMEWARD BOUND SINCLAIR MINE BURBANKS TREATMENT PLANT HOPKINS RD – CARABOODA / LS BLDG SONS OF GWALIA, LEONORA BLOCKS BURBANKS UNDERGROUND PROJECT HORSESHOE MANGANESE MINE SOUTHERN CROSS OPERATIONS

1094 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010]

BURNAKURA JV PROJECT JACK HILLS GROUP SPINIFEX RIDGE BYFORD / HANSON JANDAKOT PLANT / UNIMIN SUNRISE DAM GOLD MINE BYFORD AGGREGATE QUARRY JANET IVY OPEN PIT SUPER PIT CAPE PRESTON IRON ORE PROJECT JUBILEE GOLD MINE THE LAKES CARABOODA KANOWNA BELLE GOLD MINE THREE MILE HILL PROJECT CARNILYA HILL KELMSCOTT / NAGROM THREE SPRINGS CAROSUE DAM GOLD MINE KOOLAN ISLAND IRON ORE PROJECT TIMONI CATALANO B & S KWINANA NICKEL REFINERY TRIDENT UNDERGROUND PROJECT CAVE ROCKS GROUP LAKEWOOD PLANT WALDON OPEN PIT CENTRAL NORSEMAN TREATMENT LANFRANCHI WALLABY PROJECT PLANT CHIDLOW – GOODS RD SANDPIT LAVERTON OPERATIONS WATTLE AVE EAST – NOWERGUP/CROWN LIMESTONE CLOUD BREAK GROUP LAWLERS GOLD MINE WELSHPOOL PLANT / UNIMIN COCKATOO ISLAND LONG – VICTOR GROUP WESCO RD – NOWERGUP/LIMESTONE NATURAL COYOTE GOLD MINE MEEKATHARRA / MERCATOR WESCO ROAD-NOWERGUP/METEOR STONE CUDDINGWARRA TRANSFER SITE MILITARY ROAD/ARCHISTONE WEST ANGELAS CUE OPERATIONS MT MARION WINCHESTER QUARRY DAISY MILANO GOLD MINE MURRIN MURRIN WINDIMURRA VANADIUM PROJECT DAMPIER SALT NGARNGULU – HUDSON RESOURCES WOODIE WOODIE TAILINGS DONGARA LIME OPERATION – NEWMAN – MT WHALEBACK GROUP WORSLEY REFINERY COCKBURN DORAL NIFTY COPPER WYNDHAM PORT FACILITY ELLENDALE MINE OK DECLINE ENEABBA GROUP – ILUKA OREBODY 18 ESPERANCE PORT AUTHORITY

List of locations of each site visited in January 2010

ANDERSON POINT LAWLERS GOLD MINE ARGO UNDERGROUND LONG – VICTOR GROUP BALDIVIS ROAD / ITALIA MADORA BAY – LIMESTONE / ITALIA BELLEISLE U/G MINE MARINERS NICKEL MINE BODDINGTON BAUXITE MINE MOONBEAM OPEN PIT BODDINGTON GOLD GROUP MT CATTLIN LITHIUM BOUNTY GROUP MT CHARLOTTE / CASSIDY SHAFT BRIGHT STAR – BETA GOLD PROJECT MT JACKSON CAMP BROCKMAN MT MORGANS PROJECT BULLANT MINE MT REGAL / HANSON BULLEN DECLINE MURRIN MURRIN BUNBURY GROUP / CABLE NELSON POINT – PORT HEDLAND CAPE LAMBERT PORT OPERATIONS NEWMAN – MT WHALEBACK GROUP CARBONE SOUTH WEST OPERATIONS NULLAGINE IRON ORE PROJECT CAROSUE DAM GOLD MINE O’CONNOR – COMO ENGINEERS CAVE ROCKS GROUP OREBODY 23/25 CORONET PADDINGTON GOLD MINE DAMPIER PORT OPERATIONS / HI PARDOO PROJECT DAMPIER SALT PHILLIPS RIVER PROJECT DARLOT PINJARRA REFINERY DAVYHURST PLUTONIC GROUP EXPLORATION – KARRATHA PORT HEDLAND SALT FAIRYLAND POSTANS QUARRY FINUCANE ISLAND PORT OPERATIONS RALEIGH UNDERGROUND GASKELL SAND PIT RAVENTHORPE NICKEL PROJECT GIDJI ROASTER ROBE RIVER – PANNAWONICA GROUP GOSNELLS SANDSTONE TROY RESOURCES GWINDINUP SONS OF GWALIA, LEONORA HBI PLANT SOUTHERN CROSS OPERATIONS HIGGINSVILLE TREATMENT PLANT ST IVES OPEN PITS HOMESTEAD UNDERGROUND SUPER PIT HORSESHOE MANGANESE MINE TABBA TABBA JAGUAR BASE METALS PROJECT THREE MILE HILL PROJECT JUNDEE GROUP TINDALS U/G KANOWNA BELLE GOLD MINE WALDON OPEN PIT KELMSCOTT / NAGROM WATTLE DAM GROUP KOOLYANOBBING WESTONIA GROUP KWINANA ALUMINA REFINERY WHIM CREEK COPPER KWINANA NICKEL REFINERY WILLOWDALE LAVERTON GOLD PROJECT WILUNA GOLD PROJECT WORSLEY REFINERY

List of locations of each site visited in February 2010.

ABERCROMBIE RD QUARRY – JANDAKOT RD SAND – NLG PADDINGTON GOLD MINE POSTANS

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010] 1095

AGNEW GOLD OPERATIONS JUBILEE GOLD MINE PARDOO PROJECT ALBANY – WILLYUNG / CEMEX KALGOORLIE NICKEL SMELTER PERSEVERENCE ANDERSON POINT KAMBALDA NICKEL PORT HEDLAND PORT FACILITY CONCENTRATOR ARGO UNDERGROUND KANOWNA BELLE GOLD MINE PORT HEDLAND SALT ATHENA UNDERGROUND MINE KEMERTON SILICON SMELTER PREMIER BALDIVIS/MILLAR RD KING BAY QUARRY RADIO HILL BANNOCKBURN GOLD PROJECT KOOLAN ISLAND IRON ORE PROJECT RALEIGH UNDERGROUND BELLEISLE U/G MINE KWINANA ALUMINA REFINERY RED HILL / HANSON BETA-HUNT NICKEL GROUP KWINANA BULK TERMINAL SINCLAIR MINE BRIGHT STAR – BETA GOLD PROJECT LAKEWOOD PLANT SMALL QUARRIES BRONZEWING GOLD MINE LANFRANCHI SONS OF GWALIA, LEONORA BULLABULLING GOLD OPERATION LAVERTON GOLD PROJECT SOUTHERN CROSS OPERATIONS CARABOODA LAWLERS GOLD MINE ST IVES OPEN PITS CARBARUP QUARRY LEINSTER NICKEL OPERATIONS SUNRISE DAM GOLD MINE CARNILYA HILL LEONORA GOLD PROJECT SUPER PIT CATALANO B & S MACPHERSONS GOLD PROJECT TABBA TABBA CAVE ROCKS GROUP MANDOGALUP SAND PIT TELFER GROUP CHANDALA – MUCHEA DRY PLANT MARINERS NICKEL MINE TINDALS U/G CLIFFS NICKEL PROJECT MINDIJUP SILICA SAND PROJECT TRIDENT UNDERGROUND PROJECT COBBLER POOL MINJAR GOLD PROJECT TURNER RIVER / CEMEX COSMOS NICKEL MINE MOORA / SIMCOA WESCO ROAD SAND PIT DAMPIER PORT OPERATIONS / HI MOORE REIVER WESCO ROAD-NOWERGUP/METEOR STONE DARLOT MT CATTLIN LITHIUM WEST ANGELAS DORAL MT CHARLOTTE / CASSIDY SHAFT WHITE FOIL GOLD PROJECT ESPERANCE PORT AUTHORITY MT KEITH NICKEL OPERATIONS WILLOWDALE EXPLORATION – KARRATHA MT MAGNET ORBICULAR GRANITE WODGINA QUARRY FAIRPLAY OPEN PIT MUJA/EWINGTON 11 WOODIE WOODIE GROUP FLYING FOX MURRIN MURRIN WOODIE WOODIE TAILINGS GASKELL SAND PIT NELSON POINT – PORT HEDLAND WOOGENELLUP GELORUP – BUNBURY / CEMEX NEWMAN – MT WHALEBACK GROUP WORSLEY REFINERY GORDON SIRDAR PROJECT NIFTY COPPER Yandi I & II GRANNY SMITH GOLD MINE NORTHAM QUARRY YANDICOOGINA / HILL D GREENBUSHES GROUP OK DECLINE YARRIE GWINDINUP OREBODY 18 HUNTLY BAUXITE MINE OTTER JAGUAR BASE METALS PROJECT

List of locations of each site visited in March 2010 to date (26.3.2010)

ANT AND SUNDAY HILL PROJECT GRANNY SMITH GOLD MINE MT MARTIN OPEN PIT ARGO UNDERGROUND GREENBUSHES GROUP MT MORGANS PROJECT ARGYLE DIAMONDS AK1 HAMPTON BOULDER JUBILEE PIT MT WELD RARE EARTHS MINE ATHENA UNDERGROUND MINE HARLEQUIN DECLINE (CNGC) MURRIN MURRIN BELLEISLE U/G MINE HIGGINSVILLE TREATMENT PLANT NARNGULU BIG ROCK QUARRY – NEWMAN HOMESTEAD UNDERGROUND NARNGULU – HUDSON RESOURCES BLACK SWAN NICKEL MINE HOPE DOWNS GROUP NARNGULU SR PLANT – ILUKA BODDINGTON GOLD GROUP HOSE MINE NICKOL BAY QUARRY BRIGHT STAR – BETA GOLD PROJECT HUNTER ST STRIPPING PLANT OK DECLINE BROCKMAN JACK HILLS GROUP ORANGE GROVE BULLEN DECLINE JUNDEE GROUP ORIENT WELL PROJECT BUNBURY GROUP – CABLE KANOWNA BELLE GOLD MINE PERSEVERENCE BUNBURY PORT AUTHORITY KEMERTON SILICA SAND PROJECT RADIO HILL BUNBURY PORT TERMINAL KOOLANOOKA GROUP RALEIGH UNDERGROUND CAPE LAMBERT PORT OPERATIONS KUNUNURRA / GUERINONI RED HILL / HANSON CAPE PRESTON IRON ORE PROJECT KUNUNURRA / WOODHEAD ROBE RIVER – PANNAWONICA GROUP CARBONE SOUTH WEST OPERATIONS KWINANA NICKEL REFINERY SALT CREEK MINE CENTRAL NORSEMAN TREATMENT LAKEWOOD PLANT SINCLAIR MINE PLANT CHANDALA – MUCHEA DRY PLANT LEFROY GOLD TREATMENT PLANT SMALL QUARRIES CHRISTMAS CREEK IRON ORE GROUP LEINSTER NICKEL OPERATIONS SONS OF GWALIA, LEONORA CLOUD BREAK GROUP LEONORA GOLD PROJECT SUNRISE DAM GOLD MINE DAISY MILANO GOLD MINE LONG – VICTOR GROUP TALLERING PEAK GROUP DAMPIER PORT OPERATIONS / HI MAGELLAN MINE THREE SPRINGS FAIRPLAY OPEN PIT MARANDOO TINDALS U/G FLYING FOX MILITARY ROAD/ARCHISTONE WALKAWAY / CEMEX FROGS LEG MINING AREA C GROUP WATTLE DAM GROUP GELORUP – BUNBURY / HANSON MOOLART WELL – DUKETON GROUP WHITE FOIL GOLD PROJECT GERALDTON PORT LEASE 14 MOORE RIVER WILBINGA – MILITARY RD LOT 1 GERALDTON PORT LEASE 17 MT CATTLIN LITHIUM WILUNA GOLD PROJECT GERALDTON PORT LEASE 21 MT CHARLOTTE / CASSIDY SHAFT WORSLEY REFINERY GNANGARA ROAD / ROCLA MT MARION

1096 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010]

BURRUP PENINSULA — ABORIGINAL SITES 86. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE to the minister representing the Minister for Indigenous Affairs: I refer to Burrup Holdings Ltd and Yara International ASA; the development of a technical ammonium nitrate production facility or explosives plant on the Burrup Peninsula and known Aboriginal sites 9312, 9763, 9764, 10573, 11722, 18611, 19226, 20098, 23263, 23323 and 23383; question on notice 5523, asked on Thursday, 25 October 2007; question on notice 5554, asked on Tuesday, 13 November 2007; and, question on notice 418, asked on Tuesday, 5 May 2009. (1) Have section 18 applications been lodged for the ground disturbing activities associated with the site evaluation for this proposal? (2) If no to (1), why not? (3) Will the minister ensure that Burrup Holdings Ltd and Yara International ASA comply with the requirements of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question and advise that some information has been provided by the Acting Minister for Indigenous Affairs, correct as at 22 March. (1) No. (2) It is the responsibility of the proponent to apply for section 18 consent or risk prosecution if it disturbs an Aboriginal site. (3) Yes. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING — MAINTENANCE TENDERS 87. Hon ADELE FARINA to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Housing and Works: I refer to the Department of Housing’s new tender process for maintenance of Department of Housing properties. (1) Is it the case that if a company wants to submit a tender, it must now tender for all zones within a region? (2) Will the department be able to negotiate verbally with companies after the close of the tender, as it did under the Building Education Revolution tender process? (3) Will all companies that submit a tender be invited to engage in verbal negotiations with the department post the close of the tender? (4) Will the minister table the department’s intent, procedures and guideline documentation for the conduct of the tender process and assessment of tenders, including for the conduct of verbal negotiations post the close of the tender and assessment based on maximising economies of scale? (5) If no to (4), why not? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the honourable member for the question. The Department of Housing advises — (1) Yes. (2)–(4) No. (5) The Department of Housing has engaged a probity auditor for advice on the process and is using Department of Treasury and Finance procurement templates. Information of the nature requested may be available through the freedom of information process. LIBRARIES — FUNDING 88. Hon HELEN BULLOCK to the minister representing the Minister for Culture and the Arts: (1) By how much was library funding cut, both percentage and figure, in each of the following local government areas — (a) Canning; (b) Wanneroo; (c) Bayswater; and (d) Albany?

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010] 1097

(2) Was any consideration given to patronage at each of the libraries; and, if not, why not? (3) Were local government authorities consulted prior to the cuts being implemented? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The library materials funding allocation for 2009–10 across local governments is $6.5 million. Allocations for the specific local government areas in 2009–10 are — (a) City of Canning, $198 403; (b) City of Wanneroo, $338 397; (c) City of Bayswater, $139 993; and (d) City of Albany, $81 556. In addition to the above allocation from within the $6.5 million, each local government is provided with a licence to access a number of electronic resources and databases purchased as a whole-of-Western Australia licence, and access to a pool of new items purchased in languages other than English as a whole-of-Western Australia collection. As well as the $6.5 million specifically allocated for the purchase of new public library materials, $6.98 million from the recurrent budget of the State Library of Western Australia was used to support the WA public library network in 2008–09 through a range of services, including the provision of the extensive interlibrary loans system, the management of public library stock, advice and training services to local government, and the delivery of a statewide book club for adults. The support has continued in 2009–10; allocations for 2010–11 are yet to be finalised. (2) Since the 1950s, funding for public libraries has been allocated to support equity of access to services for all Western Australians regardless of whether they live in metropolitan, regional, or remote Western Australia. Although local government area population is the major allocation factor, in remote and regional Western Australia a minimum level of allocation is provided regardless of the population level. Local governments with small populations—mainly remote—receive a minimum allocation for each library each year before any further allocation is made. The remaining funds are then allocated across the remaining local governments, based primarily on population. Therefore, the changes in funding levels from year to year for each local government do not exactly equate to the changes in the available funding overall. (3) Allocations for 2010–11 are yet to be determined. LIVE SHEEP AND CATTLE EXPORTS 89. Hon LYNN MacLAREN to the minister representing the Minister for Agriculture and Food: (1) Is the minister aware that there is a federal investigation into the reasons for the high number of deaths of cattle and sheep on the first shipment to Egypt since 2006? (2) What were the weather conditions in the port of Fremantle from 19 February to 23 February when MV Ocean Shearer sat loaded with cattle bound for slaughter in Egypt? (3) Is the road transport or loading onto ships of animals prohibited in extreme heat; and, if so, under what weather conditions is transport or loading suspended? (4) For what period was an officer of the animal welfare unit present during the loading of the ship? (5) What was the reason for the four-day delay in departure? (6) As reported in Farm Weekly, does the minister stand by his assertion that the industry and this new multimillion-dollar ship will deliver the highest standards of animal welfare in the world? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Agriculture and Food has provided the following answers — (1) Yes; I am aware that 266 of 16 500 cattle died onboard a ship to Egypt, and that a federal government investigation is underway. (2) The live export industry operates under the authority of the Australian federal government. Hon Tony Burke, MP, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, has responsibility for the regulation of this industry. Details about the shipment of cattle will be assessed as part of the federal government’s investigation into the reportable mortality event.

1098 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010]

(3) Exporters must comply with Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock, which covers all parts of the export process, from the farm to discharge at the destination. Compliance with the ASEL is a matter for the federal government. (4) The lead agency for enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act 2002 is the Department of Local Government. The animal welfare unit is part of DLG. The Department of Agriculture and Food does not have access to information about the activities of the animal welfare unit of the Department of Local Government. (5) As indicated previously, any details about the shipment of cattle will be assessed as part of the federal government’s investigation of the reportable mortality event. (6) I remain of the view that it is better for Australia to be involved with the export of livestock to the Middle East, and to continue to strive for improved animal welfare standards throughout the export process. If Australia withdrew from the industry, there is no guarantee that the countries that would take our place in supplying livestock will strive for similar improvements in animal welfare. MIDLAND HEALTH CAMPUS 90. Hon LINDA SAVAGE to the minister representing the Minister for Health: (1) What is the government’s current budget allocation for the new Midland hospital? (2) What are the current projections for the year-to-year cashflowing of this budget? (3) What advice has the minister given to the federal government on the construction timetable of this hospital? (4) Will the federal government still be providing $180 million towards the construction of this hospital, and will this be matched by the state government? (5) Is the state government proposing that some of its share of the capital funding will be paid by private contribution? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question and provide the following answer — (1) The government’s current budget allocation for the Midland Health Campus development is $360.2 million, comprising equal funds from state and commonwealth governments. (2) Current projections for year-to-year cashflow are shown in table 2 below. These projections are based on a design, build, finance and operate procurement method. (3) The minister has advised the commonwealth that MHC will be completed by mid-2015. (4) Yes. (5) No. Under the proposed DBFO model, capital funding will revert to a recurrent cashflow. The private sector will finance upfront design and construction costs. I seek leave to table the table and have it incorporated into Hansard. Leave granted. [See paper 1882.] The following material was incorporated —

Table 2: Overall project budget ($360.2 million):

Expenditure Item 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14 2014–15 2015–16 Total TOTAL 5.01 10.0 25.0 75.0 125.0 100.0 20.2 360.2 Notes: 1 — Includes expenditure already incurred.

ESPERANCE PORT AUTHORITY 91. Hon KEN TRAVERS to the Minister for Transport: (1) Does Esperance Port Authority currently have — (a) a permanent chief executive officer; (b) a chairperson?

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010] 1099

(2) Has the minister received a request from Esperance Port Authority to approve the appointment of a new chief executive officer; and, if so, approximately when was that request received? (3) Why have no appointments been made to these important positions? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: (1)–(3) I thank the member for his interest in these matters. I do not know why the member is incapable of giving some notice when he wants to — Hon Sue Ellery: He doesn’t have to! You’re supposed to be across your portfolio! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Oh! Is this the theme of the day? Is this the theme of the day, dopey? Is this the best the member can come up with? Hon Ken Travers: If is it, it’s working, isn’t it! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: No, the member is not working. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! We are nearly coming to the end of questions without notice. I am hoping that the minister will get to the point of his answer. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Mr President, I will be delighted to do so. But, before I get to that, I was trying to point out by my remarks—as a courtesy to the member asking the question—that if the member wanted to facilitate the obtaining of information that he is dinkum about obtaining, he can as a matter of course provide some notice when he is asking for dates and all the rest of it. However, that seems to have been shouted down. That shows that the member is more interested in jumping up and down than serious debate. In relation to the member’s nefarious little plan that he is so smugly clever about, I can advise him — Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I can advise him as follows — Hon Ken Travers interjected. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Hang on! Does the member want me to answer his question or not? Hon Ken Travers: Yes. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Then the member should tell his dopey mates to shut up for a minute, and I will! Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! Withdrawal of Remark Hon ED DERMER: Mr President, I nearly rose to my feet at the reference to “nefarious”, but that was then combined with “dopey”. I think both those terms are highly unparliamentary, and I would seek a withdrawal and an apology from the Minister for Transport. The PRESIDENT: Quite frankly, I think that is drawing a long bow. If any member takes offence at that particularly, that member might stand and ask for it to be withdrawn, but I do not consider either of those terms unparliamentary. Hon ED DERMER: Mr President, if I had not taken offence, particularly at the reference to somebody being “dopey”, I would not have stood, so I certainly do take offence at both those terms. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! I am not going to take a point of order, because we have to have some room for some robust debate and neither of those terms is outlandish in my view. However, it is the convention that if somebody particularly takes offence, that member can invite the member making those statements to withdraw them if the member wishes. Hon Ed Dermer has requested that the minister withdraw it, but I am not going to insist on the request if the minister does not wish to withdraw it, because I do not consider those terms to be over the edge. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Mr President, I think you are very wise, but for the record and for the member’s sensibilities, it was a tongue-in-cheek reference using the adjective “nefarious” to a quite inadequate plan being put forward by Hon Ken Travers. But if the honourable member is upset by something like that, I will withdraw it to save his feelings and out of respect for standing orders. Questions without Notice Resumed Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: In answer to the question, the fact is that both the positions of the chief executive officer and the Chairman of the Esperance Port Authority are in a process of transition at this time. The position

1100 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010] of the CEO became vacant sometime ago. The board has undertaken an exhaustive process to identify a successor. I believe there are a very large number of applicants. I will not go into the exact details. Before the member jumps up and down, it is not because I am not across my portfolio but because these are other sensitive personnel matters. A very large number of applicants were considered. Ultimately, a recommendation has been made to me by the port authority board, which I have received, and I have recommended that to the cabinet. Hon Ken Travers: Approximately when did you receive it—approximately, not specifically: months ago or weeks ago? I heard it was months. That is why I am checking. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: It was weeks ago. There are processes to go through and those processes are being gone through at this time, so I cannot give any further information about that. The question of the chairman’s position is also one that is under active consideration. But know this: as we have already demonstrated during our time in office, our ability to deal with issues related to the Esperance port is substantially better than anything that has been shown by our predecessors. Does that answer the question enough for the member? Hon Ken Travers: It answers it beautifully. TREASURER’S ADVANCE AUTHORISATION BILL 2010 Second Reading Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting. HON PHILIP GARDINER (Agricultural) [5.08 pm]: The issue with the Treasurer’s advance authorisation comes down to the matter I wish to cover, which is the Gravity Discovery Centre located at Gingin. I know it is not an enormous amount of money in the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill, but it relates to the unforeseen and extraordinary events that the government should be addressing when considering how it exercises its application of the appropriation of funds. I am disturbed that the judgement that is being applied, it seems, is to cease funding the Gravity Discovery Centre. I am advised by the chairman of the Gravity Discovery Centre that this unique science educational centre, which at this particular time is going very well, is to not have any further government support. This will affect it to the extent of $200 000. It will make a decision about whether to close down the centre on 31 March. If the centre is closed down its arrangement with the Graham (Polly) Farmer Foundation, which brings Aboriginal children to that centre, and the science camps over three years, will be in jeopardy. The exhibits in the Square Kilometre Array, which includes a telescope for radio astronomy onsite that is used to help students understand aspects of radio astronomy, will no longer be available. The centre is an education science centre of distinction that serves a lot of schools in the metropolitan and rural areas. I understand that the Gravity Discovery Centre was set up by Hendy Cowan, when he was Minister for Science, to be a public interface with the Australian International Gravitational Observatory to enable schoolchildren and the public of Western Australia to learn about gravity, astronomy and cosmology. In the past 10 years the centre has received over $8 million from industry and the federal government. In addition the centre has received an enormous amount of in-kind support to make it what it is today. The Gravity Discovery Centre now comprises four major buildings and over 20 000 people attended this centre last year. The centre hosts growing numbers of Singaporean students and this year will be putting on major programs for Indigenous students from the Pilbara and beyond. According to the chairman, John de Laeter, it is the most cost-effective science education centre in Australia. Scitech spends approximately $26 for each person who passes through it and the Powerhouse Discovery Centre in Sydney spends $40 for each person who passes through that centre. The gravity centre spends no more than $10 for each person who passes through it. It is one of the leanest, meanest deliverers of science education in this country, yet it appears that it will be closed down. I will come to the relevance of how important that is to Western Australia in a few minutes. The federal government, through the science portfolio, provided $150 000 a year for the first five years of the operation of the Gravity Discovery Centre. Currently the centre receives three grants, from the Australian Research Council, the University of Western Australia and the Graham (Polly) Farmer Foundation, whose grant alone totals $920 000. The federal government’s grant is about $61 000. The Wheatbelt Development Commission has provided $44 000. If the Gravity Discovery Centre is closed down, the implication is that it will erode the momentum for its application for $100 million that has been signalled by the United States of America to be appropriated to finance further research into gravity at this particular centre located at Gingin. It will also erode the possibility of another $1 million coming from the University of Western Australia, as well as amounts coming from the five leading universities that are creating a war chest to fight for federal funding for this project. It is possible that members are not familiar with the science this gravity centre is investigating. As we know, gravity is one of the four fundamental forces of nature, the others being electromagnetism and strong and weak nuclear forces. It is a force that structures the universe; it creates galaxies, stars and planets. It switches on the

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010] 1101 nuclear furnaces in stars, which give light and life to the universe, as we currently understand it. Gravity can accumulate indefinitely and creates black holes of the kind that we understand were the origins of our universe but yet we do not fully understand. Gravity is still shrouded in mystery and its secrets are just beginning to be discovered. Gravity waves are like sounds that pass through space at the speed of light, still deaf to the sounds of the universe. Gravity wave technology will give us the dimension to understand what is happening to the world as we investigate it. The discovery of electromagnetic waves, one of the other four fundamental forces of nature, in 1886 spawned dramatic and unforeseen revolutions as the new waves were progressively harnessed for communication, medicine and astronomy. The harnessing of gravity waves will unleash similar potential. As we think now, this is inconceivable, but it will have a similar impact upon our lives as discovery deepens. With amazing new technology developed through intense international collaboration, scientists predict that we will soon be capable of listening to the birth of the universe. But there is a threat because this little core, the Gravity Discovery Centre at Gingin, is about to be closed. Outside this, unbeknownst to them, there are major international providers of funds to enable the deeper discovery of gravity. If the centre is closed, it will simply send all the wrong signals about our seriousness of the theoretical research with which we are trying to understand what gravity and its surrounding science is all about. I am told that gravity wave technology apparently has already created a surge of innovation that has significant practical and economic benefits for Australia. It has already been used to create enhanced radar technology and sapphire clocks and has contributed to developing super mirrors, gravity sensors, ocean wave monitoring and super-efficient air conditioners. We can now apparently detect stealth bombers as a result of the research into gravity wave technology. Gravity radiometers can allow rapid airborne exploration, but Australia and Western Australia’s involvement in it is now placing continuation of this work in jeopardy. We have the ball at our feet, the goal is ahead of us and it is now a matter of whether we wish to strike the ball in the direction of realising an enormous opportunity. Efforts have been made by Professor David Blair at the University of Western Australia and Professor John De Laeter at Curtin University of Technology to seek $160 million of funds for the Australian international gravity observation centre. So far $30 million has been spent on developing facilities at the site but over the past two years they have made significant progress in obtaining these additional funds. They have worked towards securing international partnerships in this observatory, and six other nations have proposed participating in the project—namely, the United States of America, Germany, France, Italy, India and China. Substantial funding contributions have been proposed. In December there was a major breakthrough; the United States International Gravity Observation Laboratory offered to contribute the complete detector valued at $100 million if Australia, with its international partners, contributed the rest—that is, the other $30 million. In February 2010—as some members may know as some may have attended, but, unfortunately, I was unable to attend because of a prior engagement—the world’s community came to Perth for the first Australian International Gravity Observation Conference. High level meetings were held to plan the project, which the US calls International Gravity Observation South. That is the component that we as a country can contribute to for this worldwide investigation into gravity waves and its application for the benefit of not just us but the whole world in the same way electromagnetism was investigated in 1886. In response to the US offer, five leading universities—the University of Western Australia, the Australian National University, Melbourne University, Adelaide University and Monash University—have created a war chest to fight for federal funding for this project. The Australian International Gravity Organisation National Laboratory has been formed at UWA and an interim director has been appointed. The organisation’s board is leading the funding bid. The US side will assess Australia’s response, but the US side needs to be convinced that both capital cost and operational funds are available for the next 10 years. If we cannot bring ourselves to continue the ongoing, small amount of funding that this gravity discovery centre is seeking now—$200 000—on the back of the self-help that this centre has already demonstrated, as it is already the hardest working, lowest government funded science centre of the three I have mentioned, we must ask the questions: what is self-help worth; why should we bother about it? In raising this issue during debate on this bill, I am drawing the attention of the house to not just the current operation and determination of this little centre in the way it carries out delivery of science to schoolchildren and at low cost, but also the implication that if funding for this kind of thing is not appropriated from our Treasury, we will lose the momentum and the potential for a huge opportunity to receive additional international funding in excess of $100 million for future research that can be undertaken by this operation at Gingin in this frontier field of science; namely, gravity discovery. I thank members. HON HELEN MORTON (East Metropolitan — Parliamentary Secretary) [5.23 pm] — in reply: I thank all members for their contributions and their support for the passage of the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill 2010. It is probably not the time for me to answer in detail many of the questions that have been asked. Most people will seek that sort of detail during the committee stage, and that is probably the better time to deal with it. The other benefit of leaving it to that stage obviously is that then I will have the Treasury adviser by my side.

1102 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010]

Hon Ken Travers: You must know it all yourself! Hon HELEN MORTON: Absolutely, but if I gave all the answers right now, members opposite would ask the same questions again anyway. Hon Ken Travers: If you tell us what the deficit will be now, I will not ask you again. Hon HELEN MORTON: If the member can find out, let us see if I can give him enough confidence in that. I want to provide members with a couple of key points. The first point is that we are operating in the most unusual times for any government, Treasurer or budget period to deal with. These are the most extraordinary times and they are affecting government at the national level as well. The circumstances are very different from what we have had to deal with before. Despite all that, I would rather weather the global financial crisis, and the other things, in Western Australia with Western Australia’s budget, resources and circumstances than in any other state in Australia. Hon Ken Travers: Absolutely; we are a rich state. Hon HELEN MORTON: Absolutely. One of the things that the member must understand when he talks about Western Australia being a rich state is that a lot of those riches come from revenue from mining royalties. That is one of the biggest circumstances that have had to be managed through this whole budget process. Due to the higher exchange rate for the Australian dollar that has flowed from this whole global financial crisis, the revenue issues have been very volatile and have fluctuated significantly. This has created a huge issue for the Treasurer to manage within the budget process, and trying to find a mechanism for smoothing that out over the past six months has required a substantial effort on his part. Hon Ken Travers: The revenue figure you have now and what was predicted in the pre-election financial statements are almost identical. Hon HELEN MORTON: It might have fluctuated significantly in that time frame. WA’s AA credit rating— sorry, the AAA credit rating — Hon Ken Travers: So it’s only AA now! Hon HELEN MORTON: No, it has a AAA credit rating, which has been absolutely reaffirmed by Standard and Poor’s and Moody’s last reviews. The member may not want to take reassurance from me, the Treasurer, or Treasury advisers, but perhaps he could take reassurance from Standard and Poor’s and Moody’s that WA’ financial circumstances are in pretty good shape. Hon Simon O’Brien: Has it ever dropped below AAA? Hon HELEN MORTON: No; never. One of the points that members need to remember is the severe impact on expenditure in this budget by the on-passing of commonwealth grants. Some of those things are also of some significance in terms of managing the budget. Members can ask more details about that when we come to the committee stage. In terms of the documents that members opposite are hoping will be tabled, a document has been circulated that is the same level of documentation as that tabled in the Legislative Assembly. I am advised that it is the level of documentation that will be tabled in the Legislative Council. There were some strange suggestions by members opposite that information was being manipulated in the cabinet process through withholding information. I have far greater faith in the role of our chief financial officers than perhaps members opposite have. These chief financial officers of government agencies have got to work within the legislation that is provided to them. Hon Ken Travers: They have to work within the decisions taken by cabinet — Hon HELEN MORTON: I ask Hon Ken Travers to let me finish! Hon Ken Travers: — and I was attacking cabinet, not the chief financial officers. Hon HELEN MORTON: Hon Ken Travers has to be careful about what he is saying because the chief financial officers operate in accordance with the financial legislation—the Financial Management Act and other financial legislation. If they work outside of that legislation, it will be picked up by the Auditor General. I would say that the member is really casting aspersions on the chief financial officers if he is suggesting — Hon Ken Travers: I never attacked the CFOs, I attacked the cabinet; it is the cabinet that is doing it! The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Hon Michael Mischin): Order, members! I ask the parliamentary secretary to direct her remarks through the Chair. The parliamentary secretary has the call. Hon HELEN MORTON: A number of members referred to the additional risk expenditure in the area of health. I know that Hon Ken Travers has read the 2009–10 Government Mid-year Financial Projections Statement as thoroughly as I have, if not more thoroughly. He knows that that risk and the amount involved was highlighted in

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010] 1103 that document. He knows that additional funding for health was not requested at the time of the midyear review. However, the risk had already been identified by Treasury and was highlighted in that document. Members have asked whether the budget will go into deficit. Members must remember that the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill deals only with excesses and does not take into account underspends in other agencies. Further, it does not take into account movements in revenue. On that basis, it is not possible for members to draw conclusions about the impact on financial targets. Such impacts can be assessed only at the end of the budget process. Usually the actuals for the year are not recorded until the September following a financial year’s end. It is not necessarily wise to suggest that we are dealing with a budget that is going into deficit. Hon Ken Travers: Do you guarantee it won’t? Hon HELEN MORTON: In what capacity does the member want me to guarantee that; in my position as parliamentary secretary? Hon Ken Travers: You can guarantee whatever you like. I will take your word for it. Give us your word, Hon Helen Morton! Hon HELEN MORTON: I have heard Hon Ken Travers ask ministers to take some kind of responsibility for this. With that in mind, I can say what I can say; namely, the member should not draw any conclusions — Hon Ken Travers: Can you guarantee that it won’t go into deficit? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order, members! I do not think that is an appropriate demand to make of a parliamentary secretary. Hon HELEN MORTON: Another comment that is worth making is that the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill provides the government with interim authority to make decisions. Members must understand the difference between the role of a Treasurer’s advance bill and subsequent supplementary bills. The supplementary bills, which will be tabled later in the calendar year, will seek to formalise these appropriations. That is why two supplementary bills will be introduced after we have dealt with this bill that relate to the previous two years, which is — Hon Ken Travers: And if we defeat those bills, what happens? Is the money repaid? Hon HELEN MORTON: I do not know. I doubt it. Hon Ken Travers: No, it’s not. It’s not an interim measure. This is the approval of the expenditure. Don’t kid yourself! Hon HELEN MORTON: This is the interim authority. Members have expressed their uncertainty about the term “recashflow”. I am very familiar with that phrase. The slang word used in the financial world is “slippage”. If money and resources allocated to a certain project, initiative or service are not used in the time that they are provided, they are moved into the following time frame to enable the project, initiative or service to be picked up and carried on. Members should not be overly concerned about the concept of re-cashflow. It is another phrase for “slippage”. I prefer the term “recashflow” to “slippage”. Hon Ken Travers: Are you saying the government is slipping? Hon HELEN MORTON: I am not saying that at all. I am saying that some of the expenditure might be. Hon Ed Dermer: Will you take an interjection? Hon HELEN MORTON: That depends on how technical the interjection is. Hon Ed Dermer: When explaining the term, you used “slippage” as a word with a similar meaning. When such slippage occurs, it has been my understanding that you would normally define the new time frame. If you’re passing funding on to a future time frame, you define when the actual expenditure will occur. Is that also your understanding? Hon HELEN MORTON: I am not sure. I would ask the honourable member to ask that question again in committee, and I will have some advice on that matter by then. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: You’ve got no idea, have you? That’s all right. Hon HELEN MORTON: But I certainly understand the term “slippage” and, in particular, how it relates to capital works programs. For the benefit of Hon Philip Gardiner, I would like to talk a little about the Gravity Discovery Centre in Gingin. I am very familiar with the circumstances surrounding that centre. I know that the Gravity Discovery Centre in Gingin signed a contract when it took its last allocation of funding, indicating quite categorically—I have seen the contract and I have seen the signatures on it et cetera—that the centre understood that this would be the last

1104 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010] amount of funding that it would receive from the science and innovation portfolio. I do not know why the centre has gone back to the member seeking his assistance to raise this issue, other than to promote the great work that the Gravity Discovery Centre does, with which I concur with the member. However, I think that the centre has every intention of seeking those funds elsewhere. That is the only conclusion that I can draw, because my understanding is that when the centre signed off on its last contract, it was indicated that that would be the last amount of funds that would be forthcoming under this mechanism. I am happy to get the member a copy of that contract if ever he needs it. Hon Philip Gardiner: I haven’t seen it. I’d appreciate that. Hon HELEN MORTON: I know that members will want to delve into the detail in the committee stage. Therefore, with those very general overview comments, I again thank members for their support and for their contributions, and I commend the second reading of the bill to the house. Question put and passed. Bill read a second time. Committee The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Hon Michael Mischin) in the chair; Hon Helen Morton (Parliamentary Secretary) in charge of the bill. Clause 1: Short title — Hon KEN TRAVERS: Firstly, I was going to ask the parliamentary secretary a question. I accept that a document has been distributed around the chamber but, for the benefit of people who may read Hansard at some point in the future and for the benefit of the future records of the house, I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary will table a document detailing the excesses and the new items. In requesting her to formally table that document, I indicate that in previous years a more comprehensive explanation of where the excesses were occurring was provided to this chamber. I certainly ask again for that more comprehensive document to be tabled, which will then provide for the debate in this chamber. Considering the magnitude of the expenditure and considering that this is the opportunity that we, as a Parliament, have to examine this expenditure, it is absolutely imperative that we get that document. I believe that it would progress the debate in this place in a quicker way if we had the document that breaks up the expenditure. Otherwise, I can assure the parliamentary secretary that we will go through everything line by line and ask questions, and we are going to want that break-up anyway. It can be provided either in written form, as it has been in the past, or verbally by way of questions, which will just take up the time of the house. On that basis, I have two questions for the parliamentary secretary. First, will the parliamentary secretary table the document? It is a government document, and it should be tabled by the parliamentary secretary. Secondly, will the government reconsider its refusal to provide the more comprehensive document to facilitate the debate? I understand that the parliamentary secretary may not be in a position to do that, but even if she were to give us some commitment that during the dinner break she would seek that information from the Treasurer and table it after the dinner break, it would facilitate and assist the progress of this legislation through the chamber. Hon HELEN MORTON: I reiterate what I said during the second reading speech: the level of documentation that has been circulated in this chamber is the same level of documentation that was provided in the other place. That is the level of documentation that I have been authorised to circulate to members. At this stage, I am not of a mind to seek any additional information. I am quite happy for Hon Ken Travers or any other member to ask questions about any of these items on a line-by-line basis. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Hon Michael Mischin): The question was whether the parliamentary secretary would table the document, as opposed to simply circulating it. Hon HELEN MORTON: I am more than happy to table this document. It is entitled, “Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill 2010 — Details of Excesses and New Items for the 2009–10 Financial Year”. The document has also been circulated to members of the Legislative Council. I seek leave to table the document. Leave granted. [See paper 1883.] Hon KEN TRAVERS: I have with me copies of the two documents that were provided to the chamber last year. One of them is in a reasonably similar format to that which we have just received; the other is a more comprehensive document. The exact same thing happened last year: in the lower house, a very general document was provided, while a more comprehensive and detailed document was provided in the Legislative Council. I would like to know why a government that professes to want to be more open and accountable is taking the policy decision to deny this chamber a level of detail that it has provided in previous years. Hon HELEN MORTON: That level of information will not be denied; it is possible for members to ask me about every line item in this document, and I am very happy to provide a response with the assistance of the advice that I get.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010] 1105

Hon KEN TRAVERS: I am speechless that the government has changed its policy on the level of detail it will provide compared with last year, and that it does not seem to want to progress this legislation quickly through the house. The provision of that additional information would have allowed that to happen, but if that is the government’s choice, we will move on. I am very disappointed that the government has changed its policy on the provision of information; perhaps it is because we are sitting in this chamber rather than our own that the government is behaving more and more as it does in the lower house. It will prolong the debate if the government will not provide that information to us, but so be it. It is disrespectful to both the chamber and the people of Western Australia for a government that has presided over an almost $1.2 billion growth in expenditure since the last budget to not provide that detail. It is an absolute disgrace. The other two points I want to make — The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Hon Michael Mischin): With respect, I think you should be asking questions about the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill 2010 — Hon KEN TRAVERS: No; on the short title clause I can give a speech, with all due respect, Mr Deputy Chairman. I can make a speech on every clause, in fact, during the committee stage. Hon Norman Moore: A moment ago you were speechless, so why have you changed your mind? Hon Simon O’Brien: The situation has deteriorated a lot! Hon KEN TRAVERS: I will make a couple of points, the first of which is that I have never made allegations about how financial officers do their job. It was absolutely disgraceful that Hon Helen Morton suggested in her second reading reply that I had impugned the integrity of the chief financial officers, and I think it was an attempt to try to deflect from the real people I was attacking—namely, cabinet ministers. I was saying that the cabinet, not the chief financial officers, had deferred decisions, which is a big difference. Members who listened to my contribution to the second reading debate heard me state that I accepted that the Under Treasurer had included all the decisions made and provided to him in the midyear review. On the same day, the Under Treasurer reminded us that a minister’s press release is not a government decision, which is the most fascinating comment I have ever heard. The Premier can make public announcements—the Premier is the worst culprit, but other ministers also do it—about which there is no underpinning government decision, and therefore those decisions are not included in the midyear review and the budget. The public might think that a government decision has been made because a press release has been issued about it, but that does not mean that it will be included in the midyear review. I accept that if a decision had been made, the Under Treasurer would have done his job and included it in the budget. My point is that the government, at cabinet level, decided not to progress decisions on those matters—even though it knew the pressures on its departments—thereby preventing the true representation of the state’s finances being included in the snapshot that is the midyear review. The midyear review, released in December, was a snapshot of the state’s finances, but it has turned out to be inaccurate, and today we will get a more accurate snapshot of government expenditure. But we will not be able to find out how the snapshot would have looked and how it would have impacted on the state’s finances had this extra expenditure been included in the midyear review that was released in December. I want to ask the parliamentary secretary about the expenditure, but would the Leader of the Opposition like to pursue a matter first? Hon Sue Ellery: I just want to put some comments on the record. Hon KEN TRAVERS: The Leader of the Opposition will make her comments, and then I will ask my questions. Hon SUE ELLERY: I will make some comments on the information provided by the parliamentary secretary about the government’s decision not to supply us with the same level of detail it provided last year. I will refer to a couple of the line items in the information that has been provided to make the point that this process may have been perhaps more efficient than it is going to be if that level of detail had been provided. For example, some descriptors of line items in the document provided are fairly straightforward, and we can ask questions about those reasonably easily and be provided the kind of information we are seeking. A pretty good example appears on page 6 of the document, under the heading “Western Australian Sports Centre Trust”. Under “Decisions made”, one of the matters is the operating cost of the new athletics and basketball stadiums. That is fairly straightforward; I do not know whether anybody has issues about that. Hon Ken Travers: I do actually! Hon SUE ELLERY: But the descriptor is pretty straightforward, and it will be pretty easy to ask a series of questions about that in a fairly efficient manner. But the first item on page 1 of that document, under the heading “Parliamentary Commissioner for Administrative Investigations”, states, under “Decisions made”, “Escalation of Core business”. It is fairly difficult to devise a set of efficient questions for something as broad as that. Over the page, under “Indigenous Affairs”, there is a heading “Supplementary Funding Deferral”, about which we will have to ask a series of questions that we would not have had to ask to get to the detail if there had been a

1106 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010] clearer description of what that covered. Then on page 3 we see—I think for the first time in this document— under “South West Development Commission”, the description “Decisions made—Recashflow of Election Commitments”. It would have been nice if there had been some definition in this document about that mysterious “Recashflow”. On page 5, under “Police”, there is again a reference to “2008–09 Supplementary Funding”. There is no question that it is the government’s prerogative to choose what level of detail it wants to provide to us. I acknowledge that. However, we are genuinely trying to do our job in a timely fashion. That is why not every member of the opposition made a speech during the second reading debate. We wanted to concentrate on achieving an efficient examination of the detail through the committee process. Therefore, we were not interested in extending the second reading debate beyond making the points that we wanted to make. However, if the only information that the government can give to us is a document that does not provide the level of detail around which a reasonable person could construct a set of questions in an efficient way, the process will take longer than we had anticipated. That is a judgement call made on the basis of the government’s decision not to provide us with either a single document in which the explanations are perfectly clear, or a subsequent document that sets out the level of detail that would help us target our questions to the areas that we need to target. Hon HELEN MORTON: I reiterate that as soon as members get on to asking questions about the line items, in whatever level of detail members want, the responses will be made available. The level of detail that members have is the same level of detail as was given in the other place. There is no suggestion that information will not be made available to members. It is a matter of going through the committee stage and of members asking questions and our providing members with the information that they are seeking. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I want to ask two questions about the global impact of this bill. First, what will be the impact on total expenses growth for the government as a result of the passage of this legislation? Second, if this expenditure had been included in the midyear review, what would be the key financial aggregates for the state, in particular the operating surplus? Hon HELEN MORTON: My advice is the same as what I understood to be the case when I provided that advice to the member earlier. The impact of the $417 million on the net operating balance can be determined only after the end of the budget period. I reiterate that that is because this situation does not bring into account the underspends in other agencies or areas, and the revenue changes. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I understand that. I understand that there may be other parameter changes, and that what we may get at any one time is only a snapshot. But what we have in front of us tonight is a range of expenditure. I am more than happy for the parliamentary secretary to identify for each item when it would first have been known by the government. I put it to the parliamentary secretary that the vast majority of these items would have been known to the government prior to the midyear review. The Department of Health expenditure was definitely known before the midyear review. I think it is not unreasonable for this chamber to know what the impact of the passage of this legislation will be. If the parliamentary secretary wants to update herself on those other revenue figures or has more up-to-date revenue figures and more up-to-date figures that she can add in, I am happy for her to bring those forward, but I think it is not unreasonable for this chamber to understand the impact that the passage of a key piece of legislation will have on the key aggregates of the state’s finances. When we pass the budget we have that. I think it is appropriate that we should have it tonight, because it may actually have an impact on those things. At the very least the parliamentary secretary should indicate to us whether she can give us an ironclad guarantee that the state will not go into deficit or that the passage of this legislation will not affect the AAA credit rating of the state. At the very least, if the parliamentary secretary cannot give us the figures, which I think she should, I want to know whether it will have an impact on the state’s AAA credit rating and whether the state will go into deficit as a result of the passage of this legislation. Hon HELEN MORTON: The midyear review was the last snapshot that was taken of the budget for the state. The final snapshot will be taken at the end of the financial year, so it is not possible to give the member anything at this stage. As for the other aspect of the question relating to the AAA credit rating and guarantees that we will not go into deficit, I would love to be a part of cabinet but I am not and, consequently, I cannot give the member the guarantees or the level of information that he is looking for. The advice I have, which I have already given him, is that the AAA credit rating was intact at the last review. The two rating agencies said that we were fine. I do not think we can get a better level of assurance that that. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I have two comments. First, the parliamentary secretary is not in cabinet but she is the representative of cabinet in this chamber. If she is not and she does not have that capacity, she should bring forward the Leader of the House. If she cannot get that information provided to this chamber and if cabinet is not providing it to her, then she should repeat that and I might move that we go back to the house and get the Leader of the House to come and sit at the table, as a member of cabinet, to provide those answers, because the parliamentary secretary is a representative in this place who is here to provide the answers to this chamber before

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010] 1107 we pass this piece of legislation. Second, when the midyear review was conducted it was estimated that $460 million would be the Treasurer’s advance authorisation, which was the standard three per cent appropriation. The parliamentary secretary is now coming into this chamber asking us to pass a piece of legislation that will add almost $700 million in additional authorisation for the expenditure. I think it is not unreasonable for us to ask her to ask the government to take another snapshot and to give us an indication of what impact it will have on the state’s finances. That is not unreasonable. Two minutes ago the parliamentary secretary sat in this place and said, “Let us get on with the questions and I will give you full and frank answers.” At the very first question the parliamentary secretary says that she cannot give us those answers, either because she is not a member of cabinet or because the government does not want to give those answers. I do not believe that the government does not have an idea of what impact this bill will have on the state’s finances. I do not believe that. If it is the case, the parliamentary secretary should stand in this place and tell me that the government does not have an idea about what impact this legislation will have on the state’s finances, because then we will have a great debate, but I do not think it is the case. I think the government does know and I think that the parliamentary secretary is deliberately denying this chamber that information and at the same time expecting us to pass the bill. I do not think she would ever do that in her personal life. I do not even think she would have expected to do it when she was a senior manager in a government agency. It is a disgrace if the government is saying to us tonight that it wants us to pass a piece of legislation that adds almost $700 million in additional authorisation but it will not tell us, the state, what impact it will have on the state’s finances even though the government knows privately what it is. If that is the case, that is an absolute disgrace, and so I would like to know if that is the case. Hon MAX TRENORDEN: Mr Deputy Chairman — Hon Ken Travers: Here we go! Hon MAX TRENORDEN: We are meant to be an upper chamber here. I have just listened to the impassioned debate of Hon Ken Baston—sorry! Hon Ken Travers: Best speech Ken Baston has ever given, I reckon! Hon MAX TRENORDEN: I meant Hon Ken Travers. I was just thinking about what I was going to say. The fact is that this debate happens every year. Sitting suspended from 6.00 to 7.30 pm Progress reported and leave granted to sit again at a later stage of the sitting, on motion by Hon Helen Morton (Parliamentary Secretary).

APPROPRIATION (CONSOLIDATED ACCOUNT) RECURRENT 2007–08 AND 2008–09 (SUPPLEMENTARY) BILL 2009 Second Reading Resumed from 23 March. The PRESIDENT: The question is that the bill be now read a second time. I give the call to Hon Linda Savage and note that the member is not the lead speaker for the opposition on this bill. I also note that this is the member’s inaugural speech and ask members to observe the usual courtesies. HON LINDA SAVAGE (East Metropolitan) [7.33 pm]: Thank you, Mr President. I rise to make my inaugural speech. Mr President, as you know, Hon Jock Ferguson died on 13 February this year. As members can imagine, I have been dismayed that it was these circumstances that led to me taking my place in the Legislative Council. I know that Jock was a close friend to many members. His unexpected death was met with much sadness. He is remembered for his lifelong commitment to working people and their rights, his tangible love for his family and friends, the genuine friendship he offered to all and his wicked sense of humour. It is because of his encouragement and support that I sought preselection, and now have the privilege of being a member of the Legislative Council for the East Metropolitan Region. I would like to begin tonight by acknowledging the Nyoongah people, the traditional owners of the land, and pay my respect to their elders. Over time I have come to appreciate the real significance of these words and the link that they form between Australia’s Indigenous people and all of us who have followed to make Australia what it is today. In preparing for my speech tonight, I have read the speeches of many members, past and present. Most interesting to me was how members’ social and political views were formed. It has long been accepted that we all bring our values and assumptions to any situation in which we find ourselves, and there is overwhelming evidence about how formative childhood experience is. I know that the influences of my childhood were pivotal in forming the views I hold today, so that is where I would like to begin.

1108 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010]

Like a significant number of Australians, my parents grew up worlds apart. My father grew up in Belfast in Northern Ireland, a place he never returned to after he left in his mid-20s and which he always associated with grey skies, World War II and the death of a beloved older brother, and the class system. His strong Irish accent, which he never lost, marked him in a society so defined by class, but he considered himself one of the lucky ones. He got a chance to have a decent education through opportunities offered by the state and then became the first member of his family to reach the stepping stone of university and eventually a new life in Australia. At the same time, my mother was growing up in the country town of Waroona. Despite her parents’ poor circumstances, her mother was determined that she would get an education. The local school did not offer what we now call year 12 and her own father’s expectation was that she would leave school at 15 years of age and get a job. However, my grandmother had not named her Roberta after Roberta Jull, the first woman doctor to set up practice in Perth, for nothing. So my mother was sent to the convent at New Norcia, where she was taught by kindly nuns who had little more education than the girls, and she managed to get a bonded place to study at Claremont Teachers Training College. By sheer good fortune, at the end of her first year a number of students were chosen and sent to the University of Western Australia to do a degree. This was an opportunity that would never have otherwise been possible for my mother because of the cost of university education at the time. After my parents met in Geraldton, and even as their lives grew more prosperous, they never forgot that it was the opportunity for an education that had transformed their lives. As a result, education was always especially valued in my home, as was the contribution of teachers. The right of girls to be educated and treated equally was also a strong message, as was the belief that it was patently unjust that the accident of birth and circumstances could deny people that opportunity. The constant message from my female teachers at my all-girls school was that we should aspire to anything boys could do, and this only served to reinforce my parents’ views. So whilst individual effort and reward, hard work and taking responsibility for oneself were expected, it was always with the caveat that those of us who had opportunity, or could make our way, should never forget that many others did not have those opportunities or faced disadvantages or obstacles through no fault of their own. The 1970s, when I was in high school, were turbulent political times. I can still recall how unions on behalf of women fought for equal pay, and finally it was achieved in the landmark decisions of 1969 and 1972, despite enormous opposition. As I grew up, it was unions and the Australian Labor Party that were committed to and took the lead in fighting for the rights of women and minorities, led opposition to the war in Vietnam, were progressive in social policy and embodied the fundamental values I had absorbed in my home, particularly from my mother, whose intelligence and wisdom has been the most influential in my life. Perhaps, then, it is not surprising that when I went to the University of Western Australia, I studied politics. This reinforced my belief in democracy as the most stable form of government and something never to be taken for granted, as well as cementing my lifelong interest in politics. My employment and career choices have also reflected my interest in politics. Within days of finishing my degree I started work for Senator Ruth Coleman. Perhaps because I was 23 years old and had grown up being told women could aspire to anything, I did not fully appreciate what a trailblazer she was. Ruth Coleman was only the eighth woman ever to be elected to the Australian Senate and only the second female senator from the Australian Labor Party. I think it is important to recognise how far we have come. Today the Western Australian Legislative Council has the highest ever proportion of women of any Australian Parliament, at approximately 44 per cent of members. I am very pleased to be part of this new milestone for women in politics. I will always be grateful to Ruth Coleman for employing me as her research assistant and speechwriter. With kindness and humour, Ruth Coleman and Shirley Landquist, her long-time secretary, helped me make the transition into my first proper job. Because of my regular travel to Canberra, I gained an insight into politics and politicians that no amount of study could ever provide. Of course, then, like now, there was much criticism of politicians. But it was there that I saw politicians trying in good faith to address the pressing issues of the times. I realised, too, how easy it was to be on the sidelines criticising—how much harder it was to be part of finding the solution to complex issues. In 1982 I went to England where I studied law at Cambridge University. Subsequently as a lawyer, I have worked in a number of positions, including at the Legal Aid Commission of Western Australia and for many years at the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, initially as a legal member and for some years as its director, before being appointed to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The appeals I dealt with were overwhelmingly in the area of social security and employment law, and so involved many of the most vulnerable and marginalised members of society. These positions all heightened my awareness of the lack of access to legal services that many people faced, and, as a result, I worked for a number of years with a group of dedicated women to establish the Women’s Legal Service of Western Australia. My interest in the particular disadvantage women faced in accessing legal services and in a legal and political system that had been developed entirely from a male perspective led me also to become a member of the then Chief Justice David Malcolm’s Taskforce on Gender Bias and to be involved in organisations like Women Lawyers of Western Australia.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010] 1109

One of the most important issues I have been involved in followed my appointment to the Women’s Advisory Council to the Premier. There I met Terri Ann White, and we subsequently co-wrote a book recording Western Australian women’s experiences of abortion, going as far back as the 1940s, as well as attempts that had been made in this Parliament to reform the law. This was the early 1990s, and the existing laws accorded neither with the widespread support for women’s right to choose nor the reality in practice. The subsequent reform of the laws in 1998 was something that I was very proud to support and be part of. I remember at the time many members of the public said they felt a renewed respect for the political process in this Parliament too, observing the heartfelt debate by politicians about such an important social issue. With that in mind, I believe that Hon Robin Chapple’s bill on voluntary euthanasia, an issue that had enormous coverage in the media last year and much public comment, should get an opportunity to be debated during the term of this Parliament. Mr President, I would now like to talk about some of the issues we face in Western Australia today, including in the East Metropolitan Region, that concern the community. I referred earlier to the complexity of many issues. This complexity is clear when we consider our children. At one extreme we know there are children who face lives of neglect and dysfunction. Successive governments have grappled with how to protect these children and I have firsthand experience of the challenge, having worked in this area. But there is also a wider group of our children who concern us. The Telethon Institute for Child Health Research, an institution of international standing, has for some years been trying to understand why a significant number of Australian children are doing so poorly. The evidence is clear in the high rates of suicide, the increasing incidence of mental health problems, poor school outcomes, aggression and obesity. Identifying exactly what it is about the environment we live in today that seems to be failing rather than fostering our children and how to address it is one of the most pressing issues we face. Some things we do know. We know that the first three years of life are crucial, affecting even the development of a child’s brain and having a lifelong impact. We do not need research to confirm that a safe and nurturing environment with an adult who is consistently caring provides the best chance for a child’s development, just as we know that poverty and dysfunction will diminish a child’s long-term wellbeing. But children and their needs have been low on the list of priorities. The previous Labor government recognised this and appointed Michelle Scott as Commissioner for Children and Young People, and she has been effective in consistently raising issues as they affect children. But many voices are saying that far more must be done. Particularly concerning to me is the increasing incidence of mental illness that Dr Patrick McGorry, the Australian of the Year, says children and young people are experiencing. In that regard, the Barnett government is to be congratulated for the establishment of the Mental Health Commission, although, of course, the real challenge will be whether it can achieve the promise it made to give people who are suffering mental illness— including children and young people and their families—the support and dignity they need. Mr President, much is made of the social and economic costs of the ageing population, but it seems to me that we will face just as enormous economic and social costs if we fail to address the problems facing children and do not make them the priority they should be. As I have said, some issues are very complex; others it seems to me are not. Like other feminists, I am aware that the enormous gains made for women over the past 50 years have not translated equally for all women. As a wife and mother, I have had a long interest in the need to recognise and value the unpaid work overwhelmingly done by women caring for children and running households. The failure to do so has had far-reaching ramifications for women and children, and society in general. The failure to truly value what is regarded as the traditional work of women also affects those in the paid workforce and is at the heart of what is known as the gender pay gap. In November 2009 the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment and Workplace Relations reported that the gender pay gap, rather than decreasing, has grown since 1992, and nowhere more than in Western Australia. Whilst this is unfair in any sector of the workforce, it is particularly unjust and punitive for the lowest paid. A current example is education assistants. These workers, predominantly women, are employed to assist teachers and supervise children with a range of special needs, and earn little more than $30 000 a year. The low base from which they are currently seeking a pay rise is a result of the undervaluing of their work, and that is because it is work typically done by women. It seems patently unfair that this work, recognised as crucial to providing children with a good education, is paid so very poorly. Their recent pay claim has been met with the same arguments used in 1972; that is, that the economy just cannot afford it. But this is not an excuse that fair-minded Western Australians would, I think, be comfortable with, given that the increase being offered is not even adequate to enable education assistants to maintain their extremely modest lifestyles. Because of this, I believe urgent attention must be given to amending the industrial relations framework so that the traditional undervaluation of work on the basis of gender is a factor taken into account when considering pay claims such as these. The final issue I would like to touch on are the stop-and-search powers proposed in the Criminal Investigation Amendment Bill 2009. Firstly, I would like to make the point that the empirical evidence shows that in Western Australia there has been a decline in the total number of offences reported to police over recent years, despite what seems to be the false perception that crime in general is increasing. And it is significant also that the decreases have been in many categories of the most serious offending, including homicide, armed robbery,

1110 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010] burglary and motor vehicle theft. It has been argued, however, that there is a specific problem; that is, an increasing number of weapons on our streets and an increasing incidence of violence and antisocial behaviour. No-one, of course, would disagree with the proposition that knives can be used as weapons and should not be carried and used to assault others. But the measures proposed in the bill fail to address this with any precision and, instead, a completely disproportionate increase in stop-and-search powers has been proposed. As members of this place would know, stop-and-search powers were significantly widened by amendments made to the Criminal Investigation Act in 2006. What is currently proposed goes even further and would allow for extended periods in declared areas mass searchings without the need for reasonable suspicion and without the consent of the person. A person could be subject to a basic search that includes taking off outer garments, such as a coat, and being patted down. Failure to comply could lead to a charge of obstruction and the possibility of imprisonment or a fine. The weight of legal opinion expressed by the Law Society of Western Australia and some of our most prominent and respected legal minds, including recently retired members of the judiciary, is that existing laws are more than adequate and that what is proposed is a real threat to civil liberties. We have seen the unintended consequences of law and order legislation being introduced hurriedly. But that is not my greatest concern. My concern is that there is an unacceptable risk that the new stop-and-search powers could be exercised in an inconsistent and arbitrary way, and, of course, it will be almost impossible to prove that the power has been improperly exercised. Some people will say, “If people have nothing to hide, why would they object?”, yet history abounds with examples of people with that attitude who have stood on the sidelines and allowed their civil liberties to be diminished, only realising their mistake when they, too, are subject to such sweeping and, in practical terms, incontestable powers of the state. It is alarming to me as a new member of this Parliament that in the twenty-first century a government in a democratic country is seriously considering removing from its citizens the fundamental protection that the requirement of reasonable suspicion provides. Having said that, Mr President, I remain optimistic. In my lifetime I have seen enormous changes in attitudes, and I believe we are largely a fairer, more tolerant and more inclusive society than was the case in the past. Despite cynicism about politics and politicians, it is an honour for me to become a member of the Legislative Council. When in 2007 I decided to take the plunge and to stop talking about politics and try instead to be a part of it, I wrote to the then Premier, Alan Carpenter. I sincerely thank him for taking the time to speak to me about my aspirations and for his encouragement. I particularly acknowledge Dave Kelly, secretary of the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union, whose candour and support was crucial. I also thank Fran Logan, the husband of one of my dearest friends, who played an essential role as mentor and friend. So that I do not inadvertently leave anyone out, I will not individually name the many people who encouraged and supported me on my way to becoming a member of Parliament, but I would like to record my gratitude to you all. I know that the electors of the East Metropolitan Region did not vote for me personally, but for me as a member of the Australian Labor Party. My hope is that in the remaining term of Parliament, I can do my best on their behalf to understand and represent their concerns. To my many friends, most of whom are not as interested in politics as I am, but who have on many occasions listened to me express my views, at times forcefully and sometimes without taking breath, thank you. Thank you also for the genuine interest and enthusiasm you have shown for this new chapter in my life. My special love, of course, to my husband, Stephen, and my children, Esther, Spencer and Declan, who are here tonight. Finally, because of the circumstances of my election to Parliament, I would like to finish by reflecting again on the qualities that people across the political spectrum spoke of when remembering Jock Ferguson. Those qualities were his passion for fairness and the courage he had to stand up for what he believed in. Those are the qualities I intend to aspire to as a member for the East Metropolitan Region. [Applause.] Debate adjourned, on motion by Hon Norman Moore (Leader of the House). TREASURER’S ADVANCE AUTHORISATION BILL 2010 Committee Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting. The Chairman of Committees (Hon Matt Benson-Lidholm) in the chair; Hon Helen Morton (Parliamentary Secretary) in charge of the bill. Clause 1: Short title — Progress was reported after the clause had been partly considered. Hon MAX TRENORDEN: I will say a couple of quick words before I take the chair in which Hon Matt Benson-Lidholm is sitting. The point I was going to make is that if we are to look at the consequences of this budget, two things are really important. I have been doing a lot of reading in recent months, and I have a great

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010] 1111 concern about the state of the American economy. No world currency has appreciated faster against the United States dollar than has the Australian currency. That is going to cause significant pressures for not only for this state government, but also the federal government. That is the first issue that I would like to leave hanging in the place. The second issue is: if we are to have this ridiculous debate about our credit rating, I would like to point out to the people in this chamber that Standard and Poor’s and other rating agencies have had an appalling record. They gave a AAA rating to funds and merchant banks in the United States that are no longer in existence. Therefore, I think that those rating agencies have yet to gain some ground before they can say that their ratings are worth anything at all—even marginally. Until they are able to prove to the economic world, and to the western world in particular, that their ratings are of any value at all, I do not believe that we should even be debating that point. Hon Ken Travers: I was just wondering whether the parliamentary secretary is going to answer the questions that I posed before the break. The CHAIRMAN: Does the member wish to get to his feet? Hon KEN TRAVERS: I had been waiting for an answer from the parliamentary secretary before I made some responses to Hon Max Trenorden’s comments. I put some questions on notice to the parliamentary secretary. If she wants some time to think about what they were, I am happy to make some comments. I could not agree more with Hon Max Trenorden’s comments. We cannot rely solely on Standard and Poor’s and the rating agencies, which is why it is important that this house make its own judgements about the state of the state’s finances. That is why it is important, when we are being asked to approve $700 million in additional expenditure, over and above the amount given to us when those figures were last provided to us, that we get answers from the parliamentary secretary to the questions I posed before the dinner break about the impact this legislation will have on the state’s finances, so that we can all make those assessments. Hon Max Trenorden, with his undoubted expertise in financial matters, could enlighten us as to whether he thinks, having heard those figures, that the state’s finances are sustainable. I look forward to that. Hon HELEN MORTON: I will make a similar response to the response I made last time: the midyear review is the latest snapshot, and that information has been made available. I know that the opposition has been through it and read it very closely. It is not possible to disclose cabinet discussions; the honourable member knows that and I know that. Hon Ken Travers interjected. Hon HELEN MORTON: The issue is that the reassurances the member seeks about deficits and things like that are not given at this stage; it is not possible. If any of those discussions are taking place, they are taking place within cabinet and are subject to cabinet confidentiality. They are not part of this discussion. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I will try again with a very simple question: is the government monitoring the impact of this legislation on the state’s finances? Is it actually doing that? Hon HELEN MORTON: No doubt, the answer to that is an absolute yes. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Does that include monitoring what impact this bill will have on the potential surplus or deficit of the operating budget at the end of this financial year? Hon HELEN MORTON: It includes the impacts of all decisions at all times throughout the year. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Can the parliamentary secretary tell us why the government will not share that advice with the chamber, but at the same time is asking the chamber to approve the authorisation of more than $700 million in additional expenditure that was not there when it last reported those figures to this place? Hon HELEN MORTON: It is a subject of cabinet consideration and therefore confidential. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Cabinet confidentiality is not something that should be used as an excuse to not answer questions. Decisions of cabinet should be confidential until the cabinet decides to make such decisions public. There is nothing to stop the cabinet from making that information public. Has the government therefore changed the policy it went to the election on to be open and accountable to the people of Western Australia? Hon HELEN MORTON: The decisions that are being made about the budget will be fully disclosed on budget day. Hon KEN TRAVERS: If that is the case, let us defer this legislation until budget day. When does this bill need to be passed by? Hon Robyn McSweeney: Just pass the bill! Hon KEN TRAVERS: I am sure that is the government’s attitude, too! Hon HELEN MORTON: The bill must be passed by the end of April, and I can go into the reasons for that.

1112 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010]

Hon KEN TRAVERS: Can you explain the — The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Hon Max Trenorden): Can Hon Ken Travers slow it down a bit for Hansard, please? Hon KEN TRAVERS: Can the parliamentary secretary please explain why the bill must be passed by the end of April? Hon HELEN MORTON: I am pleased that the member asked. If the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill 2010 is not passed and assented to before the existing limit of $469 million is exhausted, all expenditure from the consolidated account for new items and excesses and other Treasurer’s advance expenditures will cease due to the absence of legal authority to spend. The government is seeking to secure the passage of the bill by the end of April so that it can meet its commitments and responsibly manage the disbursement of funds to agencies over the period to 30 June 2010. This is consistent with the timing of the previous two bills. The Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill 2008 was passed by the Legislative Council on 3 April 2008, and the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill 2009 was passed on 9 April 2009. It is estimated that the existing Treasurer’s advance limit will be exhausted by early May. There will be an impact if the bill is not passed by the end of April. As of today, $155 million of the Treasurer’s advance has been used, leaving $314 million. Some Treasurer’s advance dependent expenditures are demand driven, such as the first home owner’s grant. By the end of April, an additional $30 million is expected to be drawn down and it will continue at $1 million every working day. The Department for Child Protection capital contribution is expected to draw $16 million before the end of April. Other advances, such as refunds of past year’s revenue—an amount of $15 million—must be paid within a short time frame to satisfy legislative rulings. Health cost pressures amount to $273 million. The last appropriation for the Department of Health is on 29 April. The supplementary funding needs to be provided by early May at the latest. These items amount to $490 million—well in excess of the $469 million. The release of funds, even against existing approved supplementary funding, will need to be carefully and tightly managed. Hon SUE ELLERY: In light of the information that has just been provided to us, I rise to make this point: it seems to me that some very important information has just been provided about the importance of us duly passing the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill 2010. I do not have those figures in front of me, but my recollection of the figures is that about $300 million is left now, or is that what has been spent? Hon Helen Morton: Do you want me to interject? Hon SUE ELLERY: Yes. Hon Helen Morton: About $155 million has been drawn, leaving $314 million, but I do add that that was two weeks ago. Hon SUE ELLERY: The government is spending, or drawing down, about $1 million a day. They are big numbers for us to consider, which is why I will ask the parliamentary secretary to consider the question put by Hon Ken Travers one more time, and to reconsider her answer, because I do not think it is reasonable, in the context of that set of figures, for the chamber to be told that members cannot be informed about the impact of the expenditure they are being asked to approve—that is, the second highest Treasurer’s advance authorisation ever. I do not think it is reasonable, in the light of that figure and the figures we have just been given, for us not to be given information about the impact it will have on the state’s bottom line. Hon HELEN MORTON: I say again that the convention is that that is disclosed on budget day. Hon KEN TRAVERS: What convention is that? There is no convention! There have never been two years in a row in which requests have been made for $1.12 billion and $1.15 billion in additional expenditure. We have never been in the position whereby we have been asked to approve a Treasurer’s advance bill that, as in this case, I can only assume, from the parliamentary secretary’s obfuscation, will result in the state going into deficit. The parliamentary secretary will not give us a guarantee that this state will not go into deficit. I assume that the reason the parliamentary secretary will not give us that information is because she knows, and the government knows, that this bill will result in this state going into deficit. There is no convention. This state has never been in this sort of situation previously. This state has never been in a situation in which the government is still receiving the revenue that it expected to receive when it was elected to office, but, because it cannot control its expenses growth, it is going to put this state into deficit. Therefore, I ask the parliamentary secretary to explain to me what this convention is, and where I can find an explanation of this convention. I also ask the parliamentary secretary to explain to me when we have ever faced this sort of situation previously. Hon HELEN MORTON: I used the word “convention” loosely — Hon Ken Travers: Yes, very loosely!

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010] 1113

Hon HELEN MORTON: — to mean “precedent”. It is normal for those decisions to be made public when the budget is announced. In respect of the member’s comment about how this bill will cause the budget to go into deficit, I will say again that the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill deals only with the excesses. It does not deal with the revenue and with the underspends in other areas. It is just one scenario that surrounds the budget. We are focusing on the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill here. Hon KEN TRAVERS: The parliamentary secretary has accepted that Treasury is doing the modelling. Can the parliamentary secretary guarantee that, based on the current modelling, the passage of this bill will not result in a deficit? Hon HELEN MORTON: I will say this one more time: members cannot come to that conclusion on the basis of this information. Hon Ken Travers: We can so! Hon SUE ELLERY: We can indeed come to that conclusion, if the parliamentary secretary will not provide us with the evidence to demonstrate that that is not the case. I am pleased that the parliamentary secretary has clarified her use of the word “convention”. I understood the parliamentary secretary to say that it is normal that the information that we are seeking is not revealed until around budget time. That has been the case in the past. Hon Helen Morton: Yes. Thank you. Hon SUE ELLERY: But what we are dealing with in this legislation is not a normal set of numbers. What we are dealing with here is the second highest Treasurer’s advance in the history of this state. When the midyear review figures were released, there was commentary by the opposition, there was commentary by the media and there was commentary by a range of people about whether the $51 million surplus was indeed a $51 million surplus, or whether the numbers had been massaged to create that surplus. The government is asking the Parliament to endorse this extraordinary set of numbers. It is, therefore, appropriate that the government provide to the Parliament—as a matter of courtesy, and, frankly, as a matter of responsible decision making— information about what impact this extraordinary set of numbers will have on the state’s bottom line. In no way can the government call what we are being asked to endorse in this bill a convention or normal practice. It is, therefore, not unreasonable that we be given all the information that we need to demonstrate to us that this state will not end up with a deficit as a result of this set of numbers. Hon HELEN MORTON: I believe that opposition members understand that the situation with the budget is still fluid and that there is no way in the world that any member of government or cabinet, or minister or anybody else can give them the guarantees that they are looking for. It is just ridiculous to be asking at this stage for that kind of guarantee. I might just add that the last time the previous government brought forward a Treasurer’s advance authorisation bill of a little bit less than this amount, but not by a substantial amount, it did not disclose the situation around the impact of the budget. Hon SUE ELLERY: The parliamentary secretary asks us to note that members of the opposition should be aware that information around the formation of the budget would not be disclosed at a time like this; except, of course, that today in question time, when asked a question about his portfolio, the Minister for Training and Workforce Development in his answer said that indeed he knew exactly what was in the budget. Hon Peter Collier: My portfolio. Hon SUE ELLERY: Of course. Hon Peter Collier: What I had requested. Hon SUE ELLERY: That is not what he said. He should check the Hansard, because what he said was — Hon Peter Collier: That is what I meant. Hon SUE ELLERY: That is not what he said. What he said was, “I know exactly what is in the budget in respect of this question and I know exactly that this matter will be” — Hon Peter Collier: Good try. Hon SUE ELLERY: I am not trying at all. The minister led with his chin, because that is what he said in question time and that is the answer that he gave. Hon Peter Collier: Just get on with it. Hon SUE ELLERY: I am making the point that we are being asked — Hon Peter Collier: You asked about five times. Hon SUE ELLERY: I am going to keep asking, and the more the minister interrupts me the more I will keep asking. I do that because we are being asked to consider an extraordinary set of numbers. It is the case—Hon Ken Travers is right—that when the minister wants to reveal something about the budget I guarantee that he will

1114 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010] make a whole series of prebudget announcements in the lead-up to the budget. Those matters will be before cabinet now and they will be revealed to us in the lead-up to the budget. The minister will announce some bad ones to get them out of the way and he will make some good ones in the hope that everyone thinks that this government is fantastic. Hon Robyn McSweeney: Just like you did. Hon Ken Travers: You did it last year as well. Hon SUE ELLERY: It is called politics. Let us not to pretend that there is some sort of convention or otherwise that is stopping the government. It is making a conscious decision that it does not want to have in the public debate now the information about the impact that this kind of expenditure is likely to have, or not have, on the state’s bottom line. The government is making a political decision and the parliamentary secretary should not try to disguise it as anything else. Hon KEN TRAVERS: What will the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill do to the overall expenses of government? What will it add to the total amount of expenses for government? Hon HELEN MORTON: The Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill will add $417 million to operating expenses. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Can the parliamentary secretary identify any other parameter changes since the midyear review that have significantly or will materially affect the state’s finances to the tune of $400 million? Hon HELEN MORTON: I think that the question might need to be re-asked or reframed. Could the member ask the question again and be a bit more explicit? Hon KEN TRAVERS: I am looking for the parliamentary secretary to identify for the chamber any other parameter changes that have occurred since the midyear review that are likely to affect the total budget situation by more than $400 million. Has there been a significant change in the exchange rate, iron ore volumes, revenue from the commonwealth government or goods and services tax revenues? I am sure your adviser would understand what I mean by parameter changes. I am looking for some identification of any major parameter changes that have occurred since the midyear review? Hon HELEN MORTON: That was a good try. Once again, Hon Ken Travers is asking me to go outside the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill. Parameter changes include revenue and underspend by other agencies and they do not come into this bill. The member is asking for a range of areas to be brought into consideration in the debate on this bill, when what I am authorised to speak about this evening, and have been briefed on, is the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill. I said in the second reading debate and I say again that the member cannot draw some conclusions without taking all the wider parameters he is asking about into consideration, which are not the subject of this bill. Hon KEN TRAVERS: If the member looks at the document she tabled in the chamber earlier this evening, she will note that it includes savings, it offsets savings and it includes issues relating to amortisation and depreciation. The document picks up a range of parameter changes; therefore, they are material to this bill. The bottom line is that unless the parliamentary secretary can give evidence to this chamber to the contrary, it is reasonable for all members to assume that if she cannot identify any other major parameter changes, this legislation will add $417 million to expenses growth. If we consider that together with the midyear review, which was sitting on a $51 million surplus, we are, through the passage of this bill, facing a deficit budget of $366 million. That is the bottom line. The government, through the parliamentary secretary, does not want to say that this evening. I can understand why. If I were in government, I would, after it promised that it would never go into deficit, be hugely embarrassed about having to stand in this place and admit that it is asking this chamber to pass legislation knowing that it will result in a $366 million deficit. It may end up that through some circumstances, irrespective of whether it be parameters through royalty revenue or changes to the value of the Australian dollar, the figure will drop to about $200 million. I am happy to have a wager now that we will see a budget in deficit by well over $100 million. I will go as far as to say that it will be $200 million. The government knows that, but it does not want to admit it. It can take that line, but let it be on the record that this government is contemptuous of this Parliament and the people of Western Australia by breaking its commitment not to budget for a deficit. We do not need the parliamentary secretary to admit it any further. By her admissions so far in this debate, it is clear that that is the case and that is why the government is seeking to avoid giving answers to these questions this evening. I am happy to move on. We can accept it. It is now on the public record that at the moment, without any other parameter changes, the budget deficit will be $366 million. Maybe things will pick up. It looks like royalties are increasing and stamp duty will increase over the next couple of months. I do not know whether it will change the deficit significantly. However, I am prepared to say that the budget might be in deficit by only $200 million. On

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010] 1115

30 September, when we consider the state’s finances, the parliamentary secretary should not deny that this government operated a deficit budget and that she did not know it, because she knows it and her government knows it. Hon HELEN MORTON: I would just like to reiterate that drawing a conclusion in the way that the member has is inappropriate. I am happy for the member to draw his inappropriate conclusion but I make the small suggestion that if he is going to put money on it somewhere, he should not put too much on it. Clause put and passed. Clause 2: Commencement — Hon KEN TRAVERS: I think the parliamentary secretary answered it earlier, but I just want to get an indication as to when the government expects this bill will be given royal assent. Hon HELEN MORTON: I indicated before that this bill needs to be passed and given royal assent by the end of April. Clause put and passed. Clause 3: Authorisation of expenditure to make payments in respect of extraordinary or unforeseen matters or to make advances for certain purposes — Hon KEN TRAVERS: I know we do not have a formal arrangement and we can go anywhere over clause 3, but for the ease of progressing through the clause, I advise the house that it is my intention to try to run through it in the order of the excesses and new items as listed in the document provided by the parliamentary secretary, and if any questions are left at the end, we might go back and revisit them. My first question relates to that Treasurer’s advance document, “Item 4 Delivery of Services”. I was wondering whether the parliamentary secretary could outline to us what “Escalation of Core business” means. I note that the original midyear review listed an expectation requiring $200 000 for this purpose, but that is now listed as $300 000. Can the parliamentary secretary give us an explanation of what has occurred between the midyear review and today and what exactly “Escalation of Core business” means? Hon HELEN MORTON: I will indicate first of all what the “Escalation of Core business” is about. The part of Hon Ken Travers’ question that I am just getting some advice on is whether it is definitely since the midyear review. Hon Ken Travers: I am saying $100 000 since the midyear review. The midyear review listed $200 000 for it and now it is $300 000. I am trying to work out what has happened between then and now. Hon HELEN MORTON: The response is that it is $100 000 since the midyear review; there was $200 000 before and now it has an extra $100 000. The “Escalation of Core business”, $300 000, is to effectively manage a significant increase in complaints—92 per cent above the previous year—and to meet the Ombudsman’s legislative requirements. Hon SUE ELLERY: That is an extraordinary increase in the number of complaints. I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary can give us some more information about what has happened to generate that kind of increase in complaints. Hon HELEN MORTON: I do not have the detail that the Leader of the Opposition is looking for about the type of complaints or the cause for the extra complaints. I think that question would have to be directed to the responsible minister, perhaps as a question on notice. Hon SUE ELLERY: This is an unacceptable answer because we were invited by the parliamentary secretary to ask as many questions as we wanted about the reason for the global amount and the configuration of how that global amount was reached. It is not as though we are talking about a 10 per cent increase in the number of complaints to the Ombudsman’s office; we are not. What figure did the parliamentary secretary give? Hon Helen Morton: Ninety-two per cent. Hon SUE ELLERY: We are talking about a 92 per cent increase in complaints, which represents an extraordinary number of additional complaints. I had a look at the budget and thought maybe this figure is something to do with changing responsibilities, because there was a shift in responsibility for the child death review work, but that was funded in the last budget and, indeed, part funded in the budget before that, so it is not that. If the parliamentary secretary invites us to ask questions about the detail, she should give us the detail surrounding the nearly 100 per cent increase in the number of complaints to the highest complaint body in the state. The parliamentary secretary might give us an undertaking to seek the information and provide it to us later in the debate, whether that is later tonight or some time tomorrow. That is an extraordinary percentage, and we will not accept an answer saying, “Ask the minister.” If the member wants this bill passed this week, we will get

1116 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010] the detail that sits behind figures such as a 92 per cent increase in complaints. The parliamentary secretary can take it on notice and provide the answer either later tonight or tomorrow. Hon HELEN MORTON: I heard what the Leader of the Opposition had to say, but she needs to understand that the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill relates to excess expenditure. The excess expenditure is required as a result of a higher number of complaints. I advised that the increase in complaints is of the magnitude of 92 per cent. The supply of the information around what those complaints relate to or the cause of those complaints et cetera is the responsibility of the appropriate minister. Hon Sue Ellery: No; it’s your responsibility if you want us to pass this bill. Hon HELEN MORTON: I am saying that this information indicates that there is a 92 per cent increase in complaints. That is what the expenditure is related to. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to find out additional information about how those complaints are broken down by type or any such thing, that is a question on notice for the appropriate minister—but it is not a question for the Treasurer. Hon SUE ELLERY: We will be here for a really long time now because it is not reasonable for the Treasurer to ask the house for additional funds due to a 92 per cent increase in complaints to the highest complaint body in the state, and then say, “I will not tell you what the driver was for those complaints.” That information is available to the Treasurer’s office. It is available for the parliamentary secretary to seek this evening or tomorrow morning for this chamber. It is not a five per cent or a 10 per cent increase; it is a 92 per cent increase in complaints. There must be a driver for that, and I am sure the Ombudsman’s office could easily say the driver for it is X or Y. It might be a really good reason such as his office has been doing some fabulous advertising— that I must have missed—inviting people to make complaints. I do not know. There is a driver for that percentage; it is too big for there not to be a significant driver. If the member cannot provide it tonight, I will ask her to take the question on notice and provide the answer to us by the time we next sit, which is tomorrow afternoon. Hon HELEN MORTON: I reiterate that it is not the Treasurer’s office that answers those sorts of — Hon Sue Ellery: Yes, it is—if the Treasurer chooses to answer the question. Hon HELEN MORTON: It is for the minister responsible. The Leader of the Opposition can ask a question on notice of that minister. Hon Sue Ellery: No; that is your choice. The Treasurer can answer that question, but he is choosing not to. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Hon Max Trenorden): Order, members! One at a time. Hon HELEN MORTON: The response I am providing is that the Treasurer’s responsibility is to identify the cause of the excess funding. It is for handling a 92 per cent increase in complaints at the Ombudsman’s office. The Treasurer is responsible for providing the information about what the extra resources are required for, and that information has been provided. If members want more information about the increased number of complaints, it is not the Treasurer’s responsibility but the responsibility of the minister concerned—in this case, I understand the responsible minister in this place is the Leader of the House. If members want to find out a more detailed overview of the type, subject, range, and profile of the complaints and what might be behind the complaints, they must go to the responsible minister. The responsibility of the Treasurer is to make sure that the Ombudsman’s office has sufficient funds to do the job he has to do, which is to meet a 92 per cent increase in the number of complaints. Hon SUE ELLERY: That is a load of rubbish. What the Treasurer is required to do is receive the submissions from the office of the Ombudsman and make a judgement himself about whether that is a reasonable request. He makes that judgement by saying to the Ombudsman’s office, “Give me a submission, and provide me with information that says what the driver of that 92 per cent increase is.” Otherwise agencies could make all sorts of things up! The Treasurer has made a judgement, because in order for the Treasurer to put this document together the Treasurer had to satisfy himself that this was a reasonable request. Hon Helen Morton: He has. Hon SUE ELLERY: Then he can share that with the chamber! Do not tell us that the Treasurer does not have the information. He had to make a judgement about whether or not to include this line item within the global figure that he sought for the advance that he seeks. He had to make that judgement. He has the answer. He does not even need to go to the Ombudsman’s office to ask for it, because he has got it. Someone made a submission to the Treasurer—which he had to consider—about what was reasonable to include in this bill. He has got the information. If the parliamentary secretary does not provide that information to us, she should not tell us it is because the Treasurer does not have it; it is because the parliamentary secretary is making a conscious decision that members in this place will make this decision blind and that we will say that it is perfectly reasonable to ask for extra money and to have a 92 per cent increase in the number of complaints to the highest complaint body in

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010] 1117 the state without knowing why or what was the driver for that. That is the only question I have asked: what was the driver for that? The Treasurer has that information, because he had to consider it to include it in this document. Hon HELEN MORTON: This is the last attempt that I will make to put the position clearly that the Treasurer’s responsibility is to ensure that the Ombudsman has the resources to complete the work that he has to complete — Hon Sue Ellery: How does he reach that conclusion? Hon HELEN MORTON: He has had whatever range of considerations for him to get there. I do not ask those sorts of questions of the Treasurer. He has made the decision that the extra $300 000 is necessary for the Ombudsman to complete his work. I say again that if the member wants more detail about the complaints to the Ombudsman, she should go to the minister responsible in this place. The member can put that on notice and she can have the answer in nine days. Hon Sue Ellery: Thank you! Hon HELEN MORTON: A minimum of nine days — Hon Sue Ellery: That is when you will get the bill then! Hon Ken Travers: Well, you can have the bill in nine days! Bring back the Parliament. Hon HELEN MORTON: — or the member can ask it without notice tomorrow, if that is what she wants. The thing is that the member needs to ask the appropriate minister. The Treasurer has made the decision that the extra $300 000 is necessary and he will provide it to the Ombudsman’s office as a part of this. Hon Sue Ellery: We should trust Troy! Hon HELEN MORTON: No. Hon Sue Ellery: Shut our eyes! Hon HELEN MORTON: The member needs to do the work and ask the minister responsible. Hon KEN TRAVERS: We have been asked to trust Troy, the Treasurer who is sloppy in his paperwork at every level. He cannot get his annual reports into Parliament on time. Members can go and look at it; he is the worst offender in the Parliament at getting annual reports in on time. He cannot fill out his own expense claims properly, but we are asked to trust him! If this is the case and neither the parliamentary secretary nor her Treasury advisers know the answers to these questions, it is no wonder we are seeing the Treasurer taking the gold and silver medals for expenditure growth! The question I now have to ask this chamber is: how do we proceed? If this was the budget, we would have an estimates hearing where we could go away and pressure test the assumptions about the expenditure. We do not have that opportunity on this occasion, because the bill is being rammed through the chamber. One option is for the opposition to keep questioning the government until the end of the week. If all of our questions are not answered, perhaps the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations could hold some hearings to question the relevant ministers. There is nothing to prevent the parliamentary secretary or her ministerial and parliamentary secretary colleagues from leaving this chamber tonight with the intention of seeking answers to the opposition’s questions. Either the parliamentary secretary, the Leader of the House representing the parliamentary commissioner or, when we reach health, whomever represents the Minister for Health, should seek the answers that we require. I suspect that we will get the same stonewalling, even though we were promised that all our questions would be answered. Hon Sue Ellery: We were invited. Hon KEN TRAVERS: We were invited to ask questions and we were assured that we would be given answers to those questions. Hon Helen Morton: They are answers that the Treasurer is responsible for, not the other ministers. Hon Sue Ellery: He is responsible for this answer, because he had to satisfy himself that he should include this item in the advance. Hon KEN TRAVERS: What has the Treasurer done to assure himself that the $300 000 is necessary? Hon HELEN MORTON: The information available is that there has been a 92 per cent increase in the number of complaints received by the Ombudsman. I imagine that if the number of complaints heard by the Ombudsman has increased, additional funding might be needed to enable those complaints to be processed and dealt with. The information that the Treasurer has is that there has been a 92 per cent increase in complaints. Whether he tried to find out the nature of each of those complaints or whether he tried to validate each individual complaint, I do not know. However, I believe the Treasurer has looked at the data, which has revealed a 92 per cent increase in complaints. The Ombudsman indicated that such an increase required a certain amount of extra funding to enable

1118 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010] those complaints to be managed in an appropriate manner and the Treasurer has agreed that that is what it will cost. I believe that the Treasurer made the right call. Hon SUE ELLERY: I will tackle this in a different way. Can the parliamentary secretary advise us of the process by which agencies identified the matters they wanted to have included in the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill? Hon HELEN MORTON: As I understand it, the areas that were brought before the Treasurer came via the Economic and Expenditure Reform Committee. A process was undertaken whereby the Treasurer determined which of those areas required extra resources and the extent to which those resources could be provided. Hon SUE ELLERY: For the record—so that it is perfectly clear—a range of matters were put before the Economic and Expenditure Reform Committee. The Treasurer determined which of those matters would go into the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill. Can the parliamentary secretary set out how matters go before the Economic and Expenditure Reform Committee and how the Economic and Expenditure Reform Committee determines which matters will be included in the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill? Hon HELEN MORTON: Individual agencies make a submission to the Economic and Expenditure Reform Committee, supported by the relevant minister. That is considered by the Economic and Expenditure Reform Committee in conjunction with a recommendation by the Department of Treasury and Finance. In that context, the Economic and Expenditure Reform Committee makes a recommendation about which items in which agency groupings will be supported and the amounts for which they will be supported. Hon SUE ELLERY: To tease the process out a little further, what is the membership of the EERC? Hon HELEN MORTON: The chairperson is the Treasurer. The other members are the Premier, the Minister for Regional Development, and the Minister for Mines and Petroleum and for Fisheries. Executive and backup support is provided by the Department of Treasury and Finance and the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. Hon SUE ELLERY: Okay. The process is that individual agencies make submissions that set out the detail of the particulars that they are requesting. Those submissions go before the EERC, which is chaired by the Treasurer. In addition to the submission that is made by the individual agency, the Treasurer also has before him the advice of his own agency, which, if one likes, does a critique, as I understand it, of the submission made by the relevant agency. In responsibly exercising his role as Treasurer in bringing this bill before the house, the Treasurer has a detailed submission from the individual agency and advice from his own agency critiquing the details provided to him by the individual agency. So the Treasurer does indeed have before him the rationale that goes to the particular items that EERC recommends go forward into the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill. Therefore, although the Treasurer might be saying to us tonight, through the parliamentary secretary, “I can’t answer that question” — Hon Helen Morton: No, he’s not saying that. Hon SUE ELLERY: The parliamentary secretary is right; he is not saying that. He is saying, “I won’t answer that question, and if you want the answer to that question, you can put a parliamentary question on notice and you can wait nine parliamentary sitting days for me to consider whether I will then give you the answer. But in the meantime you must pass this bill.” So let there be no illusions at all about the information we are or are not being given tonight. There is no convention. That is where we started—there is a convention. There is no convention. The Treasurer does not have the information. Yes, he does. Not only does he have it, but also he has a critique of the information from his own department. It is not his responsibility to answer those questions. Yes, it is, because he wants us to pass this bill. He wants us to pass this bill that includes one quite small allocation of $300 000. The amount that has changed between the midyear review in December and now is even smaller than that—it is $100 000—and that is driven by a 92 per cent increase in the number of complaints to the major complaint body in the state, but we cannot know what the driver for that is because a political decision has been made that that information will not be released to the public. The Treasurer not only has the detailed information from the agency, but also has his own agency’s critique of it. If he has exercised his responsibility as the chair of the EERC, he has indeed tested whether this line item ought to appear in the bill that is before the chamber, but he is not prepared to let us test his test. We are to pass the bill blind, and that is unacceptable. This is a house of review, and it is unacceptable that the parliamentary secretary cannot provide that information. There is a $100 000 difference between the midyear review and now, and there is some driver for that. I am sure that the office of the Ombudsman is an entirely respectable and professional office, and I am sure that there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for the driver behind the 92 per cent increase. It is not unreasonable for the chamber to know what that driver is. Hon HELEN MORTON: The situation is that I have indicated that the Treasurer has information about the number of additional complaints. If the member wants the raw number, which I do not have at my fingertips, I am absolutely certain that I can get it to her by tomorrow. If she wants the raw increase in the number of complaints, I can get that.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010] 1119

Hon Sue Ellery: What’s the driver? That’s what I want. Hon HELEN MORTON: If the member wants the driver, she needs to go to the minister concerned, because I do not have the driver. I am happy to come back to the member tomorrow with the raw increase in the number of complaints. The Treasurer’s responsibility is to make sure that the number of complaints to the Ombudsman can be managed in an appropriate time. The information the member seeks from Treasury is whether the Treasurer is confident that there has been an increase of 92 per cent in the number — Hon Sue Ellery: No; I want to be confident! Hon HELEN MORTON: The Treasurer can tell the member that the increase is 92 per cent. I do not have the raw number. If the member wants the raw number, I can get it, but if she wants the profiles, issues and drivers around the complaints, she should go to the minister concerned. Hon KEN TRAVERS: We only have blues when we are in the blue chamber! I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary can at least explain to us what the $300 000 will be used for. Can she also explain the reason for the additional $200 000 and $100 000, and whether those amounts are different? Why was the $200 000 approved at the time of the midyear review, and what has occurred since to increase that amount by $100 000? Hon HELEN MORTON: The money has been spent on the extra complaints. Hon KEN TRAVERS: What does that mean? Is it extra staff? Will the number of full-time equivalents be going up? Surely the Treasurer is keeping track of the FTE numbers when there is a government cap on FTE numbers. We believe that, do we not? That is the theory. The parliamentary secretary must know about the FTEs. Is the money being used for salaries? Is it being used for consumables? For what purpose has that money been spent? Why was the $200 000 approved, and what occurred to necessitate the additional $100 000? Hon HELEN MORTON: I do not know precisely what the $100 000 or $300 000 has been spent on. If the member wants more information than the government’s anticipation, I will provide that level of information, but we anticipate that it ranges across all expenses, whether they are for paper clips, FTEs, extra staff or whatever. I am absolutely certain that all those things may be included, but if the member wants to know the breakdown for that $300 000, I am happy to find out that information. I am not prepared to ask the Treasurer to provide the profiles and drivers behind the complaints. Hon KEN TRAVERS: We know that; we know the parliamentary secretary is just refusing to answer reasonable questions. That is fine. We have got that point. Hon Helen Morton: Thank you. Hon KEN TRAVERS: We do not agree with it; we think it is the most contemptuous thing we have ever seen a parliamentary secretary do, and she should hang her head in shame. When she is back in opposition and over on this side, I know exactly the sorts of answers—no, actually, I will not even stoop that low, so I will get her decent answers, even if she does not do it for us, because I believe in this place. But I still have not heard what the figure was at the time of the midyear review and why an extra $100 000 has been added on. Is it that prior to the midyear review there had been a 67 per cent increase, and it has now risen to 92 per cent? I would have thought that at the time of the preparation of the midyear review the government would have had at least some idea of what the growth would be, and it would have made a provision for the whole year. If, at that point, there had been a 92 per cent increase in the number of complaints, provision should have been made for sufficient funding to get through the rest of this year and to be able to deal with that 92 per cent increase in complaints. I am trying to understand what actually happened between the midyear review and this document being tabled, and to get an explanation about why the government has had to have, basically, another 50 per cent increase in the amount of money it provides to the parliamentary commissioner. Hon HELEN MORTON: There was a projection done of the number of complaints and the additional funds that would be required for the remainder of the year. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Is the parliamentary secretary saying that the decision made at the time of the midyear review was inaccurate, and that it has had to be reconsidered? Hon HELEN MORTON: It was reviewed. Hon KEN TRAVERS: It must be said that if there had been a massive growth in complaints and it had grown again and it was not able to be picked up at the time, that is pretty sloppy in my view; but so be it. Another thing that I am interested in is that many of these line items are divided into “Decisions made” and “Issues under consideration”. Can the parliamentary secretary assure us that the decision has been made for the full $300 000, or is the second $100 000 still an issue under consideration; and, if so, how is it that it has been approved, but none of the other portfolios have been able to get decisions made and still have issues under consideration?

1120 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010]

Hon HELEN MORTON: Obviously, the $200 000 was approved and agreed to at the midyear review. The extra $100 000 was over and above that. It was outside of the budget process and this is the process by which it is brought into Parliament. Hon Ken Travers: But is it an issue under consideration, or has there been an actual cabinet decision made to approve that additional $100 000? Is it still an issue under consideration and will it be considered as part of the budget? Hon HELEN MORTON: It was an Economic and Expenditure Reform Committee decision; therefore I assume it was a cabinet decision. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I do not want to move on to the other areas until we have completely finished this one. I know some of my colleagues still have questions about the parliamentary commissioner, but I think this is quite important. If the parliamentary secretary looks at the document she tabled in the house earlier today, as she goes through it, she will see that some items are listed as “Decisions made”, and some as “Issues under consideration”. I think the parliamentary secretary was using her own words when she told us that the issues under consideration have been considered, but no formal decision has actually been made yet by the government. I want a full explanation from the parliamentary secretary of what “Issues under consideration” means versus “Decisions made”. What do those terms actually mean? Hon HELEN MORTON: The heading “Decisions made” means a decision has been made and it has been ratified by cabinet. The decision has been made to allocate the extra $100 000—$300 000 in total—to the Ombudsman. Hon Ken Travers: What does “Issues under consideration” mean? Hon HELEN MORTON: We are not onto that yet. But if the member wants to know generally what that means, it means elements or aspects of consideration that have not been ratified by cabinet at this stage. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I am trying to understand why some items are described as “Decisions made” and other items are described as “Issues under consideration” that have not been ratified. For that second amount of $100 000, we have been advised that the submissions have been put up, and the EERC has given them consideration and has said, “Yes, that should be okay, so get on and start preparing to spend the money”, but it has not been formally resolved by cabinet. I am trying to understand whether the $200 000 is a decision made and the $100 000 is an issue under consideration. What exactly does “Issues under consideration” mean? I would like the parliamentary secretary to give us a bit more detail than we have had so far about what that means. Hon HELEN MORTON: Yes—a bit more detail. The $300 000 has been ratified by cabinet. It is a small budget. The Ombudsman needs to have access to those funds straightaway. Hon Ken Travers: Why? Hon HELEN MORTON: It is because of the increase in the number of complaints—the 92 per cent increase that we have talked about. The issue is that the Ombudsman has a small budget. He does not have the leeway that some of the other agencies have. Therefore, the decision has been made to allocate that $300 000 to the Ombudsman. That decision has been ratified by cabinet. The member’s second question was about the meaning of “Issues under consideration”. My advice is that “Issues under consideration” means issues that have not yet been ratified by cabinet. Hon Ken Travers: But are the agencies already spending that money? Hon HELEN MORTON: They would not be spending the additional funding yet. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Can the parliamentary secretary assure us that the Department of State Development is not spending any money at the moment, and is not engaging any consultants at the moment who will be spending any money, on the Oakajee rail and port project? The department could be using existing appropriations to do that, and it would not be going over its budget. That is what I am trying to understand. Hon HELEN MORTON: The amounts that are sitting in the Department of State Development under “Issues for consideration” have not been drawn down yet. Hon Ken Travers: But is work being done? Hon HELEN MORTON: Hang on. That does not mean to say that the Browse LNG precinct project, or the other projects that are sitting under that, have not commenced expenditure, because they may be drawing down on other funds. This is the amount that has been allocated here under “Issues for consideration”, and none of that money has been drawn down yet. Hon SUE ELLERY: I am not trying to be obtuse, but I find it a bit odd that cabinet would have made the decision to bring before the chamber a bill that asks this place to authorise expenditure on a list of things that cabinet has not endorsed. I do not know about anybody else, but that strikes me as a bit odd.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010] 1121

Hon Ken Travers: Not with this government! Hon SUE ELLERY: Cabinet took the time to consider what should go into the detail of this bill. Approval had to be sought to draft the bill and to print the bill. Treasury must have had a list of things that it added up to get to this global figure. The Parliament is being asked to authorise expenditure on a list of things that are specified but which have not been approved by cabinet. Funny business! Hon HELEN MORTON: I just had to confirm with my advisor that it is not unusual for governments to require under a Treasurer’s advance authorisation bill expenditure for the matters that are still under consideration in cabinet. These estimates are for matters that are currently being considered by cabinet. Cabinet will be required to endorse and ratify the expenditure to the amount that is identified here, but those matters are still under consideration in cabinet. As I said at the beginning, this is not an unusual process but a process that has been exercised by previous governments for years. Hon SUE ELLERY: What does strike me as unusual, though, is that when cabinet does make its decision about endorsing the expenditure or otherwise, cabinet will have before it cabinet submissions from the agencies seeking the funds and from every other agency that gets invited to comment on the submission of a particular agency. We do not have in front of us any more information than, in the case of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administrative Investigations, for example, escalation of core business, which is four words, and another 92 per cent increase in complaints, which is five more words, and on the basis of those nine words we are being asked to pass this bill and say that we approve the expenditure of the additional $300 000. That is what strikes me as odd and unusual. Hon HELEN MORTON: I am advised that in previous Treasurer’s advance authorisation bills those matters that are currently under consideration by cabinet were clumped together and called a contingency. The fact that the Treasurer has actually identified the line items within the contingency means that members have a greater level of information under the so-called “Issues under consideration” than previously would have been provided. It may or may not have been a mistake on the part of the Treasurer to provide members with that level of information so that they could drill down into each of the line items that are under the “Issues of consideration”, but that is the level of information the Treasurer wanted members to have. I am assured again that it is not an unusual practice. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Hon Kate Doust has just reminded me of Hon George Cash’s insistence on detailed documents. When we get to it then, based on the parliamentary secretary’s current comments, the parliamentary secretary will give us a detailed breakdown of what the contingencies have been notionally allocated to. When we get to that $159 000 included in the papers the parliamentary secretary has delivered to us today, I look forward to her giving us that full breakdown of the contingency, which she still has listed in the document. If the parliamentary secretary gave us some answers, we would get there an awfully lot quicker. Is the $300 000 a one- off payment or is it part of a package of funding that is required, so future funding will be required over forward estimates and this is only the first instalment? Hon HELEN MORTON: I am not sure whether my answer will be the answer to the member’s question, but if it is not I have some advice about another question that he might have been asking. Hon Ken Travers: Answer both and I will tell you whether you are right. Hon HELEN MORTON: I think the member is asking whether it will form part of next year’s base budget for the Ombudsman or whether it is a one-off payment. Hon Ken Travers: That is part of the question. Hon HELEN MORTON: My answer to that, if that is what the member’s question was, is that those sorts of considerations will take place in the process of framing the budget, which is taking place now. Another way in which I could answer that question is to say that it will be disbursed as part of a disbursement profile. However, I do not think that answers the question the member was asking. Hon KEN TRAVERS: The parliamentary secretary has partly answered my question. The $300 000 could be spent either within the next three months and it would be gone or used to employ eight additional staff in the parliamentary commissioner’s office. Hon Helen Morton: With $100 000! You have to be joking. You will never get eight extra staff for $100 000; it would get one. Hon KEN TRAVERS: It is $300 000. Hon Helen Morton: It would get three or four staff. Hon Kate Doust: You must pay them a lot. Hon Helen Morton: There are the on-costs.

1122 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010]

Hon KEN TRAVERS: The $300 000 will employ three extra staff. It would mean that if they are put on as full- time officers to address this massive blowout in workload, because something is horribly wrong within government that the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administrative Investigations is getting more people coming to it than ever before, that $300 000 could be the first instalment to employ three extra people for the last three months of this year. However, in a full year it would be $1.8 million. The reason I said eight people is that the $300 000 might be for a full year. Hon Helen Morton: You know that it is $300 000 for the whole year. Hon KEN TRAVERS: No, it is not. My point is that it is not for the whole year. The parliamentary secretary just accepted that it has not been drawn down yet. In that case, we could be approving the additional salary for eight extra people to take them through to the end of this financial year. They will be employed there next year and the budget to employ them for next year will not be $300 000, but it might be $1.8 million. The point I am making is: is the $300 000 a one-off payment, and somehow we will get rid of the 92 per cent increase, or is it the first instalment? That is why I was asking about FTEs, and the parliamentary secretary undertook to get that information and, hopefully, she will get the answer to this question as part of that information: What will it mean for the long-term budget implications over the forward estimates? What are we approving in this clause? Will the allocation employ eight people for three months or eight people permanently, because that would be an impost on future budgets? The parliamentary secretary was kind of right with her answer, but she did not fully understand where I was heading; that is, what would be the total impact of this $300 000 on future budgets? Hon HELEN MORTON: The $300 000 is a projection of a full-year effect of the cost of providing that additional resource to fulfil the obligations of the Ombudsman. I advise the member that when I get the information on what the money will be spent on, I will also provide information to indicate the time sequence of the drawdown of that money. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I still want to know what are the long-term implications for the state budget? It is not an unreasonable question. If we are authorising an extra $300 000, will it be to employ extra people, the cost of which will be in the forward estimates; and what will be the impact? I find it very hard to believe that it will be the additional money that is required this year. There are various ways to spend $300 000. The government could spend it on a whole lot of people through consultancies for the last three months of this year. The government could pay its existing staff overtime to work late to try to clear the backlog or it could be that the government has made the assessment that there will be this continuous increase in staff, so it needs to employ eight people on a full-time basis. If this money has not already been provided — Hon Helen Morton: That’s not so. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I do not know what it is; that is why I am asking! Tell me what it is. Tell me how this money will be spent, what the purpose of it is and what the implications are for future budgets. It is not that hard! Hon HELEN MORTON: Hon Ken Travers already knows that the midyear review approved $200 000, so the effect of that is already in the system. The extra $100 000 is going to be like the last $100 000 that is spent at the end of the year because of the drawdown on the agency’s existing resources. If we could colour that $100 000 red, so to speak, and that was the last $100 000 that was spent, it does not mean to say that it will be spent like that across the whole year next year. We have indicated that we will find for the opposition the profile of expenditure in conjunction with the previous question that the opposition asked about what those funds will be spent on. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Can the parliamentary secretary explain to us what “Repositioning of Heritage and Community Liaison Branch” means? Get used to it; every line the parliamentary secretary is going to get it! Hon HELEN MORTON: That is okay. Repositioning of heritage and community liaison branch: $1.9 million has been re-cashflowed from 2008–09 to 2009–10 and 2010–11—that is, $945 000 per year—due to unexpected delays arising from difficulties in engaging with the parties in progressing the commitment to conduct a series of Aboriginal heritage surveys of potential industrial land on the Burrup Peninsula. Hon KATE DOUST: My question does not go to what the member raised. Under “State Development” is a line item for offset by grants savings. I want to know exactly what grants the government has saved money on. Can the parliamentary secretary please provide the details? Hon HELEN MORTON: The information in the budget papers relates to the cessation of a number of state development initiatives. The additional level of detail that the member seeks would have to come via additional information. Hon KATE DOUST: I do not have that document in front of me. Are those grants listed in that documentation? Hon Helen Morton: No. Hon KATE DOUST: Can the parliamentary secretary provide that extra information; is that information available?

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010] 1123

Hon Helen Morton: I am being advised that they were non-specific grants. Hon KATE DOUST: I would like to know what they mean. What are they? It is quite a substantial amount of money. Surely some information has been provided on what they are about. Hon HELEN MORTON: That level of materiality in the budget papers is not documented at the level the member is seeking. However, that can be followed up. Hon LINDA SAVAGE: I am not sure whether this is a question that the parliamentary secretary can answer tonight, but I am wondering whether she can provide an answer at some time. I am struggling a bit to follow the use of the term “recashflowed”. She referred to it earlier, so I thought I would ask some specific questions. If the parliamentary secretary cannot answer them now, perhaps they can be answered at a later time. Is it possible to get the term defined for my benefit? I appreciate that other people may understand it, but I do not. My second question is: if it includes the deferral of spending, can re-cashflowed spending be deferred until a later stage? I am asking how far in the future spending can be re-cashflowed given that I am understanding it to essentially mean deferred spending. Is there a point at which it can no longer be described as re-cashflowed spending? Is there an outside period at which it would no longer fall within that category? Hon HELEN MORTON: Before I make my response, I congratulate the member on her inaugural speech. Hon Linda Savage: Thank you. Hon Ken Travers: Hear, hear! Hon HELEN MORTON: When I made my response I talked about re-cashflowed being “slippage of funds”, another term that is commonly used. If an initiative is funded and is expected to be achieved in, say, year one of the initiative’s program—it could be a two or three–year program—and that initiative does not make use of the amount of resources allocated for it in that first year, those funds can be moved into the following year’s budget when the initiative continues to progress. That can continue for up to four years. There is no time frame at which that re-cashflow or slippage of funds can be moved from one year to the next. The amount of resources will have been identified at the beginning of the initiative as the amount required to achieve that particular outcome. Hon ED DERMER: Is the parliamentary secretary suggesting that the slippage may actually be up to four financial years into the future from where the original commitment was made? Hon HELEN MORTON: Yes, some aspects of it. A minimal amount of funds might have been moved from one year to the next. It might not be the entire amount of funding. The re-cashflow or, I guess, the slippage of funds simply means that it is spent later than planned. Hon ED DERMER: Does it mean that a commitment shown in the budget papers for a particular financial year may eventually end up being paid not in that year but four years hence? Hon HELEN MORTON: That is an extreme example, but I guess some element of the resources in what might be a three or four-year program can be moved into that fourth year if they have not been spent as planned. Most people know that sometimes it can be more difficult to recruit the people one is looking for, or it is more difficult to complete the negotiations as expected in years one, two or three. Things move on and resources are moved into the out years to enable that project to be completed. That is what it is. Hon ED DERMER: Does the parliamentary secretary intend to advise this place for how long each of these expenditures will be deferred? Hon HELEN MORTON: I do not have that level of detail here. When we are going through particular items and the member comes across an area that he wants more information on, could he ask about it at that point or be more specific about which of the areas that he wants more information on? Some of that information will be readily accessible, but some of it will be quite difficult to provide. Hon KEN TRAVERS: In terms of re-cashflowing, can the parliamentary secretary explain when the appropriation of the money actually occurs? Is it in the first year or the slippage year? Hon HELEN MORTON: My understanding is that the allocation is appropriated in the first year. Slippage funds are re-appropriated. It is identified in the budget papers as the allocation to that budget in the following financial year. Sometimes a project’s initiatives can be spread over four years. If the member monitored the expenditure of that project in the first year and found that it underspent, he will find the extra spend in the following years’ budget papers. Hon KEN TRAVERS: That makes sense with a capital appropriation where there would be different amounts in each year, but I am at a loss, because of the way in which we appropriate money; that is, we do not appropriate it for particular programs. It is an interesting insight, as this is one of my great concerns—it is a shame Hon Max Trenorden is not here to join us for this debate. I understand that, internally, agencies do project budgeting, and I have always thought it is one of the great shames that Parliament no longer gets those program

1124 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010] statements on how much is allocated to each program. It strikes me that the budget is allocated each year and is appropriated to that agency each year. If that is not drawn down and spent, in some cases it can be held as cash and spent in future years, but in the main it is carried over as cash—because if we do not specifically appropriate to programs, then somewhere in the government papers should indicate that this is underspending. Could the parliamentary secretary explain that a little more? Hon HELEN MORTON: I will give the member an example. Say the government has an initiative that is a two-year program that will employ 10 people, and it is expected that those 10 people will come on board in the first year and carry through to the second year. However, that program only manages to recruit five people in the first year, so it can re-appropriate, carryover or rollover the funds to the following year, and the program might include 15 people in that second year to complete the entire project in the two-year time frame. That is a finite program. If it is a recurrent program and if the agency does not make use of the full amount of funds in the first year—if the agency employed only five people out of the 10—that creates a saving of the resources for the five full-time equivalents that year, and that becomes an underspend and is a saving, and is returned to consolidated revenue and reappropriated. Hopefully, the agency will be able to recruit the full 10 FTEs in the following year, so it will be reappropriated the full 10 FTE resources in the second year, and so on, if it is a recurring service. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I understand that. Because we use service summaries for our expenditure, it strikes me that if an agency in this situation is given a new appropriation by the Parliament to employ five extra people and it does not spend that amount in that year — Hon Helen Morton: Can you start again, please? I was concentrating on my — Hon KEN TRAVERS: No, that is fine; I am happy to. I think this is a really important point. It is going to occur time and time again. Hon Linda Savage should be congratulated for asking the question. Likewise, I congratulate her on not only her inaugural speech, but also a very good question to open the bowling. I think the parliamentary secretary said that last year an appropriation of $1.8 million was provided to the Department of State Development for the heritage and community liaison branch. The agency did not spend that money last year—it did not employ the people or whatever—so this year it is going to employ 10 people instead of five people. At the end of last year this amount would have been treated as an underspend. Alternatively, is the parliamentary secretary saying that the money would have been appropriated; it would be sitting in the agency’s cash and the agency would be able to spend it this year without it needing to be reappropriated? I am talking about the component for the five people whom the agency did not employ last year. Is that what the parliamentary secretary is saying—that it does not need to be reappropriated? Hon HELEN MORTON: This is an example of a finite project—a project that had quite a clear stop and start as part of its process. An amount of $1.9 million was allocated, and that was not spent in 2008–09. Therefore, $945 000 was re-cashflowed or put into the following two years, 2009–10 and 2010–11. The reason for that, of course, was that the agency had the delays with engaging the parties that it needed to undertake the work. The member’s question is: is the $945 000 going to be reappropriated in the budget papers for this coming budget and the budget after that? The answer is yes. Hon Ken Travers: No; is it going to be appropriated in the appropriations that come before the Parliament to ratify the Treasurer’s advance? Hon HELEN MORTON: Is the member talking about the supplementary papers? Hon Ken Travers: Yes, the supplementary appropriations. Hon HELEN MORTON: Yes; the answer is yes. Hon KEN TRAVERS: In that case, when the budget was prepared last year, there should have been an underspend of $1.9 million. Therefore, we should be able to track back and see that the Department of State Development spent $1.9 million less than was appropriated for it last year. Is that correct, or was that money reallocated to other expenditure last year? Hon HELEN MORTON: It may have offset overexpenditure in other areas within the Department of State Development. I cannot answer the precise question the member is asking, but I can say that the allocation for that particular initiative has not been spent, and it will be re-cashflowed over the following two years to enable that project to be completed. Hon KEN TRAVERS: This is where it gets really interesting. If it was not spent last year, then, all things being equal, it should have meant an underspend of $1.9 million. I suspect that the parliamentary secretary is absolutely right; it was reallocated last year to other expenditure — Hon Helen Morton: To offset other increases. Hon KEN TRAVERS: To offset other increases. We now need to reallocate $945 million this year, because there is no allocation. If that was the case, why was it not done at the time of the budget? Why is it now occurring as part of the Treasurer’s advance?

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010] 1125

Hon HELEN MORTON: The member is correct; it is most likely that the allocation went on over-expenditures in other areas, and it was not worked out at the beginning of the budget process because issues around not being able to achieve the outcomes that were sought for that particular project were not known at the time of the budget process. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I can understand why part of $1.9 million might not have been known. I cannot remember the budget cut-off date last year, but I suspect it was sometime in early April. I would have thought that with three months to go—April, May and June—the government would have known about that sort of expenditure. If it had not been spent last year, could the department have kept the money that was appropriated last year as a cash balance and spend it this year without it needing to be reappropriated and included in the Treasurer’s advance? Hon HELEN MORTON: That is a great question because it is one that I have grappled with for ages in both the bureaucracy and government. Hon Ken Travers: It’s because of listening to you in estimates that I asked that question! Hon HELEN MORTON: Exactly! The answer is that if the department had ring-fenced funding for that specific purpose, it could have been carried in the agency cash balances and spent the following year — Hon Ken Travers: Without it needing to come through Parliament. Hon HELEN MORTON: That is correct, but it was obviously offset by other over-expenditures. Hon KEN TRAVERS: On that basis, we can now assume that if anything is listed as a “re-cashflowing”, it really means that last year the agency overspent in some areas, underspent in others, cashed it out last year, and now the government is coming back to Parliament to ask for new money for those things that were not picked up at the time of the budget. To talk about “re-cashflowing” is to try to hide the truth, which is that there were greater overspends last year in terms of appropriations and that we now have to allocate new money to these agencies. Hon HELEN MORTON: When I talk about “overexpenditure”, I am not talking about willy-nilly overexpenditure; agencies have to get approval from the Economic and Expenditure Reform Committee to cover that overexpenditure. It is not as if agencies are taking it upon themselves to make use of windfall funding on the basis that things have been underspent in some areas, so they will just spend up big in other areas. Those arrangements have to be approved by the EERC. Hon KEN TRAVERS: If the parliamentary secretary is saying that the reason we have to approve this $945 million is that $1.9 million was reallocated by the EERC last year, can she tell us what the $1.9 million was actually spent on last year? I am sure she can take this question on notice and answer it tomorrow. Hon HELEN MORTON: Yes, we do have that information; it was spent on the Kimberley LNG precinct project. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Fantastic! We are all in a state of shock! Congratulations, parliamentary secretary, for finally giving us an answer! Did anyone else want to ask any more questions about the re-cashflowing? Hon Helen Morton: Talk about coaching! Hon KEN TRAVERS: Can the parliamentary secretary now explain to us the line item related to the Ashburton North strategic industrial area, please? Hon HELEN MORTON: The line item for the Ashburton North strategic industrial area consists of $500 000 for legal, commercial and engineering technical advice to support the negotiation of the development agreement for the Ashburton North strategic industrial area near Onslow. Progress reported and leave granted to sit again, pursuant to temporary orders. BARROW ISLAND — ENDANGERED ANIMAL TRANSLOCATION Statement HON GIZ WATSON (North Metropolitan) [9.42 pm]: I wish to take a little time this evening to elaborate on an issue that I have been addressing by way of questions without notice in this place of late—that is, the translocation of endangered mammals from Barrow Island. I will take this time to elaborate on my line of questioning and put a few more things on the record. Members are well aware that since the arrival of the Europeans, Western Australia has had a very bad track record on the extinction of native mammals, and Barrow Island is a very important case in terms of attempts to protect certain mammals on that island at this point in time. In many cases, offshore islands have provided the only secure refuge for remnant mammal populations and the ecosystems that support them. Primarily they provide refuges from feral predation such as cats and foxes, but also they provide protection from widespread

1126 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010] habitat loss and degradation due to clearing, fire regimes and weed invasion. That is why Barrow Island has been described as an ecological ark. Interestingly, the reason it has a large range of rare and endangered mammals is, of course, its isolation. It has been isolated from the mainland for approximately 10 000 years. Interestingly enough, that was before the introduction of dingoes onto the mainland. That isolation is one of the reasons that there is such a high number and diversity of some of those mammals on Barrow Island. It is also the reason that so many of those mammals are thriving. It is certainly no credit to any particular oil or gas company, as their public relations spin might have us believe, and as the Minister for Environment inferred in her comments in response to some of my questions. Barrow Island is an A-class conservation reserve of international significance. Therefore, to place three, and now possibly five, LNG trains on Barrow Island, and probably now also to look at downstream processing and therefore further industrialisation on that A-class reserve, is bound to have an impact on the ecosystem and the animals that it supports. That will have a direct impact in the form of vegetation loss, as well as a greatly increased risk of the introduction of feral predators, weeds, other invasive species, and diseases. It is interesting to note that there are currently 17 introduced weed species on Barrow Island as a result of the increased industrial activity. That is why the Environmental Protection Authority has said consistently that the impact of the increased LNG production plant is unlikely to be environmentally acceptable. In fact, in 2009, when the EPA commented on the expanding LNG processing facility on Barrow Island, it said that it should be rejected due to unacceptable environmental impacts. The EPA had already rejected this development on one of Western Australia’s most pristine and biodiverse environments, only to have its advice overturned by not only this government but also the previous government. It is interesting to note that the Premier, Colin Barnett, when he was in opposition, promised quite adamantly that he would make sure that industry was taken off Barrow Island and was put on the mainland. We know, of course, that now that the Premier is in a position to do something about that promise, he has broken that promise that he made. I have taken an interest in the translocation of animals from Barrow Island. Recently, I put some questions to the Minister for Environment on that matter. I have never suggested—as inferred by the Minister for Environment— that all the animals on Barrow Island should be translocated. That was a classic kind of straw-man argument that was put up by the minister. I have never suggested that, and I am not sure that anyone else has either. Translocation can be a very important component of trying to protect and enhance the survival prospects of endangered species. The Greens clearly support the development of recovery plans for endangered species, including, where appropriate, the translocation of animals to secure locations. The point is that they must be secure locations. There have been some very successful examples of translocation, particularly on the south coast of this state at Bald Island. I have taken a particularly strong interest in the translocation of animals such as Gilbert’s potoroo and the noisy scrub bird. Translocation programs that are well planned and scientifically based make a valuable contribution to ensuring that if impacts such as fire or predation occur, other populations are available that can help maintain the gene pool. It is interesting that because of the level of isolation on Barrow Island, many of the animals on Barrow Island, such as boodies, spectacled hare wallabies and golden bandicoots, have quite a narrow genetic stock. So it will be interesting to see how those animals go when they are translocated. I hope that is highly successful. But the point that I was making in my questions to the minister is that the translocation of these animals from Barrow Island was an offset that was negotiated as part of the trade- off for the approval of the massive industrial expansion of Barrow Island. It would, of course, have been better for the animals if there had been no development on Barrow Island and they had been left as they were. That is why Barrow Island was declared an A-class reserve and why very strong restrictions were placed on that A-class reserve in terms of people not being allowed to access the island. We are now in a situation in which industrial development has been approved despite the recommendations of the Environmental Protection Authority and despite the protestations of numerous environmentalists. Let us not pretend that this is some sort of goodwill exercise. In our view, wherever translocations are being done, they should be under the control at all times of the Department of Environment and Conservation, as the department that knows about these kinds of things, and not modified or altered to meet the requirements of any company or private enterprise. In this case, as the minister confirmed in her answers, translocation was brought forward by several months to meet the company’s requirements because it had brought forward its development on the site by a couple of months. I certainly understand from people who work with DEC that it was not ideal to be translocating those animals during the hottest part of the year; in fact, it was probably likely to reduce their chances of survival. The minister assured us that they were doing fine. This was about a week after they had been dropped into another location, so I think it was slightly premature to be making any sort of comment about the long-term success of the translocation. Not all translocations have been successful. I raise the example of Desert Dreaming, which was the translocation of endangered species into very harsh conditions where feral cats had not been completely eliminated; in fact, it was a disaster and most of them got eaten. Timing is critical, where they are translocated to is critical and it is critical that those sites are not only predator free, particularly free of cats, but also that they are secure. We might

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010] 1127 be translocating onto Montebello Islands but those islands would not have the same restriction for public access that Barrow Island itself has, so the risk of the introduction of disease, feral species or predators is obviously higher on the Montebello Islands. The other point I wanted to make is that not all endangered species that are being impacted on by the industrial development at Barrow Island are as lucky as those that are to be translocated. The flatback turtle is an excellent example. It is not as cute as the little, warm, furry, cuddly things that ministers like to have their photo taken with. I could tell members a story about turtles, but I should probably save it for another day. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: I cannot wait! Hon GIZ WATSON: They are very liable to pee all over people. This is the trouble with turtles, but that is another story. It is very unpleasant, but we will not go there. It is probably not the only reason they do not get translocated. They are not very well behaved when people try to capture them. The trouble with flatback turtles is that they have specific beaches that they go back to time and again, and they are completely hardwired to go back to those beaches. The beach at Barrow Island, which is a known nesting site for flatback turtles, will be impacted on by the industrial development. It is basically going to be sacrificed. The state’s commitment is a legal commitment to protect that particular endangered species, which is listed under not only state legislation but also commonwealth and international legislation, and only occurs in Australian waters. That endangered species will be impacted on, and there is no way that any translocation will help it. That is why I have been asking the minister to move immediately to implement as a matter of priority the Eighty Mile Beach marine park, which would cover an area that also has flatback turtle nesting sites, so that at least they have one spot left on the coast where they can nest. REGISTERED TRAINING ORGANISATIONS — FUNDING Statement HON LJILJANNA RAVLICH (East Metropolitan) [9.53 pm]: I rise this evening on a matter of registered training organisations and the fact that my office has received a number of complaints from registered training organisations about their Access All Areas 2010 funding. I have asked the minister on two occasions about the certainty of that funding. I have been given replies, but I have to say that I am not particularly satisfied with the minister’s replies. I just quickly want to go through and put this on the public record because the concern that has been expressed by registered training organisations is that their funding seems to have been stopped. Hon Peter Collier: It should not have been. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: If the minister can give me some assurances in this regard, I would be most appreciative. Hon Peter Collier: The advice I have received is that it has not been. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: If that is the advice the minister has received, we will just go through this because I think it is very important for people who are the most disadvantaged in the community. The minister would be aware that some of the registered training organisations provide training to unemployed people, to people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds and, indeed, to some people who have minor disabilities. It is very important that we get this funding arrangement right. It is very important that we have security of funding to allow these organisations to undertake the appropriate planning. I have been told that a number of weeks ago some of these organisations were informed by the Department of Training and Workforce Development that 2010 access funding had been cancelled until further notice and that the productivity placement program funding had also been suspended until 30 June 2010. I understand that funding for some of them has run out. I also understand that for some of them their funding started to run out towards the end of February. That means that if they cannot access funding from February until the end of June, they will incur a four-month shortfall of money and for many of them that will represent a cash flow problem. If that cash flow problem cannot be managed, the consequence of that is that they will not be able to offer the training places and, indeed, training to the people who most need it. It is very important to get this right. I know that an email went out to some of the registered training organisations from “Chook” Henson, who is the manager of training markets at the Department of Training and Workforce Development. His email states — Dear RTO, Please be advised that the current 2009 Productivity Places Program variation process is now closed. There will be no variations under current arrangements from now until 30 June 2010. The Department is currently seeking to secure additional funding that, if secured, would allow currently contracted RTOs to request, through a new variation process, additional training places to be commenced before 30 June 2010. RTOs will be advised by email if additional funding becomes

1128 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010]

available. A call for applications for the 2010 PPP Existing Worker and Job Seeker programs for the period July to December 2010 will be advertised in May 2010 on our website. It seems to me, minister, that with the advice that has gone out to registered training organisations there is a potential problem. It seems that there is a problem with the advice that the department may well have given the minister. A number of RTOs have approached my office expressing their concern. I asked the minister in question time a short time ago how many organisations had had their 2010 access funding cancelled until further notice and whether he would name those organisations affected and, if not, why not. I believe that on this occasion he was genuine in his response, because what his department told him and what he told me is that no organisations have had their 2010 access funding cancelled and no existing contracts had been suspended. Today I asked the minister whether he would guarantee that the access program would be continued and funded at current levels into the future. His response was clearly, and I am referring to the uncorrected proof of Hansard, that any future funding for training will be considered in the budgetary process. That is fair enough. However, the issue is that funding for a number of training organisations is currently under question and their capacity to do the appropriate planning to deliver the services and have continuity of service to some of the most disadvantaged people in this state is currently at risk. I ask the minister to get to the bottom of this, because if he does not, it has the potential to cause him some considerable pain in the future. I ask him, on behalf of the people concerned, whether he would report to the house about what is going on so that I can report to those people who have approached me. House adjourned at 9.59 pm ______

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010] 1129

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Questions and answers are as supplied to Hansard.

GORGON GAS PROJECT – ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING 1424. Hon Robin Chapple to the Minister for Environment I refer to the recent fully approved Gorgon Gas proposal for Barrow Island, and in particular the State Agreement Variation, and I ask — (1) Where is the $60 million for ‘net conservation benefits’ held? (2) What will happen to the interest on that money, until such time as it is expended? (3) Regarding the three ‘expert panels’ established to advise Gorgon and the Minister, when if at all, will the full reports or even just summaries from those expert panels be made public? (4) Once dredging off Barrow Island is completed, what monitoring of the marine environment is planned by the Department of Environment and Conservation? (5) Over what timeframe will that monitoring be undertaken and what is the budget for that monitoring? (6) How many staff will be present on Barrow Island itself during, — (a) the construction phase; and (b) after commissioning? (7) Regarding the staff in (6), will they be accommodated with Gorgon employees? (8) If yes to (7), how can the Minister be sure they will not be or become operationally and culturally indistinguishable from Gorgon employees, and thus reluctant to effectively monitor the practices of their colleagues? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: (1) Net conservation benefit funds are credited to the Barrow Island Net Conservation Benefit Account held by the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC). (2) Funds held in the Barrow Island Net Conservation Benefit Account will be credited with interest and this interest will remain in the account until it is expended. (3) Details of the expert panels' terms of reference and membership are available via Chevron Australia's website. Summaries of each expert panel meeting are being finalised by the expert panel Secretariat and once endorsed by the relevant expert panel Chair, it is intended they will be made public on Chevron's website. (4) DEC and the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority (OEPA) will conduct an auditing and surveillance program of marine activities during dredging and marine construction. DEC will also undertake ongoing auditing of the marine environment's response and recovery from the Gorgon dredging program, including field monitoring before dredging commences, during dredging and after dredging has been completed. (5) The program referred to in (4) will run for approximately three years with a budget of approximately $2.6 million. (6) The Barrow Island Act provides for three DEC staff on Barrow Island during construction and two staff at all other times. Other DEC staff and OEPA staff will also be present on Barrow Island at various times to conduct activities related to offset projects and environmental regulation and compliance. (7)-(8) DEC staff will be accommodated in the existing Barrow Island camp, not in the construction camp. DEC's office will also be located at the existing site. HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAM 1425. Hon Robin Chapple to the Minister for Environment In reference to the Minister’s response to a question asked by the Hon Sally Talbot on 10 November 2009, regarding additional funding to the Household Hazardous Waste Program, I ask — (1) Has the Minister followed up on her commitment to allocate $1 million for operational aspects of the program?

1130 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010]

(2) If yes to (1), will this additional funding be from the existing household hazardous waste budget and does the Minister regard this as sufficient to maintain the operations of the program? (3) If no to (1), will this funding be sourced from the revenue stream generated by the increase in the WARR Landfill Levy? (4) If no to (3), why is funding for the program not increasing in line with the increased revenue stream from the Landfill Levy? (5) Does the Minister expect the household hazardous waste program to continue past 1 January 2010? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: (1)-(2) An additional $2.1 million has been approved for expenditure in the 2009/10 financial year for the Household Hazardous Waste program. (3)-(4) Not applicable. (5) Yes. PALLIATIVE CARE BEDS — WAIT LIST 1439. Hon Ed Dermer to the Minister for Transport representing the Minister for Health I refer to the Minister’s answer to question on notice No. 1403, which was answered on 24 November 2009, in which the Minister advised that there were 88 specialist palliative care beds within Western Australia, of which 51 were public funded beds, and I ask — (1) How many Western Australians are currently waiting for a palliative care bed? (2) What is the average period of time between applying for access to a palliative care bed and receiving that access? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: (1) Information on the number of Western Australians currently waiting for a palliative care bed is not available. Patients who are on the waitlist are categorised by their underlying medical condition only and information is not recorded as to whether they may require palliative care. If any patient requires urgent palliative care, the health services will admit these patients or ensure that they are transferred to a service that can provide appropriate care. (2) The average period of time between applying for access to a palliative care bed and being admitted for palliative care is unavailable within the public system data collection for Western Australia. WEST ATLAS OIL RIG — DISPOSAL PROCESS 1444. Hon Robin Chapple to the Minister for Mines and Petroleum (1) Is the Minister aware of the intentions of the Commonwealth and/or PTTEP with regards to the disposal of the West Atlas Oil Rig, should it prove unsalvageable? (2) If no to (1), why not? (3) If yes to (1), is the intention to tow the rig to shore for dismantling and disposal? (4) If yes to (2), how will the components of the rig be disposed of onshore? (5) If no to (2), what is being proposed for the disposal of the rig? (6) If there is one in place, what role will the State Government play in the disposal process? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: (1) The Hon Member may not be aware that the Montara incident and the West Atlas Drilling Rig do not come under this State's administration. The location is in the Ashmore and Cartier Islands Territory, which is administered on behalf of the Commonwealth by the Northern Territory. However, the Department of Mines and Petroleum has contacted the Northern Territory Department and has been informed that the situation is as follows: The West Atlas Drilling Rig is not usable; The ownership of the drilling rig has passed to the insurers; The insurers have a tender out for removing the drilling rig; The drilling rig is still classified as a 'facility' by the National Offshore Safety Authority (NOPSA) and as such still falls under the Safety Case; and Discussions are in progress with NOPSA concerning how to move the drilling rig.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010] 1131

(2) Not applicable. (3) Discussions are still in progress. (4)-(5) Not applicable. (6) Although a disposal site has yet to be decided, Western Australia is not likely to be involved. DIESEL PARTICULATE MATTER (DPM) — EMISSIONS 1445. Hon Robin Chapple to the Minister for Mines and Petroleum (1) Does the Department of Mines and Petroleum maintain a record of diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions at underground mine sites? (2) If yes to (1), has there been any increase in DPM emissions in underground mines since 2006-2007? (3) If no to (1), is DPM emissions data available to the Department from individual companies? (4) If no to (3), why not? (5) If yes to (3), and no to (1), why does the Department not maintain records of DPM emissions? (6) If yes to (3), will the Minister table records of DPM emissions from 2007 to 2009? (7) What steps is the Minister taking to assist the mining industry in reducing DPM emissions in underground mines? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: (1) The Department requests that underground mine operators periodically submit records related to diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions. (2) Analysis of collated data does not indicate a significant increase in the emissions from 2007-2009. (3)-(5) Not applicable. (6) The DPM data submitted to the Department by the operators of mine sites relates to measurements of personal exposures. This data is not in a form that can be used as a measure of total DPM levels across the WA mining industry. (7) The Resources Safety Division (RSD) of the Department of Mines and Petroleum has published articles relating to DPM management on mine sites. Later this year RSD intends to launch a campaign raising awareness in support of industry initiatives to minimize DPM emissions underground. FLOODED GUM TREE DESTRUCTION — ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SITE 1934. Hon Alison Xamon to the Minister for Transport representing the Minister for Indigenous Affairs I refer to the destruction and devastation in mid-February of two Flooded Gum trees near the intersection of Blackadder Creek and Morrison road, a registered Aboriginal Heritage site, and ask — (1) Did the developer consult with the Department of Indigenous Affairs prior to cutting branches off one of these trees and destroying the other? (2) If yes to (1), why were the local indigenous community members not consulted about the tree lopping? (3) If no to (1), what action will the Department take against the developer for failing to follow the required processes when working at Aboriginal heritage sites? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: The Minister for Indigenous Affairs has provided the following response: 1. No. 2. Not applicable. 3. The Department of Indigenous Affairs (DIA) has commenced an investigation into this matter. The Registrar of Aboriginal Sites at DIA will advise the Hon Member of the outcomes of this investigation once complete. RED HILL QUARRY EXPANSION — INDIGENOUS SITE MANAGEMENT 1937. Hon Alison Xamon to the Minister for Transport representing the Minister for Indigenous Affairs I refer the Hanson’s Red Hill Quarry and management of Indigenous sites, and I ask — (1) Is there a management protocol for Indigenous sites at Hanson’s Red Hill Quarry? (2) If yes to (1), who was involved in deciding upon the protocol?

1132 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010]

(3) If no to (1), will the Minister insist that such a protocol be developed? (4) How will the Department of Indigenous Affairs monitor and enforce any such Indigenous site management protocol at Hanson’s Red Hill Quarry? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: (1) I am unaware of the existence of any such protocol. (2) Not applicable. (3) The deliberative process with respect to the Notice submitted by Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd under section 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (the Notice) is not complete at this time and I am therefore not in a position to respond to this question. I have not made, and cannot make, a decision about the Notice as I am constrained from doing so as an identified decision-maker through the provisions of Part IV of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. (4) Not applicable. FOSTER CARERS — STATISTICS 1950. Hon Sue Ellery to the Minister for Child Protection (1) As at 30 November 2009, what was total number of applications to be a foster carer approved by category of relative and non relative carer and by district? (2) As at 30 November 2009, what was the total number of registered foster carers by category of relative carer and non relative carer and by district? (3) As at 30 November 2009, what was the total number of interim foster carers, by category of relative and non relative carer and by district? (4) As at 30 November 2009, what was the total number of registered foster carers with children placed, by category of relative and non relative carers by district? (5) As at 30 November 2009, what was the total number of interim foster carers with children placed, by category of relative and non relative carers by district? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: (1) There were 23 relative and 16 non relative applications to be a foster carer approved in November 2009: - Armadale — 1 relative, 0 non relative - Cannington — 0 relative, 1 non relative - Fremantle — 2 relative, 1 non relative - Joondalup — 1 relative, 3 non relative - Midland — 1 relative, 2 non relative - Mirrabooka — 4 relative, 0 non relative - Perth — 3 relative, 1 non relative - Rockingham — 2 relative, 1 non relative - Goldfields — 1 relative, 0 non relative - Great Southern — 0 relative, 1 non relative - Kimberley (East) — 1 relative, 0 non relative - Kimberley (West) — 2 relative, 0 non relative - Murchison — 0 relative, 0 non relative - Peel — 1 relative, 0 non relative - Pilbara — 1 relative, 1 non relative - South West — 1 relative, 0 non relative - Wheatbelt — 2 relative, 0 non relative - Accommodation and Care Services — 0 relative, 5 non relative (2) As at 30 November 2009, there were 999 relative and 668 registered foster carer households: - Armadale — 76 relative, 60 non relative - Cannington — 98 relative, 56 non relative - Fremantle — 76 relative, 37 non relative - Joondalup — 59 relative, 54 non relative - Midland — 60 relative, 41 non relative - Mirrabooka — 86 relative, 56 non relative - Perth — 77 relative, 33 non relative - Rockingham — 37 relative, 37 non relative - Goldfields — 67 relative, 27 non relative

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010] 1133

- Great Southern — 34 relative, 26 non relative - Kimberley (East) — 61 relative, 10 non relative - Kimberley (West) — 62 relative, 13 non relative - Murchison — 42 relative, 32 non relative - Peel — 32 relative, 33 non relative - Pilbara — 40 relative, 9 non relative - South West — 46 relative, 69 non relative - Wheatbelt — 46 relative, 38 non relative - Accommodation and Care Services — 0 relative, 37 non relative (3) As at 30 November 2009, there were 473 relative and 27 non relative interim foster carer households: - Armadale — 48 relative, 0 non relative - Cannington — 25 relative, 2 non relative - Fremantle — 41 relative, 0 non relative - Joondalup — 37 relative, 1 non relative - Midland — 28 relative, 0 non relative - Mirrabooka — 40 relative, 1 non relative - Perth — 37 relative, 0 non relative - Rockingham — 21 relative, 0 non relative - Goldfields — 48 relative, 12 non relative - Great Southern — 15 relative, 1 non relative - Kimberley (East) — 23 relative, 0 non relative - Kimberley (West) — 27 relative, 0 non relative - Murchison — 18 relative, 5 non relative - Peel — 18 relative, 0 non relative - Pilbara — 21 relative, 1 non relative - South West — 8 relative, 0 non relative - Wheatbelt — 17 relative, 0 non relative - Accommodation and Care Services — 1 relative, 4 non relative (4) As at 30 November 2009, there were 777 relative and 468 non relative registered foster carer households with children placed: - Armadale — 61 relative, 51 non relative - Cannington — 67 relative, 43 non relative - Fremantle — 69 relative, 23 non relative - Joondalup — 43 relative, 35 non relative - Midland — 48 relative, 31 non relative - Mirrabooka — 64 relative, 44 non relative - Perth — 64 relative, 27 non relative - Rockingham — 32 relative, 27 non relative - Goldfields — 41 relative, 11 non relative - Great Southern — 31 relative, 23 non relative - Kimberley (East) — 51 relative, 4 non relative - Kimberley (West) — 48 relative, 8 non relative - Murchison — 31 relative, 19 non relative - Peel — 26 relative, 28 non relative - Pilbara — 33 relative, 4 non relative - South West — 35 relative, 47 non relative - Wheatbelt — 33 relative, 28 non relative - Accommodation and Care Services — 0 relative, 15 non relative (5) As at 30 November 2009, there were 253 relative and 7 non relative interim foster carer households with children placed: - Armadale — 26 relative, 0 non relative - Cannington — 11 relative, 1 non relative - Fremantle — 18 relative, 0 non relative - Joondalup — 18 relative, 0 non relative - Midland — 18 relative, 0 non relative - Mirrabooka — 19 relative, 0 non relative - Perth — 16 relative, 0 non relative - Rockingham — 13 relative, 0 non relative - Goldfields — 29 relative, 3 non relative

1134 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010]

- Great Southern — 7 relative, 1 non relative - Kimberley (East) — 16 relative, 0 non relative - Kimberley (West) — 18 relative, 0 non relative - Murchison — 11 relative, 1 non relative - Peel — 7 relative, 0 non relative - Pilbara — 15 relative, 0 non relative - South West — 5 relative, 0 non relative - Wheatbelt — 6 relative, 0 non relative - Accommodation and Care Services — 0 relative, 1 non relative CHILD PROTECTION — MATTERS UNDER REVIEW 1955. Hon Sue Ellery to the Minister for Child Protection (1) How many child protection matters are currently under external review? (2) What is the general nature of the matters under review? (3) How many were under review at the same date 12 months ago? (4) What was the general nature of the matters under review 12 months ago? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: (1) External reviews can be conducted by the Case Review Panel, Ombudsman of Western Australia (WA), the Coroner and the State Administrative Tribunal of WA. There are currently six cases under consideration by the Case Review Panel. No cases have progressed to the State Administrative Tribunal of WA via the Case Review Panel. There are currently nine cases under consideration by the Ombudsman of WA in respect to investigable child deaths. These are cases that have met the criteria for an investigable child death. Two cases are currently under consideration by the Coroner. Further information in respect of matters before the Ombudsman of WA and the Coroner need to be obtained direct from them. (2) The matters frequently heard by the Case Review Panel focus on placement, contact and reunification. The review processes in respect of child deaths focus on the Department for Child Protection's and their Departments involvement and case practise with a family. (3) In respect of child deaths, this figure is not available since the Department for Child Protection does not have access to the data base previously maintained by the Child Death Review Committee. One Inquest was held in respect of a child death in 2009. There were four cases before the Case Review Panel for the corresponding period in 2009. (4) Reunification, contact and placement were the main issues before the Case Review Panel in the corresponding 2009 period. Themes that emerged from completed child death reviews included the need for a consistent child focussed approach; the need for more thorough and holistic assessments; assessments needing to be evidence based and clearly documented; the need for realistic timeframes when reunification is being explored and the importance of supervision. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH — PAYMENTS TO NOT-FOR-PROFIT ORGANISATIONS 1965. Hon Sue Ellery to the Minister for Transport representing the Minister for Health I refer to payments to non Government (not for profit) organisations, and I ask — (1) What is the Department’s policy on timing of payments for grants or contracted services? (2) Does the Department meet its own policy objectives to the non Government organisations? (3) Have any non Government organisations complained about late payment of grants or regular contract payments in the period 1 March 2009 to 1 March 2010? (4) How many grant or contract payments have been made late in the period 1 March 2009 to 1 March 2010? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: (1) The timing of payments is set out in the service agreement between the Department of Health (DOH) and the non government organisation (NGO) concerned. Service agreements require the NGO to issue

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010] 1135

an invoice and for DOH to pay within 10 working days, unless there is an agreed variance to this clause. DOH policy is to make payments in accordance with the terms of the service agreement. (2) Yes. (3) Yes, one. (4) Five. EXPLORATION DRILLING PROGRAM — ROYALTIES FOR REGIONS FUNDING 1976. Hon Robin Chapple to the Minister for Mines and Petroleum With reference to the first round of funding for the co-funded Royalties for Regions exploration drilling program, I ask — (1) How much funding was dispersed in the first round? (2) How many companies sought access to this funding? (3) How many companies were successful in acquiring funding? (4) Will the Minister identify the successful companies? (5) Will the Minister advise of the amounts received by each of these companies? (6) Will the Minister advise the projects identified in the successful applications that received funding? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: (1) To date $638 108 has been dispersed. (2) 168 applications were received for co-funding. (3) 35 applications were successful in gaining offers of co-funding. (4)-(6) Co-funding Company Project amount received to date 1 A1 Minerals Ltd Narnoo Nickel — Prospect A 2 Alchemy Resources Murchison Projects 3 Aura Energy Ltd Junction Palaeochannel $19 236 4 Aurora Resources Pty Ltd The Knot 5 AusQuest Ltd Table Hill MN6 Anomaly $72 000 6 AusQuest Ltd Table Hill MN5 Anomaly $76 000 7 Triton Gold Ltd Fraser Range North Diamond Drilling 8 Triton Gold Ltd Salmon Gums Diamond Drilling 9 Barrick Gold Australia Ltd Dark Star 2009/A 10 Beadell Resources Ltd Handpump Prospect $34 669 11 Beadell Resources Ltd Lake Mackay 12 Corvette Resources Ltd Corvette Gold Prospect 13 Crescent Gold Ltd Mt Lucky Mn 14 David Reed Syndicate Kalgoorlie Project 15 Echo Resources Ltd Sword Project 16 Encounter Resources Ltd Yeneena $120 000 17 Enterprise Metals Ltd Revere Project $88 000 18 Goldfields Ltd — St Ives Gold Mine Pty Foster Hinge Prospect Ltd 19 Goldfields Ltd — St Ives Gold Mine Pty Kalahari Polymetallic Anomaly Ltd 20 Gunson resources Ltd Burkin Project 21 Helix Resources Ltd Booyeema Project 22 Iluka Resources Ltd. Neale Embayment Gold RC 23 Magnetic resources NL Jubuk Project 24 Murchison Metals Ltd Rocklea CID — 3D Mineral mapping $92 567 25 NiPlats Australia Ltd Speewah Platiniferous Vanadium $88 000 Deposits 26 Rubicon Resources Ltd Warburton Copper Project 27 Silver Swan Group Ltd Quinns 28 Silver Swan Group Ltd Yagahong 29 Sipa Resources Ltd Ilgarari Copper 30 St Barbara Ltd Malcolm

1136 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 30 March 2010]

31 Teck Australia Pty Ltd Big Red and The Serpent 32 Thundelarra Exploration Ltd Azura Copper Prospect 33 Toro Energy Lake Mackay IOCG Targets $47 636 34 U3O8 Ltd Ashburton JV — EIS2009 35 U3O8 Ltd Clever Mary EIS2009

REDRESS WA — APPLICANT ACCESS TO PERSONAL FILES 1977. Hon Alison Xamon to the Minister for Child Protection I refer to the Family Information Records Bureau within the Department of Child Protection (DCP), which is an important source of information for applicants to the Redress Scheme, and ask — (1) How long does it take for a new/first-time applicant to get a copy of his/her personal file from DCP? (2) Why does it take this length of time? (3) Does the length of time it takes to obtain access to an applicant’s file affect the applicant's ability to respond to a Redress' offer of payment, or to the applicant's ability to determine whether the Redress process has taken into consideration everything within the applicant's file? (4) Could the length of time provided in (1), affect a redress scheme applicant's ability to approach the Ombudsman regarding the Redress process? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: Department for Child Protection (1) The time can vary between six to eighteen months. Applications from the elderly and ill are processed as soon as possible while those who are younger or requesting a general family history may have to wait longer. (2) The time taken depends on the complexity of the information and the need to ensure accurate advice is provided. (3) No, the information upon which Redress makes its assessment can be made available to the applicant. (4) No, the review processes are independent and the applicant's access to his or her file does not affect the Redress application, assessment or process. Department for Communities (1)-(2) Not applicable for DfC (3)-(4) No

______