Legislative Council

Tuesday, 18 September 2007

THE PRESIDENT (Hon Nick Griffiths) took the chair at 3.30 pm, and read prayers. ROYAL PERTH HOSPITAL - CLOSURE AND NAME PRESERVATION Petition HON HELEN MORTON (East Metropolitan) [3.33 pm]: I present the following petition - To the President and Members of the Legislative Council of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned residents of Western Australia call upon the Legislative Council to oppose the closure of Royal Perth Hospital and to ensure that the name ‘Royal Perth Hospital’ is maintained. And your petitioners in duty bound, will ever pray. The petition bears 2 703 signatures, and I certify that it conforms to the standing orders of the Legislative Council. [See paper 3129.] WEST COAST DEMERSAL SCALEFISH - MANAGEMENT PLAN Statement by Minister for Fisheries HON JON FORD (Mining and Pastoral - Minister for Fisheries) [3.34 pm]: The sustainability of key demersal scalefish species along the west coast, particularly jewfish, pink snapper and baldchin groper, has been a growing concern for the Western Australian government and various stakeholder groups. This concern is based on evidence of escalating fishing effort, particularly by the burgeoning recreational fishing sector. The number of registered recreational boats has grown rapidly as the state’s population continues to climb. Recreational fishers have also become more effective as they have quickly adopted new technology. In particular, global positioning systems and high quality sounders have now become standard items on fishing boats. This has made recreational fishing far more precise and targeted. More people fishing and more effective fishing methods have increased the pressure on fish stocks. To better understand the impact this increased pressure is having on fish stocks, the Department of Fisheries undertook a number of dedicated research programs to assess the status of jewfish, pink snapper and baldchin groper. These popular and well-recognised species of fish were chosen for the assessment because they are good indicators of the health of demersal scalefish stocks more generally. This research is now available and it shows that Western Australians are already over-fishing jewfish and pink snapper throughout their natural distribution and over-fishing baldchin groper within the Abrolhos Islands. If the current situation is not addressed, it is likely that continued fishing pressure will see these stocks of fish collapse within four to five years. It is important to acknowledge that both the commercial and recreational sectors are capable of exerting considerable impacts on these stocks, and more effective management of both sectors is required to reduce catches. I have already taken steps to address the commercial catch of demersal scalefish. A new management plan, which will soon be implemented, will reduce the number of commercial fishers operating under a new and strict management system. This new plan will ensure the commercial sector fish in a sustainable way and are able to provide high quality seafood to restaurants and local retailers. Recognising the seriousness of the problem and the particular significance of increasing fishing pressure in the metropolitan region, I have now made the unprecedented decision to remove all commercial fishing for demersal scalefish in the waters off the greater metropolitan coastline, thus creating the state’s largest exclusive area dedicated to recreational line fishing. Specifically, there will be no commercial fishing for demersal scalefish from Lancelin to a point south of Mandurah, 31 degrees south to 33 degrees south, to be effective from November this year. This action will provide immediate relief to fish stocks but further action is necessary, and the burden of responsibility cannot and should not be carried alone by commercial fishers. Each of us has a responsibility to fish for the future and ensure that fishing - commercial and recreational - is sustainable in the long term. Recreational fishers in Western Australia are to be commended for the way they have supported the existing management system based on bag and size limits. However, it is clear that the problems we now face require new and innovative solutions. The strategy that is ultimately adopted to manage recreational fishing must aim to ensure sustainability. However, it is important to not take the fun out of fishing by its becoming too regulated. It is also important that the community support the system we choose because voluntary compliance with the necessary rules will help us achieve our goals more quickly.

5022 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007]

To support the new strategy, the WA government has allocated more than $5.3 million research funding over four years to undertake detailed monitoring of demersal fish catches by recreational and commercial fishers. This research will evaluate the effectiveness of management practices to rebuild these fish stocks. The process of determining a new recreational fishing strategy will involve the release of a discussion paper and research report into the current status of west coast demersal scalefish stocks. The purpose of the fisheries management paper 225 is to engage recreational fishers and the wider community to develop new strategies that can achieve this vision of sustainable and enjoyable recreational fishing. This paper examines more fully the nature of the problems facing us and presents some of the new measures we should consider. The community’s views on the way forward are critical to the process, and stakeholders will be encouraged to become involved in the comprehensive consultation process, which will include a series of public meetings across the west coast region throughout October. Following this initial consultation period, it is my intention to release a draft management package for further consultation early in the new year, with a view to introducing a new, more effective and long-term management strategy for recreational fishing on the west coast mid-2008. However, during the consultation period it is important that we do not allow recreational fishing pressure to continue to escalate. Therefore, I will be implementing an interim management package to cover this period. These new rules may not form part of the longer-term strategy, but in the short term they are crucial in limiting recreational fishing pressures. This interim package will be phased in from November this year and will involve extending the closure to fishing for pink snapper in Cockburn and Warnbro Sounds from 1 October to 31 January; extending the existing possession limit to an individual’s place of residence throughout WA; totally protecting baldchin groper within the Abrolhos Islands; and introducing a possession limit of four category 1 - high risk - fish per person on aquatic charter vessels operating along the WA coast. Western Australia is blessed with an amazing marine environment. However, against a backdrop of unprecedented economic growth, growing population and significant technological advances in fishing practices, our precious fish stocks are under more pressure than ever before. I would like to table fisheries management paper 225, “Managing the Recreational Catch of Demersal Scalefish on the West Coast: Future Management Scenarios for Community Consideration” and report 163, “Spatial scales of exploitation among populations of demersal scale fish: implications for management”. [See papers 3130 and 3131.] Consideration of the statement made an order of the day for the next sitting, on motion by Hon Ken Baston. PAPERS TABLED Papers were tabled and ordered to lie upon the table of the house. STANDING COMMITTEE ON UNIFORM LEGISLATION AND STATUTES REVIEW Twentieth Report - Road Traffic Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2007 Hon Simon O’Brien presented the twentieth report of the Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review Committee, in relation to the Road Traffic Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2007, and on his motion it was resolved - That the report do lie upon the table and be printed. [See paper 3132.] STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS Ninth Report - “Interim Report on the Balga Works Inquiry: Request for a Member of the Legislative Assembly to Appear Before the Committee” HON GIZ WATSON (North Metropolitan) [3.41 pm]: I am directed to present the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations in relation to the “Interim Report of the Balga Works Inquiry: Request for a Member of the Legislative Assembly to Appear Before the Committee”. I move - That the report do lie upon the table and be adopted and agreed to. [See paper 3133.] HON KIM CHANCE (Agricultural - Leader of the House) [3.42 pm]: It is my understanding from Hon Giz Watson that the report that is subject to the motion just moved is one that will involve the invitation of another member to provide advice to the committee. It is something that members would feel more comfortable with if we were able to consider that overnight and make our deliberation tomorrow. Accordingly, I move - That consideration of the motion moved by Hon Giz Watson be made an order of the day for the next day’s sitting. Question put and passed; debate thus adjourned.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] 5023

LOCAL COMMUNITIES - DECISION MAKING Urgency Motion THE PRESIDENT (Hon Nick Griffiths): I received the following letter this morning - Dear Mr President I wish to advise that pursuant to Standing Order 72 I will move at today’s sitting the following motion: “That this House expresses its grave concern at the arrogance being shown by the State Government in making decisions affecting local communities without taking all proper steps to ensure that these communities are fully consulted.” Yours sincerely Hon Ray Halligan MLC Member for the North Metropolitan Region The member will require the support of four members in order to move the motion. [At least four members rose in their places.] HON RAY HALLIGAN (North Metropolitan) [3.44 pm]: I move the motion. The members on the government side will notice that I have mentioned only “grave concern” in my motion. I did not condemn the government, although it is my firm belief that it could well be condemned. I believe the evidence suggests that to be the case. When Labor was campaigning for the 2001 election, the then leader of the Labor Party, Dr Geoff Gallop, produced a policy on accountability. He promised that a Gallop Labor government would aim for the highest standard of openness and accountability in government, the highest standard of integrity in public life and an enhanced democracy. If we went through those three, one by one, we could still be talking tomorrow. Unfortunately, a lot of what would be said would have to be derogatory of this government. There has not been the openness and neither has there been the accountability professed by Dr Geoff Gallop. In referring to the highest standard of integrity in public life, issues have arisen, and I will not bother to go down that path at this point. The point is that these commitments have faded in the past six or more years that have ensued since that promise was made. In particular, community consultation is fast becoming an endangered species. One imagines one would have to ask what is meant by consultation. Consultation is certainly not passing a piece of paper across to somebody else telling them the result of one’s deliberations and saying, “There, you are consulted.” There is no purpose in meeting people and putting a proposition to them and then asking what they think of it, even if those people are not stakeholders in the issue, and saying, “There, you are consulted.” It is a matter of doing things in an official manner; that is, in finding the stakeholders and putting the proposal to them, even if it is a number of proposals, and asking for their feedback. That is definitely not what this government has done. In the northern suburbs alone there are three specific examples that amply demonstrate the government’s lack of consultation or unwillingness to consult unless and until its back is against the wall. First is the $60 million plan to build a raised extension to the Mitchell Freeway. By “raised”, I mean nine metres above ground level. That was a fact that did not become apparent until plans were presented to a public meeting in October 2004. That was the level of public consultation. Despite the fact that the meeting was held during the school holidays, when many people would have been away, local residents were informed that the raised extension was a done deal. According to a report in The West Australian, all that was changed was the colour of the wall and the addition of a few plants. It was only after the locals lobbied against the plans and the Liberal Party promised to meet their concerns that the government backed down, withdrew the plans and gave residents the consultation that they should have been given in the first place. Even more importantly, the revised plans met residents’ concerns with the government agreeing to meet the additional costs involved. It was very much a victory for people power over the government and bureaucracy. Much more recently we have witnessed the same arrogance and lack of consultation by this government over the proposed car parks at the Whitfords train station. At a public meeting earlier this year the government trotted out plans that would have turned the road reserves east of the freeway and north and south of Whitfords Avenue into car parks. Nearby residents would have been confronted with massive walls across from their homes, until more than 200 people signed a petition, which I presented to Parliament. That was the government’s notion of consultation. When asked what was going to happen, I was told that the residents would be consulted. Miraculously, the plans were suddenly changed, without consultation, by embracing the alternatives that the locals wanted. That was another example of people power at work. I will talk only briefly about the third example because my colleague, Hon Peter Collier, will go into it in far more detail. I refer to the proposed closure of the Blackmore Primary School, the school’s parents and citizens association and the issues that were

5024 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] not brought to their attention. They were not asked for their opinion. They were eventually told of the problems they would be confronted with when moving their children to another school. People power has worked in having the plans changed for the Mitchell Freeway and it worked again in having the plans changed for the Whitfords train station car park. It is now the turn of those at Blackmore Primary School to show the government that people power works that way as well. This government believes that it can take the people for granted. There are many more issues. A recent issue concerns fishing along the coast. When one considers that the commercial fishermen have a little more than a month to find new grounds in which to fish, it suggests to me that there has been a lack of consultation by this government. It is all very well and good and right for the fishery to be sustainable, but the businesses of the fishermen must be sustainable also. I wonder whether this government has taken that into consideration. I tend to doubt it. Another issue that springs to mind is the local government authority and the talk about reducing the 142 mainland local governments to something in the order of 30 local governments. The local governments are suggesting - government members can tell me if I am wrong - that they have not been consulted. Hon Ken Travers: Who has reduced them? Hon RAY HALLIGAN: No-one has reduced them yet. Hon Ken Travers: What proposal is there to reduce them? Hon RAY HALLIGAN: The member will have an opportunity to stand and argue his case in just one moment. Hon Ken Travers: You invited members to correct you if you were wrong. I’m correcting you. Hon RAY HALLIGAN: The member is interjecting. Mr President, did I mention arrogance before? That is a demonstration of it. The whole point is that it is not a matter of government members wandering around the countryside, obviously at taxpayers’ expense, talking to people about things that they later say was consultation. Hon Simon O’Brien: There are a lot of them walking round the countryside at the moment. Hon RAY HALLIGAN: I agree. I will read from an article in The West Australian dated Wednesday, 13 October 2004 headed “Anger at raised road”, which states - Northern suburbs residents are outraged about a $60 million plan to build a raised extension to the Mitchell Freeway, which they say is being forced through by the State Government with minimal public consultation. Again, the government can refute that if it wishes. However, these people were prepared to go to the newspaper over the issue. The article further says - Plans for Connolly, a leafy suburb next to Joondalup golf course, have for years shown a 2km proposed extension from the present end of the freeway at Hodges Drive through to Shenton Avenue. But residents say they bought their properties after being told by estate agents that the freeway extension would be sunk and an overpass built. Plans presented in public meetings over the past two weeks show a 500m section of the extension near Connolly Primary School would be as much as 9m above ground level, including a concrete sound barrier. There will be an underpass instead of an overpass. It goes on from there. I mentioned arrogance, did I not, Mr President, even though it may not be part of the motion, other than to say that I believe that the government is being arrogant in more than one area of policy and in its attitude towards the community and against any opposition that it believes it may encounter. Another article in The West Australian dated 22 February 2006 is headed “New freeway stuck in slow lane” and states - Planning and Infrastructure Minister Alannah MacTiernan has called for tenders for the Mitchell Freeway extension past Joondalup on the same timetable she rubbished before last year’s State election. In announcing the move, Ms MacTiernan said that the $170 million project would begin construction in 2007 and be finished by late 2008. But on January 12 last year she blasted then Opposition leader Colin Barnett when he said a coalition government would build the road on exactly that timetable. “Today, Mr Barnett announced with much fanfare that a coalition government would build the extension by 2008. A day earlier the Gallop Government committed to bring the extension forward to 2007,” trumpeted Ms MacTiernan in a press release at the time. “Colin Barnett and the coalition are once again out of touch with the local community. The choice is clear - a Labor Government will deliver this fully costed extension by 2007, a coalition government is promising the project a year later.”

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] 5025

That is not only arrogance, but also hypocrisy. Unfortunately, in the very short time I have available to me, I have been able to provide only a very small number of examples of this taking place. I can assure members that there are many, many more examples. The Housing Industry Association has been prepared to commit it to writing. These are not whispers behind closed doors; the HIA is prepared to commit to writing that this Labor government has not consulted on certain issues, yet the government will continually say that it has consulted. It will always say that it has consulted. However, as I said earlier, it comes down to the definition of “consultation”. If the community is right about the way it tells us this government has consulted, the government’s definition is totally and utterly wrong. The government is not providing the people of Western Australia with what they want; the government is telling the people of Western Australia what they will get. All I can suggest to members opposite is that at the next election this government will have extreme difficulties in explaining to the people of Western Australia why the Labor Party should be re-elected as the government of this state. HON PETER COLLIER (North Metropolitan) [3.58 pm]: I support Hon Ray Halligan’s motion. I will deal in particular with the closure and amalgamation of schools. It appears that the closure and amalgamation of schools without community consultation is becoming the norm for this government. The two schools I will look at in particular are the Blackmore and Wubin Primary Schools. It is increasingly apparent that decisions regarding the closure of Wubin Primary School and the amalgamation of the Blackmore and Girraween Primary Schools - using them as type examples - are being made without community consultation. Last Thursday I attended a rally that was organised by Luke Simpkins, the Liberal candidate for Cowan, and the Blackmore Parents and Citizens Association to protest against the closure of the Blackmore Primary School. Dozens and dozens of parents, members of the community and students attended the rally. They are very distressed, disappointed and angry that the Blackmore Primary School is to be closed, most notably because they had not been consulted. They literally had not been consulted. To give her credit, Hon Margaret Quirk, the member for Girrawheen, was at that protest. It was a very difficult situation for her because she had to read a letter from the Minister for Education and Training that indicated that yes, essentially the decision could have been handled better, but that the decision would remain. I draw members’ attention to the Swan education district’s report dated December 2005 and titled “Local Area Education Planning Consultation Report: Girrawheen and Koondoola Cluster of Schools”. There was a consultation process to determine what was going to happen to that cluster of schools, and I read from the report’s introduction - The Consultation Report is the result of a consultation process that commenced with the formation of a Consultative Committee on 12 October 2005 following permission to consult on a revised version of the proposal presented in the Draft Local Area Education Plan. The committee developed a plan to ensure effective community consultation and have developed the Consultation Report, which includes findings in relation to the proposed option and other proposals from the community. The report mentions the representatives from the various schools in the cluster. There are 16 members, and all schools have teacher or parent representatives, except Blackmore Primary School, which is represented by the school principal. I do not mind the fact that the principal is represented on the cluster, but there is no parental representation. According to the proposals for consultation, the report states - Stage 1 . . . • Amalgamate Montrose Primary School and Hainsworth Primary School into a new school, with facilities for full service provision, on the Montrose Primary School site opening in 2008. The Hainsworth Primary School site would then become surplus to requirements; • Upgrade Girrawheen Primary School; The amalgamation of Montrose Primary School and Hainsworth Primary School, a decision made with full community consultation, was recently announced. The report then talks about stage 2, which will obviously occur after stage 1, and states - If declining enrolments warrant further action, then the next phase will be considered for implementation. The next phase includes: • Amalgamate Blackmore Primary School and Girrawheen Primary School in the refurbished Girrawheen Primary School; There was no stage 2 community consultation; stage 1 has only just been announced. On 3 August 2007, parents of Blackmore Primary School students were notified that the school would close and be amalgamated with Girrawheen Primary School. Logically, they were very disappointed, angry and disillusioned. Primary schools are the heart and soul of any community and this is particularly so in rural and remote areas. The school parents,

5026 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] citizens of the community and current and former students of Blackmore Primary School feel completely let down and ignored by this government because of a complete lack of consultation. In his response to a question from the Blackmore Parents and Citizens Association about why the Blackmore community had been excluded from the consultation process, the Minister for Education and Training indicated that the draft plan proposed two stages, which I have just read out. He then said - . . . the first included the amalgamation of Hainsworth and Montrose Primary Schools and the building of a new school on the Montrose site, the upgrade of Girrawheen PS and a number of other items. The second stage proposed the amalgamation of Blackmore PS and Girrawheen PS on the Girrawheen site when the enrolments declined at Blackmore PS. Whilst the Stage 1 proposals were put out for community consultation at the time, the Stage 2 proposal did not go out for community consultation as such. The Minister’s announcement has brought forward the proposed Stage 2 to coincide with the implementation of Stage 1. The minister thinks it is fine to go ahead with stage 1 and consult the community, and then go ahead with stage 2 without worrying at all about community consultation. That is what I am talking about: there was no community consultation about the decision to close Blackmore Primary School. The second question put to the minister was - Why hasn’t the Minister acted in accordance with the Education Act regarding school closures? In his response, the minister stated - The Minister has, and will continue to, comply with the School Education Act 1999 . . . The Minister proposes to amalgamate Blackmore Primary School with Girrawheen Primary School and in accordance with Sections 57 and 58 of the Act he will consult with the relevant parents, School Councils and P & Cs . . . However, the decision has already been made. It is too late to consult once the decision has been made. Section 57, “Consultation”, of the School Education Act 1999 states - (1) If the Minister proposes to amalgamate 2 or more government schools or to close any government school permanently, the Minister is to consult with - (a) the parents of the students who are enrolled at the school or schools affected by the proposal, in relation to the matters referred to in subsection (2); (b) the Council of each school affected by the proposal, in relation to the matters referred to in subsection (2); and (c) each Parents and Citizens’ Association formed under section 142 which would be wound up as an effect of the proposal, in relation to the disposal of property acquired by the association. That did not occur. There was no consultation. Quite frankly, the minister did not consult with the parents, and they are furious. Parents are angry and disillusioned and that is why I tabled in this place two weeks ago a petition containing 2 000 signatures asking for the decision to be reversed or at the very least for some consultation to occur. There was a complete lack of consultation! Blackmore Primary School is being closed without community consultation. Exactly the same thing has happened to the parents at Wubin Primary School. Wubin is a very small rural town located about 275 kilometres north east of Perth. On 6 August 2007, Mr Peter Reudavey, the president of the Wubin Primary School Parents and Citizens Association, received a letter from Sharyn O’Neill, the Director General of the Department for Education and Training. I will read part of the letter to members now - Dear Mr Reudavey I am writing to inform you of the decision to close Wubin Primary School at the end of Term 4, 2007. Wubin Primary School has served its community well and there will be fond memories and a rich history to look back on. However, declining enrolments and limited curriculum choices have led to my decision that the students’ educational needs will be best met if they relocate to a school which will provide them with greater educational choice. Again, absolutely no consultation whatsoever! I have a letter from Mr Reudavey to Karen Morrissey, the president of the Isolated Children’s Parents’ Association, which provides a succinct and comprehensive precis of the very valid reasons that Wubin Primary School should remain open. I would like to table that letter, Mr President, and seek leave to have it incorporated into Hansard. Leave granted. [See paper 3134.]

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] 5027

The following material was incorporated -

Wubin Parents and Citizens Association C/- Post Office Wubin 6612 14th August 2007

Dear Karen The Wubin School community has just received advice that its school is to be closed at the end of term 4 2007. Our community does not wish the school to close for a wide variety of reasons as outlined below and was not consulted about the decision apart from an indication being given that if the school numbers were below 12 and likely to stay there over time that it would be closed. The school has 12 children enrolled with this to rise to 14 in two weeks and committed numbers to maintain this for at least the next five years. Wubin is situated 275 kilometres north east of Perth on the Great Northern Highway. It contains a shop and Post Office, two Roadhouses a Hotel, the school and 15 houses. There is also a Combined Sports Club, a golf course and tennis courts. All of the children, bar three who live in town, travel to school on our two bus runs. The first pick up on the longest of these bus runs is 7.15am and the last drop off in the afternoon is 4.30pm. This means that the students are away from home for over nine hours per day. Further travel to the next nearest school will add at least twenty minutes to this and take the time away from home towards ten hours per day. In winter these children already get up at first light and have little time at home before it is dark again in the afternoon and in summer, particularly with Daylight Saving, they must travel home during the hottest part of the day and still get up near first light. This becomes very tiring and stressful for all children but especially for those attending Kindergarten and in Pre Primary. One of the reasons given for the closure of the school is limited curriculum choices and declining enrolments. The school provides individual learning programs for each of the students in the skill areas and a whole school program in the afternoons. This allows the students to develop their literacy and numeracy skills at their own level and rate and then to use these to work together in the other learning areas in the afternoons. This has resulted in a regular collection of Credits and Distinctions in the New South Wales University Testing competition in Computing, Science, Mathematics, English, Writing and Spelling. This year the students from the school achieved one credit in Computing, a credit and a distinction in Science, a distinction in Maths and a credit and a distinction in English. Two of our students have also been selected to take part in the Primary Extension and Challenge Program (PEAC) in 2007 and in past years we have generally had one or two students participating in this program. The WALNA results for the school support these results and last year we had 100% of our students above the Benchmark for Reading Writing and Mathematics. Our school combines with other small schools in the area to field sporting teams in Minkey, Kanga Cricket, Netball, Basketball and Tee Ball. This has resulted in many trophies being won for the schools with 2006 bringing wins in Minkey, and Kanga Cricket and runner up in Netball. Our school also competes on its own in the NEDSSA Athletics carnival held each year and in 2006 won the Overall Champion School, P&C Presidents Marching Shield and the Principals Meritorious Shield. Every year the Year 4-7 students go on camp to one of the following towns - Kalgoorlie, Geraldton, Perth or Margaret River. The students also attend a wide range of cultural, skills based and entertainment excursions and incursions. In 2007 these include Easter, Anzac Day, Foundation Day, Aboriginal Visiting Artist day and Circus Activity Days combined with Latham and Buntine Primary Schools. The children will be visiting the Egyptian Antiquities exhibition at the W.A. Art Gallery and be visited by the Education Officer from the Geraldton section of the W.A. Museum. Mr Rob Adams visits the school each year to entertain and teach the children about values, the Japanese Language students have been to a LOTE Day and the school has used the Musica Viva program for its music program and attended the Marmalade Jam show they provided. Football, Netball and Cricket clinics are held at the school run by the various state junior bodies for these sports. The school provides a wide range of resources for the children. These include all books and stationery as well as a well equipped library, sporting equipment, playground equipment, a garden/park atmosphere to the entire playground, access to satellite television programs including Westlink. All of the children have access to their own individual computer and the school owns 14 laptop computers that the Year 4-7 children are able to take home to use. The school also pays for the students to take part in the testing competitions mentioned above with parents sent the results. Most of the resources at the school have some input from the P&C Association in the form of funding when required and/or maintenance and erection of equipment. This funding and provision of labour and expertise is ongoing and is part of the pride that the parents have in their children’s school and education. 2007 has been a very dry year and coming on top of 2006 has made for very difficult times in many wheatbelt communities including ours. Prices for almost everything are increasing while incomes in these areas are not. Having this decision made now has not improved the morale of our community. Everyone is left wondering what facilities will be left in small country towns where travel to the local town takes time and money but to have to travel even further for basic services like education increases the burden. The school community wants to keep its school at Wubin and to send their children to the local school. Any assistance or advice that could help us in our endeavours to keep our school open would be most appreciated. Thank you for taking the time to read our response to this very sudden event and we look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully, Peter Reudavey P & C President

Hon PETER COLLIER: Mr President, for emphasis, I will just read from part of that letter now. It says in part - Dear Karen The Wubin School community has just received advice that its school is to be closed at the end of term 4 2007. Our community does not wish the school to close for a wide variety of reasons as

5028 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007]

outlined below and was not consulted about the decision apart from an indication being given that if the school numbers were below 12 and likely to stay there over time that it would be closed. The school has 12 children enrolled with this to rise to 14 in two weeks and committed numbers to maintain this for at least the next five years. A letter addressed to Sharyn O’Neill from the Isolated Children’s Parents’ Associated states in part - Dear Sharyn, ICPA (WA) has grave concerns over the proposed imminent closure of the Wubin Primary School. Also, that your decision to close this school has been based on misinformation of student numbers and an understanding that certain procedures of consultation have taken place, when they haven’t. . . . We strongly urge you to reconsider your decision to close the Wubin School and to defer Monday’s meeting at the school, which we believe is being called to implement closure, including distribution of the school’s resources. If any meeting is to take place, ICPA (WA) believes it should be a Community Consultation meeting to enable such a serious proposal to be appropriately discussed. Another letter from all the parents at Wubin Primary School states in part that they want the school to stay open, and the reasons for their request include - • All parents of the twelve students enrolled in Wubin Primary unanimously agree that this school remain open. • We are all frustrated at the apparent lack of consultation and reasoning behind our school closure. . . . We are all wondering who makes these decisions, how much research time and upon what procedure was undertaken to close us down. We believe Wubin Primary School should remain open. We feel we are owed a meeting to explain the above concerns prior to any Implementation Committee meeting for school closure taking place. We trust you will consider our urgent request regarding this matter. Mr President, there has been a total lack of consultation with regard to the closure of these schools. HON KEN TRAVERS (North Metropolitan) [4.08 pm]: I have listened to this debate with a degree of interest this afternoon, and it amazes me. Some of the issues are worthy of debate in this chamber this afternoon. As a government, we can always look at the processes we have put in place to ensure that not only are they better than those of the previous government, but also we are continuously improving them as we go down the track. However, I find it difficult to understand why members have mentioned some of these issues in this chamber this afternoon. I will address some of the issues that have been raised by the mover of this motion. Hon Ray Halligan said that the government had failed in its consultation in three key priority areas. We must look at the end result in each of those areas that the member has outlined. The first example he could find goes back to 2004 and the extension of the Mitchell Freeway, which, as he mentioned, cost $60 million. I dispute the argument that he made when he kept talking about it being a raised freeway, because that gave the impression that somehow we were going to build it above ground level when in fact it was going to be built at ground level. I accept that would mean that the freeway would have been nine metres higher than the nearest road in the Connelly Estate. However, I think that language that he used was quite mischievous. As a result of the community consultation process that this government put in place, we are now spending $171 million on that freeway extension and we are sinking the freeway. Anyone can see the truckloads of earth that are being taken out of that site. I saw many members of the Liberal Party hanging around and being involved in this issue prior to the election, but after the election, I did not see any of them turning up and being involved in the community consultation process. Hon Simon O’Brien: Were they invited? Hon KEN TRAVERS: I am sure they would have been. Hon Simon O’Brien: I will tell you what: the ones south of the river have not been invited. Hon KEN TRAVERS: All members of the community could turn up. I must tell Hon Simon O’Brien that when things were going on in my electorate, I used to make sure that I would turn up if I saw meetings advertised. I can assure members that the freeway extension consultation was advertised so that community members could attend. Hon George Cash: You know what reception you used to get.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] 5029

Hon KEN TRAVERS: It was a very positive reception. Hon George Cash: Only when I saved you from marauding - Hon KEN TRAVERS: When and where? Hon George Cash: You know. Hon Simon O’Brien: You did what! Hon KEN TRAVERS: I have never heard of anyone being saved by a smiling crocodile before. I am not sure from which beach I went swimming with Hon George Cash. Were there sharks out there? Another noticeable aspect of Hon Ray Halligan’s comments was his constant references to the fact that after a public meeting, this issue became of concern and was taken up. I do not know what members on the other side want, but when a public meeting is held to discuss such issues, the community raises its concerns about those issues and they are dealt with and addressed, I would have thought that is what public consultation is. It does not always mean that at the end of that consultation process there is 100 per cent agreement between the government and the local community. If I get time, I am more than happy to go through it and give examples of how the previous government, of which many members opposite were part, used to conduct its community consultation. If I were managing the consultation process of the freeway extension, I would have done it slightly differently from the way in which it was done. However, I think the end result was a good one for the Connelly community. It is clear from the freeway that has been built there that this government did listen. The member also raised the issue of new car parks at the northern railway stations. Labor members in the northern suburbs had been arguing for the government to get on and do that. We were successful in getting funding of some $18 million in the last budget round to build those additional car parks. The Public Transport Authority has its proposed locations for those car parks. The member for Kingsley, Judy Hughes, organised a community forum at which she got people from the PTA to talk about the proposals. The local community raised concerns through that process. The cabinet then went to Joondalup. People were not asked to come into the city; the cabinet went to Joondalup. What happened? Judy organised for some of those representatives of the local community to come along and meet with appropriate ministers to discuss the community’s concerns about the car parking. As a result of that process - Hon Vincent Catania: How many regional cabinets have we had? Hon KEN TRAVERS: Far more than the other side even thought about. As a result of that process, the PTA started to work through alternative solutions for parking around the railway stations on the northern corridor. As a result of that process, the community was heard and listened to. May I say to Hon Ray Halligan that by the time his petition was tabled, those concerns were already just about signed off by the minister and were being sorted out as a result of the community consultation process that involved the local member for Kingsley listening to her community and raising her concerns. Hon Ray Halligan: She had no option but to listen. I was there. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I am not sure what the member’s problem is when we ask the community whether it has concerns. We listen to the community’s concerns and we address the community’s concerns. Hon Ray Halligan: Always after the event. You ram something down their throat and they regurgitate it. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I would love to go through the issue of the Blackmore Primary School. I can say, and the minister has acknowledged, that we could have done the Blackmore Primary School consultation better. The government is putting in better education facilities for the people of Girrawheen. I am proud of that. I am proud of the fact that when the candidate for Cowan, Liz Prime, took representatives of the parents and citizens association from Blackmore Primary School along to see the Minister for Education and Training, in a very hastily organised meeting, the minister was happy to listen to their concerns. As a result of that process - Several members interjected. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I only slipped that in because members on the other side want to make this a political debate. I wanted to make sure that people understood the order in which things happened out there. It did get the minister to acknowledge the process could have been done better. I hope that out of the current processes we will see the concerns of the parents being addressed. We could look at the record of the other side. The member wanted to talk about Wubin. What about the 29 schools in regional areas that the Court government closed? Let us talk about those. Let us talk about the school closures in the northern suburbs. Let us talk about the other schools we are amalgamating to get better educational outcomes right throughout the northern corridor. The member may pick out Blackmore Primary School, and the minister and I have accepted the process should have been done better, but, by the member’s own words, local area educational planning referred to stage 1 and stage 2. When we are able to get the

5030 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] government to bring forward stage 2 and to put the funds in, and I would hope that one of the things we may be successful in is getting a little bit more funding for that area, because I think that providing quality education is an absolutely crucial part - Hon Ray Halligan: Can we quote you that you are happy to get some more money? We will go out there and tell people that Hon Ken Travers is going to get them some more money. Hon KEN TRAVERS: The member may quote me all he likes. I am more than happy to try to ensure that if there are needs in that community and at that school, we will get them addressed. There is a process for doing that. The Blackmore Primary School process could have been done better, but we have gone through that process with a whole range of other schools and we are doing it better. We do not see the situations created by the mob on the other side, such as the closure of Scarborough Senior High School. Hon Ed Dermer will remember the closure of Scarborough Senior High School. The then government put nothing in its place and made no response to the local community’s concerns. We are seeing the long-term problems in that area as a result of that decision. I agree that although we are doing a good job with consultation, we could always do it better and we will try to do it better. HON HELEN MORTON (East Metropolitan) [4.19 pm]: When Geoff Gallop became Premier, he put in place a section of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet called the Citizens and Civics Unit. It was established as a world-class service. It was developing all the protocols and processes for good community consultation and, based on that, produced various documents. He was a man who understood that such consultation is absolutely paramount for a democracy. A democracy cannot exist without good community consultation. I used to use the documents produced by that unit frequently, looking at the various models suggested for the different types of community consultation that should or should not take place. I also used to recommend those documents to a lot of people. I gave them out to community groups etc. They were exceptionally good documents and won a lot of awards for the work that they promoted on community consultation. Then there was a change. Hon Barbara Scott: They got rid of Gallop. Hon HELEN MORTON: I do not think the government got rid of Dr Gallop; unfortunately, he had to leave. The Department of the Premier and Cabinet abolished the Citizens and Civics Unit when the current Premier took office. We used to use those documents frequently and show people what the government said it would do and what it was not doing. We used to hold these documents up to the government over and again. In the end, it became too embarrassing and too difficult for the Carpenter government to continue to try to defend its position about why it was not working to the ideals set out in the Citizens and Civics Unit booklets. I want to give one really good example of how that has occurred by looking at the obstetrics review. Since this government came to power, 27 000 people, by way of signature, said that the government was not consulting with them about the direction it was taking obstetric services in this state and they did not like what it was doing. Despite that, the Minister for Health continued to go down that track. Women and families all over the state were saying that it was not acceptable and they did not like it. Questions were continuously asked in this place. I was involved in meetings with the minister’s office in which he continually said that he was consulting but we knew that he was not. The only option that seemed to be left was to put a motion on the notice paper to establish a select committee of inquiry into whether this consultation was taking place. As members know, that select committee met and tabled a report. The report that was tabled commented on the type of consultation that was taking place. For example, it stated - In relation to the decision making process following the Cohen report . . . evidence to this inquiry indicates that many stakeholders are of the opinion that there was inadequate consultation with the community. Evidence also indicates that stakeholders are not satisfied that the Department gave sufficient regard to evidence provided by the community and from the academic literature in its decision making process. That was a bipartisan committee of this house saying that despite all the assurances that the minister had given and the fact that he tried many times to suggest that community consultation was taking place, community consultation was not happening, it was not adequate and people were very unhappy about it. It was not until we established that select committee that the minister put in place what people asked for in the beginning. He put forward a new maternity services plan that would involve community consultation etc. That community consultation is taking place as a result of the work of the select committee. Great fears are being expressed around the state that now that that select committee has tabled its report and finished its work, the minister will revert to his old ways and that level of community consultation that has been achieved over the past 12 months will go backwards. I am really concerned about how this level of community consultation is not being taken seriously by this government. Another example relates to the community-supported residential units that enable people with a mental illness to live in the community. An extremely poor consultation process occurred. It was set up to create division between the people who live in those communities and the people who

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] 5031 will live in the facilities. Twelve months before any discussions took place, the plans for these facilities were established. The minister deliberately suggested that people complained that they did not want those facilities in their backyards. I have met nearly every one of the community groups that has participated in these community- supported residential units. One or two people always have a totally irrational point of view about people with a mental illness living in the community and the support they need, but the vast majority of people want to be involved in working out the best and most appropriate way of accommodating these people in the community. I get really annoyed when I hear the health department staff and the minister saying that these people have nothing to contribute and because they are not professionals, they could not possibly know what they are talking about. These people do know what they are talking about. They live in the community and they have some terrific ideas. They have said over and again that 25 people should not be put in one group of units in one location because of the number of things that could occur as a result. They do not want that number of people living there in that way because it would stigmatise those people. The health department staff have been out to these communities - I have been out there with them - and they refer to these facilities as mental health villages. The language they use already stigmatises the people who will live there. They believe that if 25 people were in groups of five or eight in different locations in the community, not only would that be better for the residents living in those facilities but it would also give the community the best possible opportunity to accept and embrace those smaller groups of people. At no time have the people that I am working with or those who come to see me said that they do not support or agree that people with mental illnesses should be living in supported accommodation. However, the thing that they say over and again is that despite every attempt they make to try to make these views known to the minister, the minister will not listen and says that they are concerned about these people being in their backyard. I know it is cheaper for the government to run a 25-bed facility in one place. I know it is cheaper for the government to use hospital-based land rather than place people into more appropriate community-based locations. That is not in the best interests of the people who will live there, and it is not in the best interests of the communities who will accept and support these people. If there is one message that I have got out of the debate that has taken place so far today, it is that the government has lost its way with community consultation. It started off with some fantastic ideals and some great booklets and directions about what community consultation should consist of and how people need to move down that track. Since the Citizens and Civics Unit was disbanded and there was a change of leadership, the government has moved away from the ideals of community consultation to something more akin to a bulldozer. HON KIM CHANCE (Agricultural - Leader of the House) [4.28 pm]: I thank Hon Ray Halligan for moving this motion. The government always tries to be consultative and tries to do it right every time but there are clearly times when we do not get it right. Hon Ken Travers and the Minister for Education and Training also conceded that in one particular instance raised by Hon Ray Halligan we clearly did not get it right. It is good of him to tell us those things. The government has been accused of lack of consultation generally. It is certainly true that the best consultative mechanisms have their failings. I took Hon Ray Halligan’s motion very broadly, although we did think it would be concentrated around issues in the honourable member’s North Metropolitan Region, and that is why Hon Ken Travers led the debate for the government. The wording of the motion is very broad and my response will be very broad. I will not touch on those issues in the North Metropolitan electorate. I will give one example and, Hon Helen Morton, it is a current example, not an example from the Gallop government. Indeed, it happened only a couple of weeks ago in Carnarvon. The government intended to build a new justice complex in Carnarvon. The government had a very clear idea about where the complex would be located. The problem was that the community did not want it there; the community wanted it in another place. As much as the government tried to convince the community that the location that it had in mind was the right one, the community, represented by the shire and much more broadly than that, had a very strong view about its preferred site. One of the local members, Hon Vince Catania, went to the trouble of surveying the opinion of people in Carnarvon and, more broadly, in the Gascoyne. That process indicated to Hon Vince Catania that the community was right and the government was wrong in its choice of location. The response of the government was to say, “Okay; we’ll cop that. Our first choice of site was wrong and we’ll now build the justice complex on your preferred site.” That site is what we call now the traders site. I think that is a much better example of the kind of consultation process that our government engages in than some of the failings that members have quite rightly brought to our attention. Yes, we do have failings, but we might differ about the degree to which we have failed. I certainly recall the issue about the Kwinana Freeway, but I said that I would not go into that. Hon Ray Halligan: You had a similar situation in Northbridge, did you not, with the police complex? Hon KIM CHANCE: Quite possibly, although that was not really a matter about the community; it was more a matter about my old school mate Graham Hardie, I think. Hon Ray Halligan: I think positioning did come into it.

5032 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007]

Hon KIM CHANCE: The Leader of the Opposition invited me to discuss the issues about community cabinets. Can I just say generally - Hon Norman Moore: No, I did not invite you to; you actually inadvertently left your notes where I got a copy of them, so I just asked whether you were going to talk about what was in your notes. Hon KIM CHANCE: I see; I thought it was an invitation. No matter whose idea it was, it was a very good idea, and I am prepared to share with members what a good idea it was. Hon Norman Moore: I’ve already read your speech, so you can just have it incorporated in Hansard and sit down. Hon KIM CHANCE: I might divert from that speech a little. By the end of this year, the Gallop and Carpenter governments will have held 42 regional cabinet meetings. Hon Norman Moore: We think that’s a great idea because it means more people get to see how bad you are. Hon KIM CHANCE: That is good, and judging by the polls, obviously we are doing a terrible job! These community cabinet meetings are organised by the community cabinet liaison group. Strangely, we have just heard an attack by the opposition on the government for what it calls a waste of taxpayers’ money. Do honourable members really believe that the following was a waste of taxpayers’ money? Three cabinet meetings were held in Albany; three were held in Bunbury; three were held in Collie-Wellington, which included visits to Donnybrook, Boyanup, Waroona, Yarloop, Dwellingup and Brunswick Junction; three were held in Geraldton; two were held in Kalgoorlie; one was held in Coolgardie-Kambalda; two were held in Broome, which included visits to Fitzroy Crossing, Derby and a number of other regional remote communities; and one was held in Kununurra, which included visits to Wyndham, Halls Creek, Oombulgurri and Kalumburu. That is really taking cabinet to the outer limits of the state. Two cabinet meetings were held in Mandurah; one was held in Newman, which included visits to Tom Price, Paraburdoo and Jigalong; two were held in Karratha, which included visits to Port Hedland, Wickham, Dampier, Roebourne, Port Sampson, Cossack and Barrow Island; three were held in Carnarvon; one was held in Port Hedland, which included visits to Yandeyarra, Karratha, Tom Price, Paraburdoo, Nullagine and Marble Bar; and one was held in Esperance, which included visits to Ravensthorpe and Hopetoun. Several members interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: Can I just say how carefully the Carpenter government looks after Esperance. In January this year Esperance had a horrific flood. The Acting Minister for Police and Emergency Services at the time, Hon Margaret Quirk, got there before the flood even started! She anticipated a natural disaster. One meeting was held in Busselton, which included visits to Margaret River, Dunsborough and Yallingup; one was held in Narrogin; one meeting was held in York and Northam; and two meetings were held in Wanneroo. Wanneroo actually included an event in Mindarie. When I had a look at Hon Ray Halligan’s letter, I noted that he represents the state electorates of all these places, but Mindarie is not listed in his letter. Hon Ray Halligan: It’s an old one! Hon KIM CHANCE: I just thought I would bring that to his attention to return the favour! One meeting was held in Roleystone-Armadale; one was held in Rockingham; and one was held in Mundaring, which included a visit to Ellenbrook. Hon Ken Travers interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE: Order! On each of these occasions, cabinet members make themselves available to meet individual members of the community and we have quarter-hour sessions. Members of the opposition who are local members are always welcome to attend and, indeed, are invited to attend. I am happy to say that I have seen just about - Hon Barry House: We usually find out the day after. Hon KIM CHANCE: No; I have seen Hon Barry House at the functions. That is consultation. The example that I gave about the Carnarvon justice centre is consultation - Hon Ray Halligan: What is consultation - just going there? Hon KIM CHANCE: No; it is a process of going there and listening to what people have to say. Hon Ray Halligan: But also telling them what it is you are proposing to do so that they can respond. Hon KIM CHANCE: Exactly, and the example I gave of the justice centre in Carnarvon is an example of that. We went there with a view that there was a site that was suitable.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] 5033

Hon Ken Travers: On the car park that Hon Ray Halligan mentioned, the minister met with the local community during a regional cabinet. Hon KIM CHANCE: It was started by the local member; exactly. The function of the regional cabinet meetings is to have those issues raised that are perhaps not in the cabinet’s consciousness. It is very easy to sit down there on Adelaide Terrace or St Georges Terrace - I came from the Western Australian Farmers Federation, which is in Adelaide Terrace - and not get the importance of issues, such as those car parks, in the cabinet’s collective mind. However, when we go out to the area and meet people, it raises the level of consciousness. I do not want to use all my time, but I and the government accept that we do not always get it right and we thank members for telling us when we get it wrong because we rely on them to do that. Hon Ray Halligan: The people are telling us. Hon KIM CHANCE: I thank the member for faithfully relaying their message. Both the Gallop and Carpenter governments have generally, I think, been consultative governments. I think the processes that we go through to try to ensure that the quality of that consultation is continually improved are in the right direction. HON BARRY HOUSE (South West) [4.38 pm]: I want to cite one more example to support Hon Ray Halligan’s motion about the lack of consultation or flawed consultation. The example relates to the Busselton foreshore public land. A bewildering array of questions, queries, views and conspiracy theories have been swirling around in Busselton for three or four years. I put it to members that that is due to a flawed consultation process in the first place. The background to this issue is that some very valuable and valued public foreshore land in Busselton has been an item for much public discussion and comment over recent years. People may know the areas, including Barnard Park; the reserves encompassing the restaurants on the foreshore; the Nautical Lady Entertainment World; Signal Park; the tennis club; the Kookaburra Caravan Park, where there are three reserves; Churchill Park; and so on. About four years ago, the Busselton jetty, which, as people know, is an icon, had been very caringly looked after and maintained by the local community through dedicated hard work and commitment over a long period. It has been upgraded and now has an interpretive centre and underwater observatory. A full-scale assessment was done on the state of the jetty that showed it to be in a rather negative state and in need of a pretty serious injection of something like $18 million to $20 million. This is where it seems to have gone off the rails a little. Rather than treating the issues separately, and looking at the commitments needed for the Busselton jetty and then separately looking at the issue of public land and the upgrade of the Busselton foreshore, which nobody says is not required, the state and federal governments - the federal government has an obligation in this regard as well - linked the two issues. These issues were put in the hands of government agencies such as LandCorp and the South West Development Commission - Hon Adele Farina: There was a joint working group between the shire and the state government representatives. Hon BARRY HOUSE: Yes, it was in a secret committee with the Shire of Busselton that locked out the community from negotiations for a couple of years. Hon Adele Farina: It did not lock out the community. There were a series of public workshops, there were public information sessions, there was a community survey - Several members interjected. Hon BARRY HOUSE: I can assure the honourable member that the community felt locked out, which is the issue surrounding this whole example that I wanted to bring to the attention of the house. The outcome of that working party was tabled recently - that outcome is the grand plan. Some of the plan has some merit, but other parts of it are raising major concerns in the community because, largely, the community has had no input and no direct voice into the plan. The community has until 1 November for submissions on the government’s proposal for the foreshore land. People, rightly or wrongly, feel that they are now in a position in which this grand plan has been devised and put together, put to the community, and they now have only about two months to assess it and work out what it means for them and to put their views to the authorities. The shire has taken a bit of a sideways step away from responsibility for that process, because it passed a motion indicating that that plan is only one of the options available for the development of the Busselton foreshore land. That is a wise move to take. All I am saying is that the issue could have been handled better through better public consultation involving open input from the public right from day one, rather than - Hon Adele Farina: We did. The honourable member is wrong. We included the community right from day one. We have had extensive consultation with stakeholders, and the stakeholders are now supporting the project. Hon BARRY HOUSE: The government included selected parts of the community, and that is the issue. Several members interjected. Motion lapsed, pursuant to standing orders.

5034 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007]

FIONA STANLEY HOSPITAL CONSTRUCTION ACCOUNT BILL 2007 Second Reading Resumed from 5 September. HON GEORGE CASH (North Metropolitan) [4.43 pm]: The operative words in the title of the Fiona Stanley Hospital Construction Account Bill 2007 are “construction account bill”. This, for instance, is not a bill that authorises the commencement of the construction of the hospital, and it is not a bill that authorises the provision of not fewer than, say, 600 beds in the first stage of the hospital. It is a bill to do no more than provide authority to establish an account. The bill explains that to be the case in its long title - An Act to establish a Treasurer’s special purpose account called the Fiona Stanley Hospital Construction Account for the purposes of the construction and establishment of the Fiona Stanley Hospital, and for related purposes. That is what the account is for. The intent of the bill, which is inherent in its long title and confirmed by the government in the explanatory memorandum that accompanies the bill, is as follows - The purpose of this Bill is give effect to a decision by the Government to set aside an amount of $1.09 billion - That is often referred to as $1.1 billion - from the expected 2006-07 cash surplus to fund the construction and establishment of the Fiona Stanley Hospital. The Bill, when enacted, will create a statutory account to control and quarantine the money appropriated to it, and to ensure it is used for no purpose other than the construction and establishment of the Fiona Stanley Hospital. By this stage most members would be saying, “Did we have a specific bill to deal with the Perth-Mandurah railway?” The answer is no. “Is it intended that a specific bill come in relating to, say, the Binningup desalination plant, notwithstanding that is a water authority issue?” The answer is that that is highly unlikely. “Did we have a specific bill to deal with the desalination plant that was constructed down at Kwinana?” The answer is no. One would start to ask what this bill is all about. Is it, as many people have said out in the community, nothing more than a bill designed to be a political stunt to enable the government to justify its massive surplus for the last financial year by suggesting to the community that some of that surplus is being shifted across to a “good cause”, so to speak, and therefore the government should not be criticised for the over- taxation that caused the massive surpluses to occur? A question needs to be asked first in considering the public policy behind the bill: is the bill necessary, and will the bill advance the social and economic wellbeing of the people of Western Australia? A second question must be asked: does the bill actually make good the promises of the government relating to the proposed construction of the Fiona Stanley Hospital at Murdoch? The answer to the first question concerning whether the bill is necessary is probably no. If members think it through, the potential advancement of the economic and social wellbeing of the people of Western Australia as a consequence of the construction of the Fiona Stanley Hospital at Murdoch will occur whether or not this bill is passed. I say that because the government has made a considerable number of announcements, some of which were quite confusing and inconsistent when working through them, and some of which were contradictory. Nevertheless, the government has confirmed that it intends to build the hospital. Therefore, the hospital is going to be built. What comprises “the hospital” is something I hope we can go through during the committee stage of the bill, because there have been some significant conflicting remarks, for instance about the number of beds to be provided, the staging of the hospital’s construction - when it will commence; when it will be finished - and the like. Concerning the second question about whether the bill imposes a statutory requirement to actually construct the hospital, the answer is clearly no. All the bill does in its present form is impose a statutory obligation on the government in respect of a particular account. It does not impose any obligation on the government nor, indeed, on any other party to actually construct the hospital. Those words are not in the bill. It is true that one could say that it is inherent in the legislation that a hospital will be constructed as a consequence of that account, but it does not say so in the bill. In thinking that through, I am reminded about an incident that occurred in this Parliament about 20 years ago when Brian Burke was the Premier. Some members may recall that he set aside an amount in those days of about $10 million to be used to construct some additional facilities here at Parliament House. In fact, the proposition at the time was to build some premises on the other side of Harvest Terrace. The architect Cann was involved, who had come forward with a number of propositions. I think three significant office blocks were to

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] 5035 be built on the other side of Harvest Terrace on what may be termed the observatory land, fronting Harvest Terrace. One would be handed over to the Parliament for 20 or 25 years before it reverted to the Parliament. In fact, I am mistaken about that; it was the other way around. The proponent was prepared to build the three buildings. Two were to be leased and the proponent would receive the rents from the buildings, and the third was to be given to the Parliament for its own use. I am not sure whether a specific amount for rent was involved in that. In due course all the buildings were to revert to the Parliament. At the time, that was considered to be a reasonable proposition. Mr Burke put aside $10 million and that was well and truly trumpeted at the time as a great plus for the Parliament. One of the problems was that, because of the way business was done in those days, the $10 million disappeared. When I say disappeared, I am not suggesting someone put it in his pocket and walked away. It was used or appropriated for other purposes. Hon Norman Moore: Are you sure? Hon GEORGE CASH: No, I am not sure, but I am told - I assume the Auditor General looked at it - that it was used for other purposes. I suppose that if we relate that incident to this particular bill, it should be renamed the “I do not think we can trust ourselves in government with the $1.1 billion” because that money is being put into a specific account so that, in due course, it can be used only for the construction of Fiona Stanley Hospital at Murdoch. I mentioned “publicity stunt”. I think the government has already got pretty good value out of the fact that it intends to transfer this money, notwithstanding a bill has not been passed, because the government has trumpeted very widely throughout the state that it intends to build the hospital. However, this bill, in itself, is not the prerequisite for the construction of the hospital. Later on, other contracts will need to be entered into. I put it to the Leader of the House, who I understand is handling this bill - Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: No, I am. Hon GEORGE CASH: Oh, right, okay! That puts a different complexion on things! Oh dear! Several members interjected. Hon GEORGE CASH: The reason I express some mild disappointment is that the Leader of the House is always very happy to work through things and he understands the logic of arguments as they progress. Hon Kim Chance: So does Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Are you suggesting I am not? Hon GEORGE CASH: No, not at all; not yet. I was just saying that, generally, the Leader of the House works through these propositions and says, “Yes, that’s what the bill says,” and “Yes, you’ve got a point there. Perhaps there is a need for an amendment.” To make it very clear that a hospital will be constructed and that the hospital construction will start not later than a certain date, some specifics would need to be added to the bill so that there is some commitment to build the hospital. I do not know whether the Minister for Local Government is in a position to offer those commitments. However, I hope she will take the same view of our comments as I am sure the Leader of the House would have done; that is, take them in a constructive way to try to improve the legislation before us. Hon Kim Chance: I am sure she would want to have a chat to the Treasurer before she gave those assurances. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: It depends what the honourable member is proposing; it really does. Hon GEORGE CASH: Exactly. That is right; I agree. I do not think the Minister for Local Government should say yes, yet. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: I would love to keep you happy but there are certain limits. Hon GEORGE CASH: All right, but the first thing the minister should do is have a chat to the Treasurer and ask whether the bill is really necessary. There is an argument that section 10 of the Financial Management Act, as the minister will know, allows for the creation of these special accounts. The Treasurer might come back and say, “Well, we could do that but sections 37 and 38 of the act start interfering with the question of interest.” Given that the $1.1 billion at, say, six per cent will accrue interest at the rate of $66 million a year while that $1.1 billion remains in this particular account, we want to be sure that the interest is applied to this account and does not go into the consolidated account, as the Financial Management Act provides in certain cases. However, they are matters that no doubt the Minister for Local Government will take up with the Treasurer in due course. I mentioned the words “inconsistency” and “confusion” concerning some of the comments and public statements that the government has made about Fiona Stanley Hospital over time. For instance, on 30 January 2005, the then Premier, Geoff Gallop, talked about his plans for a world-class hospital. In part, he was reported as having said that the Western Australian government had announced plans to build a 1 000 bed hospital in the southern Perth suburb of Murdoch, adjacent to St John of God Hospital. He stated that the government had allocated

5036 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007]

$420 million to the hospital, which was expected to be opened by 2007. It seems to me that we have reached 2007, but I am not sure that the hospital has been built at this stage of the game. Hon Helen Morton: They have employed Alan Piper to get started. Hon GEORGE CASH: Hon Helen Morton made an interesting comment; namely, that Alan Piper has been employed. When we were in government, Mr Piper and some other advisers looked at what was then the Building Management Authority and made some very positive remarks. When some people say that Mr Piper is a hard businessman, I think they are right. I think he is probably the right sort of person to manage a very substantial construction site and the contracts pertaining to that construction. I do not know anything about the tender or the way in which he was appointed or anything about the terms of his personal contract with the government. An issue seems to have arisen about how he was appointed. Whether it was a job-for-the-boys appointment or whether it was based on merit seems to be an open question at this time. I understand the Auditor General is in fact looking into the way in which that contract has been handled and awarded. I think that the community would like to know that everything has been done in a proper way because the management of the contract of this hospital will be a very significant task. It will be one of the biggest single public projects undertaken in recent times. I said that Dr Gallop made this announcement on 30 June 2005. He talked about a 1 000-bed hospital, which was expected to open in 2007. He acknowledged that an amount of $420 million had been allocated at that time for this project. He also made the point that the new facility would mean that the 500-bed Fremantle Hospital would be downgraded to a 200-bed community hospital, although it was said in 2005 that Fremantle Hospital would retain its emergency service. The government trumpeted its great plans for this new hospital. However, at the time, the opposition made some interesting comments. Dan Sullivan, the member for Leschenault, who was then the opposition health spokesman, said that the announcement itself showed that Labor did not have a short-term plan to address the shortage of hospital beds. Is it not interesting that we now find ourselves in this situation at 2007 when two years ago Dan Sullivan was saying that the government had an immediate problem with hospital beds? Not only was he right in 2005; it has become more clear in 2007. The Australian Medical Association said that whilst it agreed with Dr Gallop’s announcement - that is, in respect of the hospital - the announcement was not enough. The association’s Western Australian president, Paul Skerritt, said that an extra 700 beds were needed in the next four years. He said that two and a half years ago and, of course, those beds have not been forthcoming and that is the reason that over the weekend ambulances were queuing again. Debate interrupted, pursuant to standing orders. [Continued on page 5045.] QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE MEMBER FOR BALLAJURA - DRIVER’S LICENCE 750. Hon NORMAN MOORE to the minister representing the Attorney General: I refer the Attorney General to his announcement of financial payment to Mr John D’Orazio for expenses he incurred in challenging the suspension of his driver’s licence. (1) Is there a precedent for reimbursing privately incurred legal costs when the action is not carried through; and, if so, will the Attorney General provide detail on such precedents? (2) Did the Attorney General obtain advice from sources available to government prior to making his decision; and, if so, who were the sources and what was the thrust of their advice? (3) How much was the amount paid by the government and to whom was it paid? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) Where court proceedings are discontinued, it is open to the court to make such order as to the costs of the proceedings as it thinks just. Accordingly, it is not unusual in the course of negotiations for an action’s discontinuance for one party to pay or contribute to the other party’s legal costs. (2) The Attorney General was not involved in the decision to contribute to Mr D’Orazio’s legal costs. (3) The amount was $15 000. It was paid to Mark Andrews Legal Pty Ltd trust account. FINES ENFORCEMENT REGISTRY 751. Hon NORMAN MOORE to the minister representing the Attorney General: (1) Which act, and section thereof, creates an obligation on the Fines Enforcement Registry to ensure address details of motorists are correct prior to cancelling licences for non-payment of fines?

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] 5037

(2) Is there a lawful obligation for motorists to ensure their current address is known by the relevant licensing authority? (3) If so, will the minister provide details of the relevant legal authority for such an obligation? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) There is nothing that creates an obligation on the Fines Enforcement Registry to ensure an address is correct. Rather, the Fines Enforcement Registry relies on information provided from the prosecuting authority provided directly from the offender or the database of licences managed by the director general, Department for Planning and Infrastructure. The reference is section 5 of the Fines, Penalties and Infringement Notices Enforcement Act 1994. (2)-(3) Yes. Regulation 16 of the Road Traffic (Drivers’ Licences) Regulations requires drivers to change their address. LYNWOOD SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL - STRUCTURAL PROBLEMS 752. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN to the minister representing the Minister for Education and Training: Notice of this question was given on the last sitting day and again this morning. (1) Can the minister confirm that the Department of Housing and Works has provided a report and cost estimates in relation to the unserviceable roof and gutters at Lynwood Senior High School? (2) When will this urgent work be carried out? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) The government is aware of the issue and urgent repairs are being undertaken. GORGON GAS DEVELOPMENT - MINISTERIAL CONDITIONS 753. Hon GIZ WATSON to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for the Environment: I refer to ministerial statement 748 concerning the Gorgon gas development. (1) If it turns out to be impracticable for Chevron Australia Pty Ltd to sequester the carbon dioxide from the greater Gorgon gas fields through its proposed carbon dioxide injection system, will the project be allowed to proceed? (2) If the sequestration of carbon dioxide falls short of the requirements in condition 26.2 of the ministerial conditions, will Chevron be required to make good the shortfall with carbon offsets? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for the Environment, I provide the following answer. (1) Condition 26.1 of ministerial statement 748 requires the proponent to construct facilities capable of sequestering 100 per cent of the reservoir carbon dioxide removed during gas processing. Condition 26.2 of ministerial statement 748 requires the proponent to ensure that carbon dioxide is injected. These conditions are enforceable legal requirements under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The ministerial statement does not allow the project to proceed without these conditions being met. (2) Any request by the proponent to vary condition 26.2 would be determined by the minister under section 46 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. OAKAJEE PORT 754. Hon MURRAY CRIDDLE to the Acting Minister for Planning and Infrastructure: I refer to the growing concerns about Oakajee construction delays impacting on expanding mid-west iron ore production. (1) What is the timeline for construction of the Oakajee port? (2) What is the timeline for construction of the rail network to complement the iron ore industry? (3) What is the government’s current policy on this matter? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank Hon Murray Criddle for notice of the question.

5038 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007]

(1)-(2) The timeline for the construction of the port and rail infrastructure is the responsibility of the proponents and will depend on their program for operation. (3) It has been the government’s preference that there be a single infrastructure provider for this project. However, to date the mining companies have been unable to work together and agree on a single infrastructure provider. Therefore, the proposal that is now being considered by government is, first, for the rail line between the mines at Jack Hills and Weld Range and Mullewa, the government, with advice from the miners, will identify a corridor and make it available to either or both of the parties to construct their own track. Second, the railway line from Mullewa to Narngulu to the Geraldton port already exists and has been leased for 49 years to WestNet Rail. It is proposed that WestNet be given the opportunity to develop a rail link from Narngulu to the port of Oakajee. The third part of the proposal is that Murchison Metals Ltd and Midwest Corporation Limited be offered the opportunity to develop the port under a limited contestable process. Those parties would have the right to nominate an infrastructure provider of their choice. MOUNT BARKER COMMUNITY COLLEGE 755. Hon PETER COLLIER to the minister representing the Minister for Education and Training: I refer the minister to the Mount Barker Community College. (1) Will the minister confirm that as of term 2, 2008 the college will accommodate year 4 to year 12 students and that students from kindergarten to year 3 will remain at the current Oatlands Primary School site? (2) If yes to (1), when and why was the decision made to separate the students from kindergarten to year 3 from those years 4 to 12? (3) If yes to (1), when will students in the K-3 cohort be accommodated on the Mount Barker Community College site? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) As escalation in building costs placed severe pressure on the project, it was possible to relocate only the primary students in years 4 to 7 to the secondary school site at this stage. (3) Whilst there is currently no funding allocated to relocate the K-3 students to the secondary site, every consideration will be given to this relocation when future capital works programs are delivered. MENTAL HEALTH - SECURE BEDS 756. Hon HELEN MORTON to the minister representing the Minister for Health: (1) How many non-forensic secure mental health beds were available in Western Australia as at 1 July 2001 and 1 July 2007? (2) How many of the beds referred to in question (1) were staffed and open to accommodate patients on both those dates? (3) How many forensic secure mental health beds were available in WA as at 1 July 2001 and 1 July 2007? (4) How many of the beds referred to in question (3) were staffed and open to accommodate patients on both of those dates? (5) Will the minister provide a table showing the location of the available secure mental health beds in WA, identifying those that are forensic secure mental health beds? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. Due to time required to gather the necessary data, I ask that the question be placed on notice. DRIVERS’ LICENCES - CONFISCATION BY LICENSED PREMISES 757. Hon GEORGE CASH to the minister representing the Minister for Police and Emergency Services: (1) Has WA Police authorised any hotels, licensed premises or any other bodies to confiscate from a driver an expired driver’s licence when that driver’s licence is used by the driver for identification purposes? (2) If so, will the minister advise which hotels, licensed premises or other bodies have been authorised and on what date such authorisation occurred?

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] 5039

(3) Will the minister table a copy of the written instruction authorising such an action and a copy of the procedures that the manager of the hotel, licensed premises or other body is required to adhere to when an expired licence is confiscated? (4) What security procedures have the police put in place to prevent a confiscated licence being used for security theft or fraud? (5) In whom does the property of an expired driver’s licence reside? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank Hon George Cash for some notice of this question. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services has supplied the following answer - (1)-(5) There is no provision for WA Police to authorise managers or staff or licensed premises to seize identification. Issues referring to authorisation and confiscation of licences by hotels, licensed premises or other bodies should be referred to the Minister for Racing and Gaming, and issues concerning expired drivers’ licences should be referred to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. I take that on notice. WEST COAST DEMERSAL SCALEFISH - MANAGEMENT PLAN 758. Hon BARBARA SCOTT to the Minister for Fisheries: I refer to the announcement made yesterday about the commercial fishing of demersal finfish, which will be excluded from the metropolitan fishing zone from November. (1) How does the minister justify the serious consequences of this decision to the families of the fishers, some of whom have been operating for three generations, without having had prior consultation with them and after providing only six weeks’ notice? (2) Given the suddenness of the announcement, does the minister admit that the decision has been made in panic by a government which has failed to properly monitor and research fish numbers and which is now playing catch-up at the expense of local fishing families? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank Hon Barbara Scott for the question. (1)-(2) The justification is easy. At relatively short notice I have been given a report, which I tabled earlier today. The report states that if I do not take urgent action, we will lose a whole swag of indicative species, primarily jewfish, baldchin groper, pink snapper, break sea cod and coral trout. In fact, we would see around about a 50 per cent reduction effort off the west coast fishery. The Fish Resources Management Act requires that I take sustainability very seriously. Indeed, it is the first consideration. The act and the direction of this house and the other place stipulate that that is the primary concern. Indeed, it is such a primary concern that I am not required to compensate fishers if I must close a fishery on the basis of sustainability. Luckily, my predecessor to the left of me started a process called the wetline review, which brings the wetline fisheries into direct management. The wetline fisheries are the last of our fisheries to be brought into management. There is currently a latent effort out there of about 1 100 licences, which will be reduced to about 60 or 70 licences. The review process has been going on for about four years and has supplied valuable information that has assisted me to make a decision on how to reduce and mitigate the impact of the decision that we announced yesterday regarding saving the fish off our coast. During the term of the Gallop government, my predecessor recognised the efforts of the recreational sector to halve the bag limits, and supplied personal possession limits to recreational fishers in 2003. In the past three years, we have seen an exponential and unprecedented growth in access to the water through boats and fishermen having access to high-quality technology, including global positioning systems. That ties in with an unprecedented efficiency in fishing. In the past five years, we have developed an equal footing between the recreational and the commercial fishing sectors. They are both fishing at about the same tonnage. Therefore, we needed to act quickly. Notwithstanding what I said about sustainability matters and the government not being required to pay compensation, we recognised that this will have a very serious impact on the people involved. It will affect about 20 wetline fishers and six demersal gill net fishers who target fish-like sharks. We will compensate them. About $5 million of the $7.5 million package that was established following the wetline review will be allocated to compensate those fishers. Notwithstanding that a small number of people will be affected, we take the matter very seriously. The Department of Fisheries has done a fantastic job in keeping up with the technology and the impact of a relatively small transfer of effort from the eastern states, which involves about 250 000 people. I have great faith in our department, which is recognised worldwide as one of the best fish managers. It is very unfortunate that some people

5040 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007]

will have to suffer. The bottom line is that if we had not taken this urgent action, in five or six years we would have neither a commercial nor a recreational fishery. I congratulate the Department of Fisheries and I make no apologies for carrying out my role, which is to ensure the sustainability of fishing in our oceans. WILSON PARK PRIMARY SCHOOL - MAINTENANCE 759. Hon BARRY HOUSE to the minister representing the Minister for Education and Training: When can Wilson Park Primary School expect to receive the funding it was originally promised in 2004 and when can it expect action to be taken to address the urgently needed maintenance of the school and upgrades, including painting, asbestos removal, toilet blocks, air conditioning and other issues? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Carpenter government is continuing to address the neglect of government schools under the previous coalition government with a record $1 billion investment in maintenance and capital works during this term of office. I am pleased to report that Wilson Park Primary School has been allocated $98 511 for 2007-08 under the state government’s Fixing our Schools program. Tenders have gone out for the replacement of floor coverings and external painting. The use of the remaining funding is being discussed with the school. HOMESWEST - COMMUNITY HOUSING UNITS 760. Hon RAY HALLIGAN to the minister representing the Minister for Housing and Works: I refer to the answer to question without notice 703 concerning Homeswest housing. (1) What are the components of the full social housing stock to which the minister referred? (2) What was the housing stock and each of these components at the end of 30 June 2007? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I am happy to provide the response on behalf of the Minister for Housing and Works. (1)-(2) These figures are as at 30 June 2007: full social housing stock includes public housing of 34 879, joint venture housing of 1 918 and community housing of 1 386, making a total of 38 183. As advised previously, an important strategy, both at a state and national level, to increase social housing stock is to expand the community housing sector. To that end, over the next four years, up to $210 million will be available to community housing providers to provide additional social housing. ILLICIT AMPHETAMINE SUMMIT - GOVERNMENT ACTION PLAN 761. Hon DONNA FARAGHER to the minister representing the Minister for Health: I refer to the coordination committee to be formed to oversee the implementation of the government action plan arising from the Illicit Amphetamine Summit. (1) Who are the current members of the Western Australian Drug and Alcohol Office Senior Officers’ Group? (2) Are representatives from the non-government drug and alcohol sector represented on the committee; if yes, will the minister table a list of those appointed, including the organisation that they represent? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The existing WA Drug and Alcohol Strategy Senior Officers’ Group comprises all state government human service agencies. It will be the overarching coordination committee for the implementation of the government action plan arising from the Illicit Amphetamine Summit. The purpose of the senior officers’ group is to provide a whole-of-government approach to addressing all major drug and alcohol issues within Western Australia in line with the Western Australian Drug and Alcohol Strategy. The current members of the WA Drug and Alcohol Strategy Senior Officers’ Group are as follows - Terry Murphy, Drug and Alcohol Office; Myra Browne, Drug and Alcohol Office; Andrew Thompson, Department of Education and Training; Superintendent Jim Migro, WA Police; Leah Bonson, Department for Child Protection; Fiona Lander, Department for Community Development; Sue Leivers, Department of Health; Steven Willard, Department of Housing and Works; Chris Anderton, Department of Corrective Services; Lyne Acacio, Department of Indigenous Affairs; David Wray, Office of Crime Prevention; Virginia Scott, Department of Local Government and Regional Development; Jon Gibson, Office of Road Safety, Department of the Premier and Cabinet; and Janine Belling, Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] 5041

The senior officers’ group for the Western Australian Drug and Alcohol Strategy 2005-2009 also oversees three other whole-of-government strategies; namely, the Western Australian Volatile Substance Use Plan 2005-2009; the Western Australian Alcohol Plan 2005-2009; and Strong Spirit Strong Mind: The Western Australian Aboriginal Alcohol and Other Drugs Plan 2005-2009. (2) Non-government agencies do not form part of the WADAS Senior Officers’ Group. Where initiatives that arise from the government action plan are implemented in the non-government sector, the government agency responsible for funding the relevant non-government organisation is accountable. The Drug and Alcohol Office has an ongoing partnership with the Western Australian Network of Alcohol and Other Drug Agencies, which represents non-government drug and alcohol agencies. This is a highly effective partnership that underpins the implementation of the WA Drug and Alcohol Strategy. MINING APPROVALS 762. Hon BRIAN ELLIS to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Resources: Further to my question without notice738 of 6 September 2007, to which the minister advised that parallel processing already exists between the commonwealth and state for mining and exploration approval - (1) Is parallel processing carried out interdepartmentally at the state level? (2) If not, will the government introduce parallel processing at the state level; and, if not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I am advised that the answers to his questions are - (1) Yes. (2) Not applicable. BUILDING DISPUTES TRIBUNAL - ORDER TO REMEDY 763. Hon NIGEL HALLETT to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Consumer Protection: I refer to order to remedy 254/2004-05 issued by the Building Disputes Tribunal on 21 January 2005 in relation to a dispute between Tangent Nominees and Mr Willis, complaint 0.4920. (1) Has the action required of the builder through the issue of this order been completed? (2) If not, what action has been undertaken by the tribunal to force the builder to comply? (3) What is the current status of the dispute and order to remedy? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The minister has provided the following answer - (1) No. (2) On 12 June 2006 the tribunal ordered that order to remedy No 254/2004-05, dated 21 January 2005, is set aside on the basis that the complainant may seek an order to pay in lieu thereof. On 23 April 2007, Mr Willis provided the tribunal with updated quotations as directed. Since that date, tribunal staff have liaised with both parties to schedule a suitable date for the hearing. (3) A hearing before the building disputes tribunal has been scheduled for 17, 18 and 19 October 2007 in Busselton. MUCHEA SALEYARDS 764. Hon ANTHONY FELS to the Minister for Agriculture and Food: I refer to the proposed Muchea saleyards development. (1) Can the minister confirm that some of the initial site preparation for the Muchea saleyards has taken place in the wrong location? (2) If yes to (1), what is the extent of the problem? (3) If yes to (1), what are the expected impacts on the budget and time to completion of each stage? (4) What stage has the saleyards construction reached since the initial site preparation commenced, as reported in response to my question of 8 May 2007? (5) Will the minister confirm that the Muchea saleyards will be completed on time and on budget and prior to the sale of the Midland saleyards site?

5042 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007]

Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Anthony Fels for his five-part question without notice. Hon Simon O’Brien: There goes the rest of the afternoon! Hon KIM CHANCE: No, I have a very brief answer because, to be honest, I am not aware of this issue at all. (1) No. (2) I am unaware that is the case, if indeed it is. It has certainly not been brought to my attention if earthworks have been done in the wrong location. Hon Norman Moore: They are probably too frightened to tell you. Hon KIM CHANCE: I have been to the location and seen all the earthworks. Nobody brought to my attention then that some of those earthworks were in the wrong place. I should not speculate, but the only way I can think that people may imagine that the earthworks have been done in the wrong place might relate to the point of entry to the location itself. Negotiations are still being carried out with Main Roads Western Australia about whether the central route, the southern route or the northern route will be used, and that will dictate a different point of entry, which might require the construction of a new access road, but the access road that exists now, which has the point of entry off Muchea East Road, is an access road for the construction of the facility, not necessarily for the functioning of the saleyard. That is very important. It is the construction road. (3) I have no reason to doubt that the Western Australian Meat Industry Authority will keep within its budget requirements, which are capped. It knows very well that it is required to keep within budget. (4) What has happened since my first report on works that have started on the site is that the tendering process is now about to begin and I believe will be completed around the middle of October. At that point we will have precise knowledge about the actual cost of construction, but the tendering will be for the construction itself. (5) Will it be completed on time? I feel confident that it will. The second part of (5) asked whether it will be completed prior to the sale of the Midland land. The answer is: yes, it absolutely must be. Even if there were, for some reason, a blow-out in the construction time at Muchea, that would have no other effect than to delay the exchange of land that was subject to sale at Midland, because there has to be a facility. The contracts of sale that will be entered into in relation to particularly lot 402, which is the big Hazelmere block where the effluent from the Midland saleyards is disposed of, will provide that the exchange of land cannot occur until such time as the effluent ponds are no longer required, which is in effect on the date of the last sale at Midland. NGURAWAANA COMMUNITY - WATER QUALITY 765. Hon KEN BASTON to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Water Resources: I refer to the Ngurawaana community in the Pilbara. (1) Is the Water Corporation responsible for monitoring water quality in this community; and, if so, what is the frequency and what is the process; and, if not, who is responsible? (2) How many water quality alerts were issued in 2005, 2006 and 2007? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Ken Baston for providing some notice of the question. (1) No. The Department of Housing and Works is responsible. (2) This question should be referred to the Minister for Housing and Works. However, if the honourable member requests, I will take the matter up with the minister. MAGELLAN METALS - FREMANTLE PORT 766. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN to the Acting Minister for Planning and Infrastructure: I congratulate the minister for being selected to fill those different, if somewhat wobbly, shoes. What is the government’s response to the application by Magellan Metals Pty Ltd to export lead concentrate through Fremantle port? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank Hon Simon O’Brien for the question. I need to take advice on that answer, so I will take that question on notice. Hon Simon O’Brien: He’s a natural. He’s grasped the broomstick with both hands and he’s on board, just like the regular minister!

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] 5043

SMALL BAR LICENCES 767. Hon NORMAN MOORE to the Minister for Racing and Gaming: I hope Hansard got that interjection. (1) Have any small bar licences been granted since the amendments to the liquor legislation recently? (2) If so, how many have been granted and where are they located? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for his question. (1)-(2) Four applications for small bar licences have been received by the Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor. As of today, I understand that two have been approved. One is for a bar in West Perth and the other is in Fremantle. I understand that additional applications are before the Director of Liquor Licensing and a number have been received by Perth City Council. There may be a number of others before other local government authorities. One of the criticisms of small bar licences is that perhaps the uptake of them has not been as high as anticipated. Hon Norman Moore: Perhaps they didn’t watch your ads. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: The Leader of the Opposition should wait until I finish. The legislation came into force on 7 May, only a matter of months ago. Quite clearly, when somebody is about to establish a small bar, he or she has to go through a number of processes. Apart from applying to the local government authority, generally speaking, plans need to be drawn up for the changes that are needed. If a new bar facility is to be constructed, obviously builders and architects etc need to be consulted. Funding also needs to be secured because, naturally, these things take resources, and I know of very few people who have $150 000 or $200 000 or whatever it costs to set up a small bar lying around the house. Quite clearly, a number of processes need to be followed. Hon Norman Moore: Let Hansard reflect loud laughter in the chamber. This is just the most ridiculous answer I have ever heard in my life. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: It is not a ridiculous answer; it is an answer that reflects - Hon Norman Moore: You pass legislation and then you run an expensive television campaign telling people to get on the grog and create small bars and you have four applications. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: That is fine. I am quite happy with that because I understand what the process is. The process is such that a number of things have to occur. Quite frankly, if the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting that we should have 30 applications, I say that we never put a number on the record. We never set targets. It is clearly about consumer demand and people taking up the opportunities that are there. Quite frankly, I am quite pleased with the way that it is progressing. We know that a number of other applications are before local government authorities and they will flow through in due course. When there are objections to applications, applicants will have rights when lodging those objections. Quite clearly, people are entitled to procedural fairness and natural justice. SCHOOLTEACHERS - LEAVE 768. Hon PETER COLLIER to the minister representing the Minister for Education and Training: I refer the Minister for Education and Training to his response to question without notice 577 asked on Wednesday, 15 August 2007 and to the 4 May 2007 issue of School Matters, which states that teachers will be notified whether their applications for leave have been approved on 10 August 2007. (1) Have primary and secondary school teachers employed with the Department of Education and Training who applied for leave without pay for 2008 been notified of the success or otherwise of their application? (2) If yes to (1), how many of the 172 primary school teachers and 86 secondary school teachers who applied for leave without pay had their application approved? (3) If no to (1), why not, and when will these teachers be notified of the status of their leave without pay application? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Seventy teachers in total had their application approved. (3) Not applicable.

5044 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007]

PRISONERS - ELECTORAL FRANCHISE 769. Hon GIZ WATSON to the minister representing the Minister for Corrective Services: I refer to the recent High Court decision of Vickie Lee Roach v Electoral Commissioner and Commonwealth of Australia, which overturned the disenfranchising of prisoners in commonwealth elections. (1) Will the minister ensure that all Western Australian prisoners who serve a sentence of less than three years can vote in the upcoming commonwealth elections? (2) If yes to (1), how will the minister ensure that these prisoners can vote? (3) If no to (1), why not? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank Hon Giz Watson for some notice of this question. The Minister for Corrective Services has supplied the following answer. (1) Yes. (2) Following the High Court decision, the department immediately began working with the Australian Electoral Commission and arrangements are already in place to ensure maximum cooperation by superintendents at each prison for both enrolment and voting by eligible prisoners. (3) Not applicable. TREASURER’S SPECIAL PURPOSE ACCOUNT - INTEREST 770. Hon GEORGE CASH to the parliamentary secretary representing the Treasurer: (1) Do the current provisions of the Financial Management Act 2006 prohibit the Treasurer from establishing a Treasurer’s special purpose account styled the Fiona Stanley Hospital construction account? (2) Having established such a special purpose account, is there a further prohibition on any interest earned on the principal amount in the special purpose account being applied to that special purpose account? (3) In the past 10 years, has any money received from the investment of funds held in a Treasurer’s special purpose account been credited to the specific Treasurer’s special purpose account as a consequence of an implication in a written law rather than by an express provision; and, if so, will the Treasurer provide details? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Treasurer, I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) No. (2) Yes. Section 38(7) of the Financial Management Act 2006 prohibits interest on the investment of public money held in a special purpose account being credited to that account unless an appropriation act or another written law provides otherwise. (3) The Department of Treasury and Finance is not aware of any such examples. BUSSELTON - PORT GEOGRAPHE DEVELOPMENT 771. Hon NIGEL HALLETT to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for the Environment: I refer to the Port Geographe development in Busselton and, in particular, to the government-endorsed seagrass wrack and sand bypassing operation currently underway. (1) Can the minister please advise of the legally acceptable noise levels in residential houses immediately adjacent to the pumping operation? (2) Have any complaints referred by the Shire of Busselton been received by the Department of Environment and Conservation? (3) Have any noise monitoring complaints referred by the Shire of Busselton been received by the Department of Environment and Conservation? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for the Environment, I provide the following answer -

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] 5045

(1) The allowable noise levels for residential houses are prescribed by the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. The allowable noise levels vary depending on the proximity of the residence to the noise and the duration of the noise. (2) No. The Shire of Busselton refers environmental complaints to the Port Geographe consultative committee, which is chaired by the Department for Planning and Infrastructure. (3) No. The department has not received any noise monitoring complaints that have been referred to it by the Shire of Busselton. PAPERS TABLED Papers relating to answers to questions on notice were tabled by Hon Kim Chance (Leader of the House) and Hon Sue Ellery (Minister for Child Protection). FIONA STANLEY HOSPITAL CONSTRUCTION ACCOUNT BILL 2007 Second Reading Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting. HON GEORGE CASH (North Metropolitan) [5.42 pm]: Before question time, I was discussing in part some of the inconsistencies and confusion that have emanated from various media statements made by the government about the Fiona Stanley Hospital at Murdoch over a period of years. In the first example, I referred to a statement made by the then Premier, Dr Geoff Gallop, on 30 January 2005 in which he referred to plans to build a 1 000-bed hospital in the suburb of Murdoch adjacent to St John of God Hospital. He indicated that an amount of $420 million had been allocated to that cause and that the hospital was expected to be opened in 2007. Nine months later, on 21 September 2005, a media statement appeared from the Minister for Health, Hon Jim McGinty, MLA, in which the concept of the Fiona Stanley Hospital had been changed from a 1 000-bed hospital that was to open in 2007 to the Gallop government allocating $742 million to build the Fiona Stanley Hospital. He said that the Fiona Stanley Hospital was due to open in 2011 and, more than that, that it was to have 610 beds by 2011 and 1 058 beds by 2015. I cannot possibly understand how a hospital can change from a 1 000-bed hospital due to open in 2007, as announced by Premier Gallop in January 2005, to a 610-bed hospital due to open in 2011 and a 1 058-bed hospital by 2015. However, things got worse. On 19 December 2006, about 15 months after Mr McGinty had issued that confusing statement - that is, a confusing statement that was inconsistent with the one made by Dr Geoff Gallop - Mr McGinty said that the government intended to allocate an additional $350 million to construct the Fiona Stanley Hospital but that it would now have 643 beds. We went from 1 000 beds with Dr Gallop to 610 beds with Mr McGinty on 19 December 2006. However, Mr McGinty indicated in December 2006 that the total funding was $1.1 billion and that the construction was due to start in late 2008 and was scheduled for completion in 2012. It seems to me that the earlier time constraint did not count any longer and that the number of beds and the period in which the hospital would be both commenced and finished were really a matter of political expediency; that is, the government said what it liked at the time, as long as it sounded good to try to convince the community that it was doing something. If there is to be a 643-bed hospital, as announced in December last year by the Minister for Health, and the total funding is to be $1.1 billion, how could Mr McGinty put out a statement on 5 June this year, only three months ago, that the community would have the opportunity to shape - the operative word is “shape” - the design of the new Fiona Stanley Hospital? It seems to me that if the design is still to be shaped, the cost of $1.1 billion is surely a very rubbery figure. The media statements obviously indicate that the number of beds is changing, and I have said that I believe that that is because of political expediency. However, the cost itself in economic parlance seems to be very elastic. The government has picked a number and that will do; it sounds pretty good and that is the number it will use for the time being. As part of the committee stage of this bill or, indeed, in the second reading response of the minister responsible for this bill, the government has to tell us how many beds will be accommodated in the Fiona Stanley Hospital. I acknowledge that there is to be a stage 1 and a stage 2 and that the number of beds will be different for stages 1 and 2. However, we would like to know how many beds will be guaranteed. Given the inconsistency of the media statements that have been made in the past few years, I would also like to know what the construction period will be. If we know the construction period, we will be able to get a rough idea of a possible date for the Fiona Stanley Hospital to be opened. However, given that only a few months ago Mr McGinty talked about the community being involved in shaping the design of the hospital, I would like to know what will be the actual cost of the hospital. Is this $1.1 billion that we have been talking about just a figure that has been plucked out of the air and is now a figure of convenience, or is it the cost of stage 1 of the Fiona Stanley Hospital? The bill refers to setting aside a round figure of $1.1 billion. I would like the minister to also indicate to me where it is shown in the budget papers that the figure of $1.1 billion will be transferred into that special account if and when this bill is passed. I have all my budget papers with me, so all the minister has to do is tell me which page it is on, and I am happy to look it up. I can see a number of references to $1.1 billion over a period of years, but

5046 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] there does not appear to be a specific amount being transferred from the general consolidated account to this special purpose account. I am interested in that. It may be argued that that is an administrative matter because it is a transfer of funds, and that once the special account is established, it is an internal matter. However, I would like to know the position on that. I guess the community is entitled to ask where the $1.1 billion came from. However, before I deal with that, I say to the minister that when she is preparing an answer to the question about the actual cost - or should I use the term “anticipated cost” - please remember the Perth-Mandurah railway line, which the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure told us was going to cost $1.2 billion and is now up to around $1.7 billion. Is that right, Hon Simon O’Brien? Hon Simon O’Brien: Who knows where it’s going to end. Hon GEORGE CASH: The reason I ask my colleague Hon Simon O’ Brien is that - Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Ye of little faith. Hon GEORGE CASH: Ye of little faith? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Yes, to Hon Simon O’Brien’s comment, “Who knows where it’s going to end.” Hon GEORGE CASH: I can tell the minister that she would do well to read Hon Simon O’Brien’s press release in his capacity as shadow Minister for Commerce and Trade; Works and Services; Disability Services dated 2 February 2006 under the heading “Rail litigation to put Alannah in history books”. In February 2006, about 20 months ago, or thereabouts, Hon Simon O’ Brien pointed out very clearly that the cost of the Perth- Mandurah rail project had already blown out by in excess of $360 million on its original price of $1.2 billion. He referred to the comments Alannah MacTiernan made in March 2004 when she was singing the praises of the joint venture contractors Leighton Kumagai and the success of its design and construction projects in Western Australia. The minister claimed at the time that litigation on big projects had not occurred. She said that - Since 1995, 10 major projects in Western Australia have been completed using this design and construct form of contract. It has an outstanding track record, with all projects completed on time or early, minimal variation in out-turn cost relative to award price and five projects winning industry awards. Not one issue arising from these contracts has resulted in litigation. The reason I suggest that the Minister for Local Government might want to have a look at that press release is that we have seen the Perth-Mandurah rail project blow out considerably over a relatively short period. As my colleague Hon Simon O’Brien said to me in response to my question to him about the current cost of the project, “Who knows? What day of the week is it; what month is it?” because it changes on a very regular basis. Hon Simon O’Brien: The amount of $1.664 billion is the current official estimate, but I predict that it will go considerably higher. Hon GEORGE CASH: Dan Sullivan, our shadow Minister for Health in 2005, predicted a need for additional hospital beds. He was correct at the time and has been proved more correct every day of the week since then, if that is possible. I predict that Hon Simon O’Brien’s suggestion that the price will exceed the current estimate will be an absolute fact as we move towards the litigation that will occur in the courts. I say in passing that, if we had agreed to build the railway line along the alignment that the Court government had agreed to earlier, the Mandurah line would have been finished probably at the end of 2006, but, no, things had to be changed. Hon Alannah MacTiernan had to have it her way, and we have been paying the price ever since. I raise those issues with the minister about the anticipated cost of Fiona Stanley Hospital. I say right now that $1.1 billion for stage 1 is a very rubbery figure. I believe the cost will be considerably more than that by the time stage 1 is completed, notwithstanding about $66 million, based on, say, six per cent of the $1.1 billion capital investment going into the Fiona Stanley construction account each year, will provide some amelioration of cost increases. However, they will never keep up with current construction cost increases. Where did the $1.1 billion come from? It came from the 2006-07 budget surplus. The minister is going to indicate to me where it is shown in the current budget papers. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: I can give you that now. It is on page 139 of budget paper No 2, volume 1. I just got that out of my head! Hon GEORGE CASH: Now, look what the minister has made me do: I have to stop talking, lean down and get my papers and now it will take some time! The minister should have waited! Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: I was trying to get it to you before the dinner break so that you could read it during dinner.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] 5047

Hon GEORGE CASH: The minister should have been conscious of the fact that I was dealing with other matters! Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: I was trying to be very helpful, honourable member. Hon GEORGE CASH: What was the page number? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Page 139, budget paper No 2, volume 1. Hon GEORGE CASH: Page 139? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: I’m looking for it myself. Hon GEORGE CASH: Does the minister warrant it to be correct? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: It comes with good authority. Hon GEORGE CASH: Does the minister not warrant it herself? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: I am sure it is correct. Hon GEORGE CASH: Page 139 - what is the item number? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: It’s item 138. Hon GEORGE CASH: That is correct. It is an amount of $1 088 585 000. Is that right? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: I think so. Hon GEORGE CASH: The minister thinks so! Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: I haven’t got to that page. Hon GEORGE CASH: Given that it is a fair amount of money, would the minister like to tell me whether it is right or wrong? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: I am too busy giving you the instruction and assistance; therefore, I am not quite up to you. Hon GEORGE CASH: I am calling that figure out; is the minister telling me that it is the correct figure? Am I reading the right figure? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Well, I think you are, yes - $1.09 billion. Hon GEORGE CASH: The minister thinks she is. What about checking her papers and telling me. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Hang on; I’m trying to find the right volume. Hon GEORGE CASH: Let me tell the minister where it is. It is on page 139 and it is item 138! Hon Simon O’Brien: She’s not much good at organising a driver’s test either. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: I do not have volume 2 with me, so there you go - after all that! Hon GEORGE CASH: No wonder the minister said to me, “I think you’re right.” Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: I have it here now. It is $1 088 585 000. That is the one. Hon GEORGE CASH: That is helpful. We have made some progress. We now know that $1.1 billion is on page 139 of volume 1 of the Budget Statements. If the minister reads the budget papers, she will see where the money came from, because it has come from over-taxation, but the word “over-taxation” does not appear in the budget papers. What appears is the word “surplus”. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: That’s right. Hon GEORGE CASH: In 2001-02, in the Court government years, there was a surplus of $197 million. That means that the government spent almost as much as it received, and it was not, in effect, over-taxing the community. The current government came to office in 2001, and it obviously framed the 2002-03 budget. The 2002-03 surplus increased to $254 million. That was still in the region of the surplus that eventuated from the budget that the Court government had framed. For 2003-04, the budget surplus was $799 million, which was a very significant jump - an increase on the previous year’s surplus of about half a billion dollars. However, not to be outdone, for the 2004-05 financial year the Treasurer saw that over-taxation result in a surplus of $1.192 billion - about half a billion on top of the surplus for the year before, which was half a billion on top of the surplus for the year before that. If we were in the business of buying lotto tickets for the financial year 2005-06, the bonus draw would be $2.610 billion. That is 13 times the Court government’s budget surplus prior to its leaving office. This financial year just ended, the budget surplus was estimated in the budget papers to be $2.265 billion. That is a fair amount of over-taxation, is it not? I am glad the minister is at least acknowledging it by nodding her head.

5048 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007]

Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: No; hang on! Surpluses are not just in relation to taxing. They are revenues derived from a whole range of sources. What do you expect from a booming economy? Hon GEORGE CASH: I see. What does the minister think taxation is? Does she think it appears on the revenue side or the expenditure side? It actually appears on the revenue side. It is a booming economy. Is that the excuse? My argument is that over-taxation can occur notwithstanding a stagnant economy or a booming economy. It can occur if we do not adjust the revenues we are receiving. For instance, the government could reduce stamp duty on houses; it could reduce land tax. Hon Ken Baston: They could abolish them. Hon GEORGE CASH: Yes, it could, Hon Ken Baston. The Minister for Local Government can say, “Well, the excuse for the surplus is that we have a booming economy.” However, that is not managing the economy. Sitting suspended from 6.00 to 7.30 pm Hon GEORGE CASH: Before the dinner break, I indicated that the government proposes, by way of this bill, to establish an account known as the Fiona Stanley Hospital construction account. The purpose of the account is to receive the $1.1 billion, or thereabouts, that is shown in the budget papers and is earmarked for the construction of Fiona Stanley Hospital out at Murdoch. I indicated that the government was able to transfer this $1.1 billion to the proposed account because of the massive surpluses that it has managed to achieve as a result of over-taxation in the past few years. For 2006-07, the most recent financial year, the estimated surplus for the government is $2.265 billion; a huge amount of money in anyone’s business. I might say that that is not the end of it, because for 2007-08 - that is, this current financial year - the government estimates that it will have a surplus of $1.453 billion. If members look at the budget papers for the past four or five years, they will see that the projected surplus is often underestimated. I would anticipate that the current estimated surplus of $1.453 billion for 2007-08 will probably, again, be an underestimation. Having achieved a surplus in 2006-07 of $2.265 billion, the government obviously had to work out just what it would do with it. A number of options were available to the government: it could apply the funds by way of debt reduction, to additional general infrastructure or perhaps by targeting a specific project - whichever option the government believed would give it the best political mileage and, obviously, that was the one selected. If members look at reduction of state debt, an alternative option that was available to the government, they will be aware that the 2006-07 estimates in the latest budget papers show that the current public sector net debt is $4.208 billion. That debt attracts interest. Because the government has received the $4.208 billion over time and interest rates have changed, clearly, the average interest rate would have to be worked out. However, if we assume that the interest rate is about six per cent, that would mean that the $1.1 billion that is to be set aside here would attract interest of about $66 million a year. The option of reducing debt is an option that I thought the government may have considered. We know that for 2006-07, net debt was $4.208 billion. Net debt is projected to rise in 2007-08, the current financial year, to $5.799 billion - an increase of about $1.5 billion. For 2008-09, net debt is expected to rise again to $7.199 billion, in 2009-10 to $7.645 billion, and current estimates indicate that by 2010-11, total public sector net debt will be $8.191 billion. The accounts show us that the government intends for a significant increase in net debt to occur over the next few years, and the opportunity was clearly available to it to reduce the current debt by $1.1 billion. I acknowledge that in reducing current net debt, some additional costs may be incurred as a consequence of early discharge. Those costs would obviously have to be factored in, and the interest saving that would be available would clearly be dependent on the prevailing rate for the $1.1 billion that was discharged. It is also fair to say that had the option of debt reduction been followed by the government, in due course Fiona Stanley Hospital would have required debt financing for its construction. However, it is a question of opportunity cost and what can be achieved as the optimum level of benefits, so to speak, given current conditions. The proposition of putting $1.1 billion aside as a lump sum payment for stage 1 of the Fiona Stanley Hospital is, in the end, a subjective issue, in so much as some people would favour the $1.1 billion to be spread across a number of infrastructure projects, rather than all of it being put into the one proposition. From my perspective, I am astounded at the lack of productive infrastructure being funded by this government. I believe that with the massive surpluses that the government has achieved in recent years - it is fair to say that the government is almost drowning in these surplus funds, which have very much come as a consequence of over-taxation - there have been huge opportunities for infrastructure projects to be funded across the state. I am talking in the main about productive infrastructure, particularly ports. There are classic examples along the coast of ships queuing up, so to speak, because there are inadequate port facilities, and there was a huge opportunity in that area. I also believe that in helping to fund productive infrastructure, the government has an opportunity to kick-start various projects, which would in turn encourage private capital to follow in the financing of various major projects. However, I have to qualify what I am saying by acknowledging that not for one moment do I suggest that there is no need for a major tertiary hospital south of the river. It is very obvious, given the changing

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] 5049 demographics and the major residential developments that are occurring and are planned for south of the river, that a hospital the size of Fiona Stanley Hospital is needed. However, there is an argument that rather than ploughing all this money as a lump sum into one project, Fiona Stanley Hospital, the opportunity exists right now, and has existed for some time, for the government to spend a significant amount of its surpluses on opening more hospital beds to deal with the current critical situation in Western Australia. I made the point earlier that only last weekend, ambulances were queuing at the major hospitals in metropolitan Perth. That was not because the emergency departments could not cope with the inflow of patients, but because the emergency departments could not move those persons who had been admitted to the emergency departments on to permanent beds within the hospital system. We read every day about how medical practitioners and others associated with the medical profession are pleading for the government to spend more money to open more beds in our current hospitals. In the end, I guess the question to be asked on behalf of the taxpayers who have provided the government with this $1.1 billion is: could these funds have been applied to provide greater economic and social benefit to the people of Western Australia? That is a subjective argument, and everyone will have his or her own view on it. There has been some conjecture about whether, if we did not have this bill, the interest that will accrue on this $1.1 billion could be channelled back to the Fiona Stanley Hospital construction account. I have said that the interest on this account will be the order of $66 million a year. The Financial Management Act 2006 provides that any moneys received from investments is required to be paid into the public bank account and credited to the consolidated account. Hon Nigel Hallett: And bureaucrats will be appointed to take care of that. Hon GEORGE CASH: Yes. The bill makes provision for the public service to maintain the account, so to speak. Section 37 of the Financial Management Act states in part - (1) The Treasurer may invest any money standing to the credit of the Public Bank Account in a manner prescribed by the regulations. We discussed the scope of these investments when we debated the Financial Management Act last year. Section 38 of the Financial Management Act is headed “Proceeds of investment by Treasurer”, and it states in part - (2) Money received from investment in repayment of principal is to be paid into the Public Bank Account. . . . (3) Subject to this section, money received from investment is to be paid into the Public Bank Account and credited to the Consolidated Account. That provision is very interesting. It states also - (5) The Treasurer may make and give effect to a determination that provides for money received from investment - (a) to be credited to one or more special purpose accounts specified in the determination; or (b) to be paid to one or more statutory authorities or other persons specified in the determination, at the rate determined by the Treasurer and specified in the determination. Normally we would expect that subsection (5) would be sufficient to allow the Treasurer to make a determination in respect of the transfer of certain funds. The problem is that section 38 goes on to provide as follows - (7) Subsection (5) does not apply in relation to the investment of public money held in a special purpose account unless another written law provides, either expressly or by implication, that income derived from that public money is to be credited to the special purpose account. That is the nub of the issue that we are dealing with today. That is the reason that in question time today, I asked about the application of certain funds. I asked, first - (1) Do the current provisions of the Financial Management Act 2006 prohibit the Treasurer from establishing a Treasurer’s special purpose account styled the Fiona Stanley Hospital construction account?

5050 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007]

The answer to that question was - (1) No. That was answer that I expected, because it is clear that that ability exists. I then asked - (2) Having established such a special purpose account, is there a further prohibition on any interest earned on the principal amount in the special purpose account being applied to that special purpose account? The answer to that question was - (2) Yes. Section 38(7) of the Financial Management Act 2006 prohibits interest on the investment of public money held in a special purpose account being credited to that account unless an appropriation act or another written law provides otherwise. I then asked - (3) In the past 10 years has any money received from the investment of funds held in a Treasurer’s special purpose account been credited to the specific Treasurer’s special purpose account as a consequence of an implication in a written law rather than by an express provision; and, if so, will the Treasurer provide details? The answer to that question was - (3) The Department of Treasury and Finance is not aware of any such examples. That does not say that it has not happened. It says that the Department of Treasury and Finance is not aware of any such examples. That highlights the fact that section 38(7) of the Financial Management Act 2006 raises that prohibition. The government is arguing that as a consequence of that prohibition, it is necessary to introduce this bill to create an account into which any interest that is earned on the capital can be paid. This is a relatively short bill. However, as with all bills, the words are very significant. I have read out the long title of the bill. The short title of the bill is found in clause 1, and it is very simple - This is the Fiona Stanley Hospital Construction Account Act 2007. Clause 2 deals with the commencement of the act and states - This act comes into operation as follows: (a) sections 1 and 2 - on the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent; (b) the rest of the Act - on the day after that day. The Leader of the House has provided an explanation to the house of why parliamentary counsel has changed the form of the commencement clause in some recent bills. Clause 3 defines three terms that are used in this bill. The first definition states - “Account” means the Fiona Stanley Hospital Construction Account established under section 4. I think that is reasonably clear. The second definition states - “establishment” includes the provision or installation of finishes, fixtures, fittings and equipment; That is interesting, because the long title of the bill is as follows - A Bill for an Act to establish a Treasurer’s special purpose account called the Fiona Stanley Hospital Construction Account for the purposes of the construction and establishment of the Fiona Stanley Hospital, and for related purposes. Therefore we know that “establishment” in the long title is to have the meaning set out in clause 3. However, if the meaning of “establishment” in clause 3 is limited to “includes the provision or installation of finishes, fixtures, fittings and equipment”, it is fair to ask: does “establishment” also include the use of the funds for the purchase of land for the hospital? I raise that because it is proposed that the government will purchase certain land adjoining the proposed Fiona Stanley Hospital site at Murdoch from the St John of God Health Care hospital group. In due course I will ask the minister how much is proposed to be paid for that land and how many square metres are involved. The point I am making at this stage is whether “establishment” can be said to include the purchase of land when it is limited to mean “includes the provision or installation of finishes, fixtures, fittings and equipment”, items that we would normally associate with the word “construction”. I am talking about the construction of the hospital. Clause 3 also refers to a hospital. The third definition in clause 3 states - “Fiona Stanley Hospital” means the hospital referred to in section 4(1).

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] 5051

Clause 4(1) - which will be section 4(1) in the act - states - A Treasurer’s special purpose account called the Fiona Stanley Hospital Construction Account is established under the Financial Management Act 2006 section 10 for the purposes of the construction and establishment of a hospital. We have worked out what “establishment” means. However, I referred earlier to some inconsistencies, and indeed confusion, in the media statements that had been issued by the government about this particular hospital. I said that the then Premier Geoff Gallop talked about 600 beds. Later the Minister for Health talked about 610 beds and later 640 or so beds. It appears to me that it would be appropriate to ensure that this money is directed towards the establishment and construction of, say, stage 1 of the hospital at least, and that perhaps there should be a specific requirement that the hospital should have no fewer than, say, 600 beds or some other agreed amount. Otherwise, it seems to me that there is nothing in the bill that states the size of the hospital. However, more than that, as much as we all understand that Fiona Stanley Hospital is to be constructed in the suburb of Murdoch, as has been pointed out to me by my colleague Hon Nigel Hallett, there is nothing in this bill that will prevent Fiona Stanley Hospital from being built in Wiluna or some other place. If we are to establish an account that will hold $1.1 billion in the first instance, the very least we can do is specify that the money will be used for the construction of a certain number of beds and that the location is to be on the land that was described in the answer to a question I asked a few weeks ago about the site at Murdoch. That appears to me to be a not unreasonable request. I have said that there was not a special construction account for the Perth-Mandurah railway, the proposed Binningup desalination plant, the Kwinana desalination plant or Meekatharra District Hospital or other hospitals around the state. In that regard, the government acknowledges that this is a very significant commitment. However, clause 4, headed “Fiona Stanley Hospital Construction Account”, states in subclause (4) - The money standing to the credit of the Account may be applied by the Treasurer for the purposes of, - I intercede to say “may” is a discretion provided to the Treasurer; it is not an obligation or an express requirement - and only for the purposes of, the construction and establishment of the Fiona Stanley Hospital. It has been suggested to me by a number of my colleagues that there is a need to amend subclause (4) to at least provide words that would give effect to stage 1, which is to comprise no fewer than 600 beds, or some agreed figure, and that there be a specific reference to the location of the hospital. That, surely, is not asking too much. Hon Norman Moore: And perhaps some sort of date by which it should happen. Hon GEORGE CASH: The next thing that the Leader of the Opposition suggests is that some time-certain provision be included in the bill; that is, that construction should commence no later than an agreed date, and that stage 1, which must be defined in respect of the number of beds that are to comprise stage 1, should have some sort of end date by which time the construction is expected to be completed. It is difficult, especially in today’s environment, to be very clear on just when this hospital will be completed. We have already seen that with the Perth-Mandurah railway and other large construction projects. The pressure on the market at the moment, due, as the minister would say, to a booming economy, is pushing out completion dates. I acknowledge some of the difficulties involved in stipulating specific times, but it seems to me that if the Parliament is being invited to agree that this $1.1 billion should be put into a specific account for a specific hospital, at the very least we should be specific about the number of beds, and indeed specific about the location. The minister may wish to comment on the completion dates so that there is some understanding that the money will be spent, because this bill in its present form does no more than create an account; it does not authorise the building of the hospital. It says that once the building commences, payments can be made out of this account for the construction, but it does not direct anyone to build the hospital and it certainly does not direct anybody to do it in any specific time. Clause 5 of the bill relates to a comment that Hon Nigel Hallett made earlier; that is, subclause (2) states - For the purposes of the Financial Management Act 2006 section 52, the administration of the Account is to be regarded as a service under the control of the department of the Public Service principally assisting in the administration of this Act. That is so that people will be required to do certain things in accordance with the Financial Management Act. Again, in clause 6 there is an argument that says there should be some statement about whether it is dealing with stage 1 or stage 2. Clause 6, headed “Closure of Account and expiry of Act”, states in part - (1) When the Treasurer is satisfied that the construction and establishment of the Fiona Stanley Hospital have been completed, the Treasurer is to direct that any money standing to the credit of the Account be credited to the Consolidated Account.

5052 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007]

We would agree that there must be some terminating clause in respect of the money in the account. However, the bill does not refer to stage 1 or stage 2. One assumes that at the moment this is not a short-term account and that it is not designed just for stage 1, but that it is an account that can receive money over a period of time and, no doubt, will include funding for stage 1 and, one presumes, rather than assumes, stage 2 as well. However, that is something that the minister will be able to advise us on in due course. Hon Nigel Hallett: We might have the Burke and Grill consultancy team. Hon GEORGE CASH: Yes. I make the following points for the minister. There is no reference in this bill to the number of beds in stage 1 or stage 2. I ask; is the bill intended to relate to both stage 1 and stage 2, or just stage 1? I have raised issues in respect of the word “establishment”, and I ask: how does land fit into the interpretation of the word “establishment” when that word is intended to mean “finishes, fixtures and equipment”? I asked the minister to provide some detail of the proposed purchase of certain land from the St John of God hospital group. The other issue I am interested in is for the minister to say how much has been spent to date, and which account has been debited for the work that has been carried out to date and paid for. Three weeks ago, when I discussed this bill with the parliamentary secretary who introduced it and made the second reading speech, I was told, soon after it came in, that we had to deal with the bill as a matter of urgency because it was believed that work could not continue on the Fiona Stanley Hospital planning, I assume, because it is not being constructed at this stage, as there would not be any money if this account were not established. I said to the parliamentary secretary at that time, “If that is your advice from Treasury, please get Treasury to ring me, because that is not true.” Money has already been expended, and it is not coming out of an account that has not been established. The parliamentary secretary was good enough to come back the next day and say there appeared to be some mistake: it was not a case of accounts not being able to be paid; it was a case of wanting to expedite the bill. Had the argument been that the account was losing in excess of $1 million a week in interest because it had not been established, that would have been a reasonable proposition, because, technically, the account is to hold about $1.1 billion, and if six per cent interest is earned on the money, it would represent $66 million a year. The reason to expedite the bill was never the inability to pay accounts. Another issue I would like the minister to tell us about when she responds in due course to the second reading debate is the stage we are at with the plans. I raise that because only a few months ago the Minister for Health was inviting the community to come in and, using his word, “shape” the design of the building. The other issue in respect of the purchase of certain land is whether it will be paid for from this construction account. Therefore, a number of issues must be raised in respect of this bill. I said that the opposition does not oppose the bill, but we do not think it is necessary to enable the construction of the account. The opposition acknowledges some uncertainty in relation to the Financial Management Act about transferring interest into a special purpose account if there is no written law in respect of that matter, but that issue has been dealt with. I think the community is entitled to know what is planned in respect of this $1.1 billion, and whether the government has any idea at all what the end cost of this hospital will be, recognising that construction has not yet started. Currently, the health system has some very significant problems that the community is crying out to have addressed, and that I believe could be addressed if part of this money was applied to those particular issues, recognising that any reduction in the $1.1 billion would come out of future surpluses or debt financing into the future. They are the options that we have to consider when looking at expenditure of money relating to the opportunity cost that is imposed as a result of the decisions that are made. With those comments, I look forward to the minister’s response. HON SIMON O’BRIEN (South Metropolitan) [8.05 pm]: The first thing we need to do in considering the Fiona Stanley Hospital Construction Account Bill 2007 is work out the policy behind it. As Hon George Cash pointed out, the opposition is prepared to support this bill, even though, at the same time, he pointed out and demonstrated why there is no need for it. Nonetheless, the opposition can support the bill, and indeed might even be able to improve it a lot. I am sure that Hon George Cash and other members on this side will be able to make a significant and positive contribution during the further stages of this bill. I return to my earlier remark; that is, what is the purpose and policy of this bill? Is it a bill that means we will have a Fiona Stanley Hospital in the southern suburbs? Of course it is not. It is quite irregular for a bill of this nature to be introduced, and although the government has held it up, at least in the public domain, as some sort of guarantee or proof of sincerity that it intends to provide a major new tertiary hospital in the southern suburbs in the future, the fact is that it is nothing of the kind. I noticed just before the last state government election, some trickery attached to the Australian Labor Party’s health policy in relation to hospitals south of the river. One expects a little bit of that sort of to and fro, of course, in the heat of an election campaign, so the record can show that I am not expressing any particular surprise. However, I point that out to the house for its edification, because I am sure members in this place have all seen a bit of humbug displayed in their time, and they know how to recognise it. When members, even government members, in their heart of hearts look at this particular bill, they can all say, “Well, I do know humbug when I see it, and I am looking at it right now.” Hospitals do not

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] 5053 need bills of this nature to guarantee their construction. This bill is a device to cover up the lack of activity on behalf of this government. On the eve of the last state election there was almost a bidding war starting to develop about the number of hospital beds being promised for the south metropolitan region. I recall that one of the hospitals in question was a yet-to-be-named, future major tertiary hospital in the middle of the near south metropolitan region, specifically in the Murdoch area, where this new hospital is proposed to be built. Other hospitals in the mix included Fremantle, which is currently a quasi-tertiary level hospital in the south metropolitan region. Of course, there is also a range of other general hospitals in the region, including the Rockingham-Kwinana District Hospital, Bentley Hospital and so forth. At the time of the state government election, the figures quoted for future bed availability in that part of the world were something I was quite interested in, because it is the region I represent, but it was bemusing to see the shifting promises and shifting quoted bed numbers that were occurring almost every other day from the now Minister for Health and ultimate sponsor of this bill. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Hon Ray Halligan): Order, members! Before the Deputy Leader of the Opposition continues, I ask members on my right to desist with their audible conversation, because they are making it somewhat difficult for me to hear Hon Simon O’Brien. They may also be making it difficult for Hansard to hear. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Members opposite are obviously a little excited. If they wish, I can try to project my voice. The minister with current responsibility for health has given the Western Australian public a changing schedule about how many beds will be provided in this new tertiary hospital and, indeed, the region. As I say, it has been a moveable feast, because a number of different parameters have been varied and bent - I use the word “bent” advisedly - to produce an apparently different outcome without actually changing the reality. Beds and bed numbers are the basic currency in providing public hospital services, but we all know that the system is far more sophisticated and complicated than that. Nonetheless, beds as a unit of currency in this policy argument are the standard to which everyone refers; indeed, people understand that 200 beds are better when it comes to providing services than are 100 beds. A shifting quadratic equation has developed. One day Mr McGinty was talking about a certain number of beds at Fremantle Hospital and a different number of beds at Rockingham-Kwinana District Hospital, which could be added to a different of number of beds at the new Murdoch hospital to produce an overall result. As the campaign progressed over the space of only weeks, these numbers were shifted around quite dramatically. At one point the number of beds projected for the proposed Murdoch public hospital was 600 or 650. About a week later that figure shot up to 900 or 1 000. Of course, there was never any comment from the government about possible offsets, such as a reduction in the number of beds - indeed, some hundreds of beds - at other hospitals around the region. It was all about how many more beds will be provided at Murdoch. People must understand that a bill such as this is part of the ongoing game of shifting mirrors that has been designed to create an impression in the public’s mind. Nothing of substance will actually be delivered. I offer those points in support of the very good contribution made by Hon George Cash. We are very fortunate to have the services of Hon George Cash because when we reach the committee stage, he will be able to make serious proposals that will improve this bill and help the government demonstrate that this is not an exercise in spin but something of substance by way of a guarantee to the people of the South Metropolitan Region and others who rely on the public hospitals system. Hon Ken Baston: And all Western Australians. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Indeed, all Western Australians. I am not forgetting them, Hon Ken Baston. Hon Ken Baston will forgive me for standing here and talking as a member who represents the South Metropolitan Region, because that is the area that surrounds the proposed hospital site. I am also concentrating on the particular proposed hospital countenanced by this bill so that the Deputy President is absolutely confident that I am strictly addressing the bill and the second reading debate and not other matters. Hon George Cash: Hon Ken Baston is hoping it will be built in Wiluna. Hon Norman Moore: We might move an amendment to that effect! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Please do not do that! Hon Norman Moore: Port Hedland might be another option. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I do not think that they want this in Port Hedland. Hon Norman Moore interjected. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Some people have a slightly different view about that story, but I will not go into that now. Hon Norman Moore: I will contemplate an amendment to have it built in Port Hedland.

5054 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007]

Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: This is marvellous! It must be warming the heart of the honourable Minister for Health to see how positively members on this side of the house are offering to chip in their very good ideas to knock the government’s bill into better shape. Mr Vice-President - Hon Norman Moore: That was a Freudian slip. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I am contemplating another bill! Mr Deputy President, the question of what is the substance of the hospital promised by the government and apparently reaffirmed in this bill must be central to our consideration of this matter. This has become such a moveable feast that it is difficult to work out what the reality is. Hon Jim McGinty has a reputation in many circles, both respectfully and disrespectfully, as a shrewd and overly clever tactical politician. I certainly recognise that. I will not indicate whether I do so respectfully or disrespectfully. That depends on the way in which we occasionally do political battle and our encounters with one another . I had to admire his breathtaking ability to be able to con the voters of Western Australia into thinking that he was providing them with something when he was actually providing them with nothing. In late 2004, early 2005 - about the time of the election - the Minister for Health succeeded in conning a majority of the people who are concerned about public health facilities south of the river that he would deliver something when, in fact, the ALP’s plans were rather different. Its immediate plans were to wind down a range of hospital facilities. I refer, for example, to Fremantle Hospital, a centre that has a long-established history of providing medical treatment to people in the community. It has been in existence for well over 100 years. Indeed, I worked there for some time in several capacities many years ago. When a government promises, as this government has done, to build a new hospital, it is not worthwhile spending too much money on existing facilities. They are wound down and, all of a sudden, the immediate need for additional magnetic resonance imaging machines and equipment or new theatres or a refurbishment of certain buildings falls by the wayside. Those things will fall away in priority because the government is putting all its eggs into the wonderful new promised basket at Murdoch. That is the first thing he did. The second thing he has done is to give it a personality. It will not be called simply the Murdoch general hospital, the south of Perth tertiary medical facility, or some such other generic name. For Jim McGinty, it will be called “Fiona Stanley Hospital”. How warm and fuzzy is that? She is a lady well regarded in this town, and I do not need to go into her accomplishments and reputation here. Let us associate her name with this highly political exercise. I do not know what Professor Stanley thinks of that. I have never had the pleasure of making her acquaintance. I do not know where she sits in the political spectrum, and I do not care, but I think it is a cynical action to give this public work the veneer of respectability that will be imparted by her name. It is a very peculiar way of going about things, but it is vintage Jim McGinty. There is no doubt about that. Now, removed as we are from any proximity to state election campaigns, I reserve my biggest slice of open- mouthed recognition of Jim McGinty’s tactics for the final masterstroke. That masterstroke is that we do not know when we will get this hospital. Back in 2004-05 and before, when it was being promised, it was not within cooee. What sort of dates are we talking about for the commencement of this project? Whether the hospital is 600, 700 or 1 200 beds or whatever it is this week, next week or next year, when will the first patient be treated in this hospital? At the time of the election, we were looking at 2017 at the earliest. That is a heck of a long time. Governments come and go during that period. If 2018 or 2019 arrives, and there are no patients in the hospital, its costs have blown out and all the rest of it, and Fremantle is still trying to service the region, overburdened and run down and not having seen a lick of paint in years, what will we do about it then? Will we track the aged Jim McGinty down to some retired politicians’ rest home, or dig him up out of Karrakatta and say “Look, you blithering old bushranger, you were bulldusting us back in 2005, because the hospital is not ready like you said it would be”? That is the genius exercised by Jim McGinty, the political tactical genius, back in 2004-05 - promising this hospital that would not be there next week, in the next term of government, or even in the next decade. Although the time bomb was ticking, the government did not actually have to deliver anything. In fact, it could wind back on a lot of other capital and other commitments elsewhere in the health system by saying that it did not want to waste money on Fremantle or anything, because this marvellous new Fiona Stanley Hospital is in the offing. Members need to understand that. This bill is a further political exercise. I hope Jim has not gone a bit too far, although I think he might have. The Treasurer and some of the Premier’s spin doctors have now got involved, and they are not as clever as Jim McGinty. They have tried to paint this up as some sort of further guarantee. Why do we need a further guarantee? This was all promised back in 2004-05. It is now 2007-08, and do we have any Fiona Stanley Hospital? Of course we do not. Years down the track, not a single brick has been laid. A whole lot of other things have to be done, and I might mention one or two of them in a minute. Hon Norman Moore: They actually have to design it. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: They have to design it, and do all sorts of things. Hon Norman Moore: They are asking for people’s input now, in the design.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] 5055

Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: That is thanks to Hon Ray Halligan’s motion earlier today calling on the government to have more consultation. The Leader of the Opposition hits the nail right on the head by pointing out that many things are still yet to happen before anything is delivered by way of the ultimate outcome for the people. A few years go by, in which everyone says, “ Great idea, we like this hospital - Fiona Stanley Hospital - we love it, we’ll go with that.” Then, a few years later, when the people have absolutely nothing to show for their faith, perhaps the spin doctors in government at the moment decide they should put some gesture to the punters, who are obviously getting a bit restless. The government does not have much good news; it is over-taxing everybody, it has huge budget surpluses, it is getting all sorts of things wrong and expenditure is blowing out in all sorts of ways. Why not then make some hollow gesture about reserving money - this year’s surplus, or is it next year’s surplus, I do not know - Hon Murray Criddle: It doesn’t matter, it’s still a surplus. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Either way, the people buying motor cars and registering them this year are paying for this hospital. The government has tried to go just that extra step now but, without it being pure Jim McGinty - with the involvement of others - it has lost the particular flair that was displayed back in December 2004 and January 2005. I would not blame anyone for being just a little bit cynical about this bill. Nonetheless, the opposition thinks the government should deliver on its promises. We believe the major tertiary hospital is required south of the river, in the Murdoch area. That was our policy at the last state election, so of course we agree with it. What shape will this hospital ultimately have? As the Leader of the Opposition has just reminded us, it has not been designed yet. Hon Norman Moore: Didn’t they show us models and stuff before the last election? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: They did show us models and things before the last election. Hon Norman Moore: Television ads. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: There were television ads and all sorts of things, but we are still a long way from seeing a brick laid. In fact, I do not know that we have had much advance on where we were a few years ago. Hon Norman Moore: I think we might even be a bit further back, because at least back then they had some idea of what it was going to look like. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: They also might have had some idea of what it might cost. I imagine that there have already been some cost blow-outs. The Minister for Health can sit there and chuckle, because when the thing finally does come online, he sure as hell will not be the Minister for Health. He will be off in some retired pollies’ home somewhere. Hon Anthony Fels: Sunset hospital. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Possibly Sunset hospital. In fact, I like that idea. Let us put an amendment in this bill about guaranteeing the future of Sunset hospital. I remind members of the original purpose of the Sunset hospital. I think it was intended as an old alcoholic reprobates’ refuge. Is that not how it was described? Hon Norman Moore: An old men’s depot. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: An old men’s depot. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: You could move an amendment to that effect. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: We might just do that. I am glad the minister is keen for me to do that. Hon Kim Chance: You might want to speak to the member for Nedlands first. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I have learnt things from Jim McGinty, Hon Kim Chance. The thought had crossed my mind! Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: She’s your good mate. You should do her a favour. Hon Norman Moore: I think half the Labor Party would be happy to see Jim McGinty in Sunset hospital - like tomorrow! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I can just picture an image of bliss out there on a chair on the lawn at Sunset in future. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: You and Sue Walker together. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: No, I was thinking of Jim and Sue together. It would serve them both right! The honourable the minister is trying to stop me from addressing the bill directly, and that is naughty of her, so I will bring myself back on track before the Deputy President (Hon Ray Halligan) does. As I said, this is a bill that the opposition will support. Our lead speaker has already indicated that. We have no choice but to go along with it. As Hon George Cash, I think, put it, it is supportable but quite unnecessary. However, maybe we can build some value into it - all members of the house working together to add value to what would otherwise be an

5056 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] empty and hollow piece of legislation. Perhaps we can do that. These are all things that we will have to explore during the committee stage. However, I want to place on record my observations of the cynical way in which the health beds bidding war has been developing in recent times. I will conclude by referring to another issue, this time north of the river, and not that far as the crow flies from the Sunset hospital site, but certainly a world away. I was down at the QEII Medical Centre some little while ago pursuing inquiries about the future of traffic management and other transport considerations in that district when the QEII site is redeveloped. I mention this to draw the parallel with the bill currently before us, and I will come back and conclude with that comparison. However, looking at the real example of what is happening in the QEII medical precinct, my concern was raised when it was pointed out to me that there would be an expanded Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital on that site. I think just over 100 beds will be added in the next few years, so that will be a certain increase in the demands placed on transport infrastructure in that area, plus this government proposes to relocate to that site all of Princess Margaret Hospital for Children and all the functions, bed numbers and so on of King Edward Memorial Hospital for Women. Together with what is already there, plus a range of other tertiary functions and related activities in that whole precinct, we are looking at a heck of a lot of people travelling in and out of that area every day, particularly staff, because, of course, staff all come and go at least once a day, five times a week, typically. Although there is shift work, there are some very definite peak times, and the prospect of thousands of people having to go in and out of a location every day is of serious concern for transport planning from the point of view of parking, road access, public transport links and the like. Therefore, I can understand why people were concerned and asked me to go down to look at that site. We had the benefit of the advice of senior officers from the Department of Health in the north metropolitan area, and we discovered that in fact there was not going to be a sudden explosion of bed numbers and staff numbers from those relocated hospitals on that site at any time in the near future - at any time at all. It will be almost a generation or so before any of these things are actually completed, much less the totality of it completed. I wonder whether 20 years from now we will look back and say that there was a proposal for this to happen, but it did not work out that way. Who knows? Governments come and go. In that example I found a metaphor. I went there thinking that we would suddenly see maybe 700 or 800 extra beds’ worth of expansion on that one site in the next few years, and I found that, no, the timetable was far longer than that. Therefore, now when I look at the Murdoch proposal, I see just the same thing, whereby people are promised and expect a large tertiary hospital there at some time in the near future, but they are not going to get it at any time in the near future. I believe people will be increasingly disappointed when they realise that they were dudded to some extent if they thought they were about to receive this new hospital in the wake of the 2005 election. It certainly worked for the Australian Labor Party in 2005; I do not know whether people will swallow the same line in 2009. I do not think people are that patient when their hopes are built up and then they find that in fact there is no immediate prospect of receiving the things that they were promised. I do not want to hold up the progress of the bill unnecessarily, so I will conclude my remarks. However, I think I have made it abundantly clear to the government that, although we are all concerned about hospital numbers and so on, we are not very impressed with the way the government is handling itself and this issue. In fact, I think I have made it pretty clear that I believe the government has tried to be a bit too clever by half in how it goes about this. The government may have fooled a lot of people in 2005, but I do not know whether it can keep fooling them with the same story year after year. However, that is something for the government to find out, and that is a sword that it might well fall on. I am sure I wish the government all the best, and we will find out. HON KEN BASTON (Mining and Pastoral) [8.37 pm]: When I first picked up the Fiona Stanley Hospital Construction Account Bill 2007, I thought it was very simple; it was only a few pages. I read through it, and I was surprised that so few pages could perhaps lead to such disappointment. The Fiona Stanley Hospital construction account is really just a special purpose account to lock up funds and to allow the interest on those funds to go back into that account. I guess that was alluded to today when Hon George Cash asked a question in the house - question without notice 770- about whether that interest could be put back into the account without this bill. Of course, the answer was that it could not be. Therefore, in that case, it is a savings account. It is a savings account for what? It is a savings account to build a promised hospital that is badly needed, and I do not deny that. However, I find it an amazing way of doing business to lock up an amount of this size - that is, $1.09 billion - until the hospital is built or to attribute it to the hospital as it is built. If any other asset of this magnitude were to be built, the government would borrow the funds and use other cash funds. For instance, to take a figure, some $500 million may be put aside; that is, 50 per cent up-front. The other $590 million could be utilised to bring up to speed the other health services throughout this state. If the government did not want to spend the money on health services, there are plenty of other things it could spend it on. This could be called a social dividend, because where did this funding come from? It came from the surplus, and as Hon George Cash has mentioned, it could be construed as over-taxation. It is a budget surplus for this state of a magnitude of some $2.06 billion, of which $1.09 billion is being set aside for the Fiona Stanley Hospital account. I have spoken

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] 5057 about many health issues in this house. One of those issues is a very small one that would be solved with a minuscule amount of this funding. I refer to the building of a new nursing post in the Mt Magnet area. This is a town that sits on a crossroads and the nursing post is very important for when there are accidents in the area. There are other areas into which this funding could be put. The Mt Magnet Nursing Post is just one small example of what is needed in regional areas. The government is, from memory, putting some $42 million into a hospital in Broome. It is interesting how many phone calls I receive from nursing staff, asking where in Broome they can stay. It is not just about building bricks and mortar; it is about actually making sure that the other infrastructure includes accommodation etc to ensure the hospital operates properly and is serviceable for the communities of regional areas. Under my plan, the government would have an extra $500 million to spend around the state, and it could do some commendable things that would be noticed by people. Hon Simon O’Brien alluded to the fact that in 2004-05, people thought the proposed hospital was fantastic, but they may not think so when they see nothing but a growing, locked-up bank account - a bank account locked up by a bill that will become an act once it passes through Parliament. Hon George Cash alluded to the fact that some of this funding could perhaps be spent on ports. I would certainly have to agree with that. There is a lot of infrastructure that needs upgrading. An example is the Broome port. I have asked questions in this house about this before. I am well aware of the infrastructure there. The pipes used to supply water to the drilling rigs of the present resource boom are too small to deliver the water. When other players appear, such as Inpex Holdings and Woodside Petroleum, there will be waiting periods at the port. These are planning matters that need to be put into infrastructure. Why would the government lock up such a large amount of money when it has these other needs as well? It could still build the hospital; there will be further income next year and the year after. It will take time to build this hospital; it therefore does not make sense to lock up all the funding. An interesting example was alluded to in the second reading speech. Hon Kate Doust, the parliamentary secretary representing the Treasurer, stated - Debt-free funding of Fiona Stanley Hospital follows last year’s decision to use the 2005-06 surplus to pay off all debt for the New MetroRail project. In the past week I saw an article in the press in which it was reported that an estimated further $50 million was needed for that railway line. At the time it seemed great, and I think I said in this house that more than $1 billion was to be set aside to make the construction debt free, and that it would save - in my recollection - some $35 million in interest alone. We are still putting in money, and nobody knows for how much longer this will continue. Is that the way to go? I think I said at the time that I would also extend that asset over a longer period, and have the funding amortised out. I touched on the issue of nursing staff. Other issues include police stations and law and order. The state government is closing police stations. It is interesting that only in the past week, a police station was closed at Gascoyne Junction. Schools are opening in the region, and there is Indigenous housing and a hotel. That is a recipe for another Fitzroy Crossing, yet the government has closed the police station. I have been told that it is because the infrastructure of that police station is not good enough. I find that quite amazing. I would maybe spend some of the funding in this quarantined account on that police station. Another example is the delay of the proposed Ord stage 2. That project needs government funding for infrastructure in the order of $100 million. Maybe that could have gone ahead; maybe we could have actually had some productivity for our investment, and built up a sustainable agricultural industry at the same time, while still having enough income from resources to pay for the Fiona Stanley Hospital on a year-by-year basis. Hon George Cash asked whether it was necessary to have a bill for the railway line; apparently it was not. Was it necessary to have a bill for the desalination plant? Apparently not. Why is this bill so necessary? I have to say that this bill appears to be an exercise in which the government has set funding aside and has then put it up in lights. The government is actually saying, “We are going to build a hospital; we have locked up this funding to build this hospital.” There is no mention made of the demise of other health services on which part of this funding could have been spent to ease the pressures we read about every day in the paper - the waiting lists etc. I find that a little abhorrent. The only reason I can think of for the government’s putting everything away into a savings account such as this is that it does not trust itself to be able to work out its accountability in putting a certain amount of money aside and having funds to pay out money each year. It does not trust itself to be able to do that; therefore it just takes the surplus. Alternatively, is it just that it wants to say, “We haven’t got any funding to spend on other health issues, because we’ve locked it up for one asset,” in the same way that it did with the railway line? The opposition’s lead speaker has already said that we will support this bill, but I find it very interesting that this large amount of funding will be locked up for one specific purpose. I also find it interesting - I guess these are questions the opposition will ask - that according to clause 4(3)(b), the interest on this account will be

5058 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] determined by the Treasurer. I will obviously ask this question later, but does the Treasurer determine the actual interest rate? Is it in the Treasurer’s interest to keep that interest rate low so that there is not too much extra money being built up in that account? I find that quite interesting. As I said before, I made notes when I was reading this bill some weeks ago. It seems that it is meant to lock up the interest and to lock up the account. It appears to me that it is a “lock up” rather than a bill. Hon George Cash raised an interesting point regarding the establishment of the hospital, including the installation of fittings and equipment. He asked whether it included the land. I am interested to hear about what land has been set aside. What is the cost of the land? The other interesting point is where it is going to be built and when construction will start and finish. They are all questions that need to be answered, but not in debate on this bill. I realise that this is just an account bill to freeze the money for one specific purpose. I find it very unusual that that much money would be frozen when there is such a need for a social dividend elsewhere in the state. I will finish by saying that I find it a little disappointing that this bill is even necessary. I thought that the government would be better organised to handle its finances in a manner that allowed other assets to be built that would benefit all of the state, particularly in areas where much of the surplus was generated. Hon Murray Criddle finished his speech by saying that the government should not forget about the bush. The government should not forget about the area where so much of this funding is created. Only the other day I was on Barrow Island looking at the Gorgon and Pluto projects. Yes, it will be a while before they come on stream, but because of all those projects - including iron ore - the government of the day will be assured of huge royalties to come. Hon Kim Chance: The federal government. Hon KEN BASTON: I mentioned gas and iron ore and then I corrected myself. Hon Kim Chance: And 90 per cent of the iron ore royalties also. Don’t forget that. Hon KEN BASTON: There is still a huge cash flow coming into this state. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: It is nowhere near the same; we get a small fraction of what the commonwealth gets, and you know it. You should know it. An opposition member: What does the government do with the money it gets now? Hon KEN BASTON: It locks it up. The cash flow is continuing. That is the point I am trying to get to. Therefore, the government cannot lock up the entire $1 billion. It will continue to invest that money and it will then have more income. HON NIGEL HALLETT (South West) [8.52 pm]: I will make a few brief comments on the Fiona Stanley Hospital Construction Account Bill in line with previous speakers. Although having been in this place only a short time, I find it an unusual piece of legislation. Looking back through history, I have not seen where this type of legislation has been presented before. However, I stand to be corrected if it has been, but I have found no evidence for it. Some members of Parliament treat the bill as an insult to the people of Western Australia. From the opposition’s point of view, it is a waste of parliamentary time. The view that can be taken of the bill is that it is probably a sign that the government does not trust itself with the amount of money it has in its coffers today. Hon Simon O’Brien: I don’t trust the government with it. Hon NIGEL HALLETT: A lot of people do not trust the government. It is interesting to see that the Treasurer does not trust himself. Unlike for previous projects, why have the funds not gone into consolidated revenue? Normally for capital projects the money is drawn on over time. I agree with Hon Ken Baston that there are many projects around the state that we should get going now with the $1 billion-odd that will be sitting in an account, because there are predictions of a strong economy over the next five to 10 years. As a result, the state would be earning far more money. Instead of saying to the federal government that the state wants more money back, the state would be growing in an unprecedented manner. Members of the other house said that the bill was a stunt or a nonsense or a farce. Those comments were levelled against this Fiona Stanley Hospital Construction Account Bill. One phrase that I would use is that it is potentially a very deceitful piece of legislation. What is this bill trying to achieve? It will create a special purpose account. Clause 4(1) states that it is - . . . for the purposes of the construction and establishment of a hospital. There is no definition of the type and size of the hospital. I will return to that point in a moment. Clause 4(4) states that the hospital will be the Fiona Stanley Hospital. As mentioned by Hon George Cash, the bill does not state where the hospital will be built. That leaves a lot of room for concern. When the Treasurer is satisfied that the construction and establishment of the Fiona Stanley Hospital has been completed, he will then credit the consolidated account with any surplus money. I can tell members that there will not be any surplus money. History will show that. We did not have a bill for the Peel deviation. The cost

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] 5059 of that project has gone from roughly $150 million to $650 million. We did not have a bill for the southern railway line. The minister cannot give us a pretty close estimation of where the cost of that is going. It has gone out by in excess of half a billion dollars. I can go on and on. This government has the slogan of “on time and on budget”, but I do not know where it is going to go with the Fiona Stanley Hospital. We may finish up with a two-bedroom hospital in Eucla - that will be on time and on budget! As such, the government would not be breaching the act; it would be doing what the act says. The use of land has been touched on. How much land is available and what will it cost? In some of the material I have read, land for a hospital was identified back in the 1970s. The project was to be called the Lakes hospital. This is not the first time that the Parliament has had a look at using St John of God land. I do not think there are any qualms among any part of the population that the hospital is needed. The government’s promise of 1 000-plus beds is fantastic, but stage 1 will finish with 640 beds or thereabouts. With the closure of Royal Perth Hospital, one wonders what the net gain in beds will be. The creation of the special account is not specific enough concerning time, costs and overruns. The homework has not been done. As I have touched on, there are plenty of examples to show that. I believe that the funds are inadequate and that the number of beds will ultimately be far fewer than what the government is promising. If the government is committed to this project, as was its election promise, why not include a clause that the funds will be added - not may be added - to the account until the completion of the hospital? This bill is a waste of time, and is open to manipulation. It is in no way tied to its said purpose. The Treasurer is not so badly informed as to not know that this bill is meaningless. It is a stunt. I can only speculate that it will still be sitting here in another 12 months and that there will still be no definite figures and nothing will have started. This money has come from over-taxing. I accept that the money has been paid through taxes, but why is this state not getting other projects going, as I touched on earlier? Is this money just being tucked away in what some people are calling the Eric Ripper Christmas fund? We did that as kids. We all had to put money aside in our Christmas fund, because we could not be responsible with money. That is exactly what people are saying about this government. This government cannot be trusted. The Treasurer has lost confidence in himself and in his colleagues. This bill is just another example of government spin. My colleagues in the lower house have described the smug way in which the government announced this bill. The government used its spin. However, it is now well past its sell-by date. I have no question whatsoever that the electorate will see through this bill. With those few words, I will go along with my colleagues in supporting the bill. However, as I have said, I do not see any need for this bill. There will be cost overruns. There will be reduced bed numbers. If the government was dinkum about this bill, it would have set in stone everything to which it has committed. HON RAY HALLIGAN (North Metropolitan) [9.00 pm]: The Fiona Stanley Hospital Construction Account Bill is a very small bill. I will not take up too much of the time of the house on this small bill, because a great number of members have already spoken on this bill. The purpose of this bill is create a bank account to hold the interest payments on the moneys that have been set aside for the construction and establishment of Fiona Stanley Hospital. A number of members have raised concerns about the construction timetable, and the draw down on funds and the like. I am a little unsure of what to expect within a bill of this type. One matter that comes to mind is the policy of the bill. That is borne out by the wording in the second reading speech. This bill goes beyond being just a practical bill to tell the people of this state that certain moneys have been set aside for a specific purpose; that is, the construction and establishment of Fiona Stanley Hospital. The government is lauding itself on the fact that, to quote from the second reading speech - Together these decisions mean that the two largest public sector capital works projects ever undertaken in Western Australia will be delivered without the need for borrowings, and with no debt servicing costs into the future - a lasting legacy of our state’s current prosperity. There is no doubt that this bill will be good for the government politically. The government will be able to tell the people periodically about how much has been deposited into the account. That does not necessarily detract from the purpose of the bill. However, there is no doubt that, as others before me have said, the taxpayers of Western Australia are being over-taxed. A large part of the moneys raised from those taxes will now be set aside in this account and locked away for a specific purpose. That means that those surplus funds that might have been available to Treasury will no longer be available to hospitals, schools and other organisations in this state that are crying out for increased funding. It is all very well and good for the government to talk about these two major projects - one being a railway line, and the other being a hospital. However, which of these projects is likely to generate the most income? There is no need for either of these projects to generate sufficient income to pay for their construction, because the government has already taxed the people to pay for the construction of these projects. However, will these two projects ever generate sufficient income to pay for their operating costs? Will these projects ever be viable, or will they need to be subsidised? Will there ever come a time when these two projects will pay for themselves? The minister may be able to answer these questions. I will ask a question. I think the answer will be well known to most members in this place. What local government authority is willing

5060 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] to put up its hand and say it will have a swimming pool if the government will pay for its construction? The answer is not one. That is because all local governments know that a swimming pool will never be viable and they will be caught with the costs for each and every year of its operation. It is all right for the government to beat itself on the chest and say, “Aren’t we good!” However, it is not telling the people what the additional operating costs are likely to be. The government is building two very large public sector capital works projects. However, often the larger a project is, the more it costs to run. I hope the government has taken that into consideration and is prepared to advise the people of this state how much they are likely to be taxed into the future to pay for the operation of these two large capital works projects. That is a very important, and not unreasonable, question for the government to answer. I do not have a great deal more to say on this bill. The members who have spoken before me have said all that can possibly be said about this bill. I have some concerns about the timetable. I would dearly love the government to provide us with some information about the timetable for the design and construction, and the like. As I have said, the taxpayers of Western Australia are providing these funds to the government. The government should use these funds in the best possible manner to benefit the people of this state, and their children and grandchildren. As other members have said, people’s views about the way in which these moneys should be used are often extremely subjective. Members with an interest in railway lines will no doubt stand and argue until they are blue in the face why so much money should be put into building that railway line to service, so the government tells us, some 13 000 passengers. I am not aware of any railway line that pays for itself; therefore, I cannot foresee the Mandurah railway line being viable for probably 100 years, which means that taxpayers will have to subsidise it. Again, I believe it is important that the government provide information on what that subsidy might be. It is particularly important, I believe, that we be given a schedule of construction. Only in that way can we on this side of the house look at the budgetary process to see the amount of money the government has put aside to undertake the tasks that will lead to the completion and utilisation of Fiona Stanley Hospital. If the government wants to keep all that information to itself, it will not be open and accountable and will not provide the opportunity for the normal scrutiny of such legislation. It is all very well and good for the government to say that this is not a slush fund that politicians can play games with in the future. That I accept, but there is more to it than just saying, “There is the bank account, there are the dollars and cents and this is where it is going to be expended.” It is a far bigger picture than that. It is a far more important bill than the few pages that we have been presented with. The bill has far more ramifications and, as I say, it is important that the government shows its openness and accountability by providing some figures that it has used to justify and convince people that this is the way forward. It is not just a matter of the government saying that we need another hospital; it goes well beyond that. Hon Simon O’Brien said that quite a number of other hospitals will be incorporated in Fiona Stanley Hospital. No doubt that means that all the land on which those hospitals currently reside will be sold off. Hon Simon O’Brien: The primary one at the moment, of course, is Royal Perth. Hon RAY HALLIGAN: Exactly. Hon Simon O’Brien: A colossal asset; and heaven only knows what they’re going to do with Fremantle. Hon RAY HALLIGAN: It does make one wonder. Again, I believe it is important that people be aware of it. We spoke earlier in the day about consultation. Here is an opportunity for the government to consult by providing some information about how it will operate Fiona Stanley Hospital at a particular time and how people will be moved from point A to point B. All of it must be managed. It should be planned. It is not just a matter of saying, “Let’s build it because I can say I did it; there is my thumbprint on it; I will leave it to the bureaucrats to decide how it all might work, so then I will have no responsibility if something goes wrong.” Something of this magnitude requires enormous scrutiny. We are talking about two figures each in excess of $1 000 million. As far as I am concerned, it is incumbent upon the government to ensure that as much scrutiny as possible is provided. The government, through accountability and openness, needs to show members on this side of the chamber how that will take place. I am talking about a probity auditor of the type that was used for the Perth Entertainment Centre; someone who can sign off on certain aspects of this project so that at any time in the future questions can be asked and answers can be provided - that is the important part. Any number of people can come up with questions. The difficulty has always been, particularly with this government, unfortunately, in receiving answers. Those answers need to be timely. It is not a matter of putting questions on notice. There should be people out there keeping up-to-date on a daily basis so that when questions are asked, answers can be provided. I am asking the government to ensure this does in fact take place. It might not be a bad idea to contemplate a further amendment to the bill that insists on that happening. There are many other guarantees in the bill about the funds being available only for the construction and establishment of the hospital and there are provisions that when the construction and establishment of the hospital is completed, the Treasurer must direct any money standing to the credit of the account to be credited to the consolidated account. Those are good

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] 5061 aspects and that is the way it should be. Why are a few more guarantees not in the bill to make sure that the information that should be made available is in fact made available? It is not a matter of trust me I am a politician, or trust me I am part of the government. I want none of this emperor’s new clothes stuff that of course it must be all right, because the account will be established under the Financial Management Act. I cast no aspersions on the chamber nor, I hope, on the Parliament, but there are certain areas that I would have liked to explore a little further. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Such as? Hon RAY HALLIGAN: I will not go into that now. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Give me one. Hon RAY HALLIGAN: I will not go into that now; it might well reflect on the Parliament. It is important, when we are talking about figures of this magnitude, that the government be forthright in its openness and accountability and try to ensure that the provisions of the bill create the comfort that the taxpayers of Western Australia deserve. Hon Simon O’Brien: What are you concerned about? Do you think there might be some sort of sharp practice behind this bill? Hon RAY HALLIGAN: No, nothing of that nature. Hon Simon O’Brien is suggesting something that I would not even contemplate. However, there are certain ways and means of transferring funds for a variety of reasons - not into one’s private bank account, nothing of that nature - and there are ways and means of doing things a little differently from what was originally intended. Members should not forget that this is now 2007 and the second reading speech referred to the hospital’s scheduled completion in 2012-13. A lot can happen in that time. For that reason I believe it is particularly important that the people of Western Australia through a nominated representative, a probity auditor, can have access to that information as and when they believe they require it, rather than waiting until the end of the day and hoping to see a set of accounts at the project’s completion. It would be far too late then. It is like the Mandurah railway project, which has suffered from never contemplated cost escalations, but I am not sure of the amounts, as I have not seen all the figures. This is part of the problem. We never see a complete breakdown of what is intended and what the anticipated expenditure is likely to be. I would like to see a provision for contingencies, which is a normal practice with something of this nature. It was talked about in the second reading speech, which states - The bill also provides that the account will earn interest on the investment of its balance, thereby providing capacity to offset potential cost escalation on the project between now and its scheduled completion in 2012-13. That is good; I have no problem with that. The difficulty, though, is exactly how much that cost escalation is likely to be. Will other funds be provided for those contingencies? Saying that we will earn interest and will use the interest to pay for any cost escalation is a nice general statement. However, if the figures have not been done, and a certain contingency amount is allowed for, the escalation may not equate to the amount of interest; therefore, there would be a shortfall, and, again, ministers would need to go back to Treasury and say, “Sorry about this, but we need another $100 million.” That is not good financial management. If the government continually keeps all these things under wraps and keeps its cards, as people say, very close to its chest, it will continue to have people on this side of the chamber who are as cynical as they are. Be a little more open and we may be a little more understanding. At this time, as far as I can see, this government has not been prepared to provide any of that information. When information is asked for, we are more often than not told to put a question on notice; if we are lucky, we might see something six months later couched in terms that are totally meaningless to the original question. I will not take up any more of the house’s time on this matter, other than to say, as other members have said, that there is nothing in the bill that we oppose. However, it is likely that some amendments will be moved to try to improve the outcome of the bill in the interests of the people of Western Australia. HON HELEN MORTON (East Metropolitan) [9.23 pm]: I add my voice to the chorus of people who are saying that this Fiona Stanley Hospital Construction Account Bill 2007 is a total waste of time, is an unnecessary bill and is an unnecessary use of the Parliament. To explain why I think that, perhaps members should have a brief look at the budget papers for the health portfolio. It is not necessary for this amount of $1.1 billion to be set aside in a separate fund because in the time it will take to build Fiona Stanley Hospital, the health budget will overrun the hospital’s budget by that amount of money. If sufficient discipline were displayed within the health portfolio to stay within its budget, $1.1 billion would be saved over five years anyway. If members want an example, in the year just gone the total appropriation provided to deliver services was $3.187 billion. That was the budget at the beginning of the financial year. I refer to just recurrent services, not capital. In the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations budget hearings in the past couple of weeks, we have heard that the final expenditure amount for health was $3.42 billion. Therefore, in the space of a year, the health

5062 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] budget ran up extra expenditure to the tune of $232 million. That information came from the health people themselves. When I said to the director general at the end of the hearings that it must be a record as I have never known health to go that far over budget, his comment was along the lines of, “It had to go somewhere, so it might as well come to us.” In the space of a year, $232 million in extra money was drawn down to health so that it could continue to do what it was doing. If the health portfolio had stayed within its budget at the beginning of the year, and if it were to save that $232 million a year over the following five years - it will take longer than five years to build Fiona Stanley Hospital - the government would save the $1.1 billion needed to build the hospital. My second point is that the actual capital budget for the health portfolio this year was underspent. It did not even spend the money available in its capital budget. The health capital budget underspent by $17.2 million. The total capital allocation to the health portfolio this year was $94.3 million, of which it spent only $77.1 million. Therefore, its slippage was already quite substantial. Lo and behold, next year’s capital, which the health portfolio will never spend in a fit, is more than double that spent this year - namely, $168.7 million. The slippage will be quite substantial. There is no way in the world that the health portfolio will spend that amount of money. I go back to asking myself: why; and what is the motivation for putting together this account and this special bill? I can only assume that it is because the Minister for Health is incredibly embarrassed by how successful he is at controlling such a large share of the consolidated account already, and that the only way to get yet another big slice of the funding is to somehow dress it up and stick it into some kind of special purpose fund and call it something equivalent to a future fund. The minister has already got more than 25 per cent of the state’s recurrent budget under his control, and he is overspending, as I have said, more than $200 million a year over and above his allocation. Nevertheless, this bill gives the minister another opportunity to grab all the funds and another piece of action. I call it the action of a megalomaniac who needs to dominate and to control the state’s budget, basically, and this is just an additional way of doing so. Hon Ken Baston: Yes, it is. He takes the money for them. Hon HELEN MORTON: Absolutely. It is putting it under his control. As other people have indicated, I think about all the different things that could be put in place with some of the funds allocated to this project. I know, for example, that a Broome mental health facility is desperately needed. A business case was put forward for this facility more than 12 months ago now. The mental health forensic unit has had a business case put forward for more than 12 months, and nothing is being provided in that regard. Those are just a couple of the mental health issues that I am aware of that could be addressed. I am familiar with what is likely to take place when Fiona Stanley Hospital is finally built. It has been suggested that in the first stage Fiona Stanley Hospital should be a 600-bed facility. I do not disagree with that. However, it is important that it never be expanded to a 1 000-bed facility. As a 600-bed facility, it will be able to serve as a tertiary-level facility in the southern metropolitan area. However, the minute it is expanded from 600 to 1 000 beds, a number of the services provided at places such as Armadale Health Service and Rockingham-Kwinana District Hospital will become unviable. Staff and specialists will be drawn away from those secondary-level hospitals. It is important that those secondary-level hospitals remain viable and capable in their own right. An example of that is the 14-bed high-dependency unit that was built at Armadale-Kelmscott Memorial Hospital; it has never become operational. If the Armadale high-dependency unit had been made operational, the flow of patients to Fremantle Hospital’s high-dependency unit would not have continued, which would have made it difficult for Fremantle Hospital to justify expanding its high-dependency unit, which is what it was after. The high-dependency unit at Armadale-Kelmscott Memorial Hospital has never been made operational. We are still waiting for it to become operational. The facility has been in that state for over five years despite the demand for high-dependency beds around the metropolitan area. If Fiona Stanley Hospital drags services away from the secondary-level hospitals, those hospitals will not be able to function in their own right. We should not push to make Fiona Stanley Hospital more than a 600-bed tertiary facility. I have heard it said that the establishment and development of Fiona Stanley Hospital is akin to a future fund for Western Australia. When I heard that, I cringed with embarrassment. I cannot believe that somebody could equate putting funds into an account for Fiona Stanley Hospital with the measures that might be achieved through a future fund. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: That is because the feds established a fund not dissimilar to this for their future fund. That is where the comparison is drawn. If you knew anything about anything, you would know that. Hon HELEN MORTON: It is not a future fund. A future fund involves putting something in place that will grow and develop and produce additional revenue and resources for the state. Hospitals do not do that. I am not saying that the hospital is not necessary; however, it will not do that. We are leaving far too much in the hands of the people who will be controlling the account. Paul Murray wrote an article in today’s The West Australian. The article is headed “We’re timid by Dubai, Barcelona standards” and states- In common with Barcelona, Dubai has made itself into a major regional hub and an economic powerhouse through creative development policies.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] 5063

The establishment of Fiona Stanley Hospital and the fund is not in any way a creative development policy; rather, it is a passive and non-creative measure. It is not a development policy. The government is establishing this fund because it does not know what else to do. The government’s lack of creative development policies has caused it to go down this track. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: You are so negative about everything. Hon HELEN MORTON: Not at all; I am very positive about lots of things. Unfortunately, I am not positive about this. Paul Murray’s article continues - . . . we don’t appear to have the political structures, the economic processes, the driving motivation or the creativity to replicate the successes of either city. The establishment of this account proves that the government does not have the political structures, economic processes, driving motivation or creativity - I think it is the lack of creativity more than anything - to replicate the successes of either city. The article continues - We certainly lack the leadership in both the political and business arenas that have been crucial to the other cities. The lack of leadership is a big issue. The article continues - We should examine Barcelona’s Zona Franca Consortium, established in 1916, which involves the city council, but has a special charter to drive economic development in that city. If I were establishing a future fund, I would want an economic powerhouse with creativity to be driving it. The government is putting $1.1 billion into an account to build a hospital. That money does not need to go into that account, because the hospital could be built through savings in the current budget or through the normal process of using a certain amount of money from the capital works program each year to build the hospital over however many years it take. The government has chosen to lock $1.1 billion away and is not even trying to create a major regional hub or an economic powerhouse. How did the government come up with this initiative? Who is driving the government at the moment? Essentially, this government is being driven by one person - a socialist reformer. Unfortunately, he does not know how to grasp the opportunities offered during prosperous times to transform the state into a modern marvel. The government is putting $1.1 billion into an account to build a hospital that could be built through a variety of other processes. Perhaps the government does not have the conviction that the good times will last. I do not think that the resources boom will go on forever. That is why I have suggested that the government should be doing something far more interesting by creating a totally new industry in Western Australia that will carry on well after the resources boom. Now is the time to establish a major new industry that will continue beyond the resources boom. However, the government has decided to lock the funds into a single account to build a hospital. This bill represents a faint-hearted approach by the government to store $1.1 billion until some time down the track. That is not very exciting for the state of Western Australia. HON GIZ WATSON (North Metropolitan) [9.39 pm]: The Greens (WA) support the Fiona Stanley Hospital Construction Account Bill 2007. I do not really have a lot to say about it, because many other members have already spoken. We question the necessity for a bill such as this. It is unusual to create a specific account in this way to provide the money to construct a hospital. Other members have expressed views about the politics of the bill, and perhaps it is mainly about gaining political mileage. Having said that, we cannot see anything that is particularly offensive about the bill, so we will support it. I will be interested in the response from the minister to some of the questions posed by Hon George Cash, who has addressed some of the detail of the bill. Questions that I have also relate to the issue of the acquisition of additional land, and whether that is envisaged as necessary. My understanding is that some questions have been raised about the size of the existing site, and whether the new hospital could be appropriately housed on the site as it is at the moment. If it is intended to make a fair amount of the structure high rise or multilevel, there is the possibility that the flexibility to modify the services that the hospital can provide at a future date will be reduced. If there is an issue with the size of the site, which therefore restricts the design to being multistorey, the options for a more flexible approach will be reduced. I would be interested to know whether the minister has any additional information about the government’s current position on the planning. Obviously, that relates to this bill, because this bill is about the money that will fund that. The Greens are happy to support the bill. HON LJILJANNA RAVLICH (East Metropolitan - Minister for Local Government) [9.42 pm]: I thank members for their contributions to the debate on this very important bill, the Fiona Stanley Hospital Construction Account Bill 2007. In particular, I thank Hon George Cash, because it was quite clear to me from the comments he made on the bill that he has really put some work into it, and of course everybody else piggybacked on the comments he made. I will begin by providing some responses to the issues raised by the honourable member. First of all, this bill provides a funding mechanism for the construction and establishment of Fiona Stanley Hospital. That funding mechanism will be established through an account set up by this bill. Parliament has

5064 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] already approved the appropriation of $1.09 billion to the account, as the budget statements make clear. That amount of money is for stage 1 of the hospital, which will deliver 643 beds in total. There was some debate about what will go into stage 1 and what will go into stage 2. The remainder of the total of 1 000 beds will make up stage 2. This bill seeks to establish the construction account so that the appropriation already approved by Parliament can be paid into the account and then be accessed by the Department of Health. It is true that the account could have been established administratively under section 10(a) of the Financial Management Act 2006. However, the government considers it preferable to establish the account by legislation, and section 10(e) of the Financial Management Act specifically envisages that. The government has made a decision to deal with this matter via legislation for a couple of key reasons. Firstly, establishing the account through legislation provides for better controls and transparency, which are important given the size of this project and its time frame. There have been some comments about the government wanting to hide things etc. The fact is that this could have been done administratively and the information would not have needed to come into this place, but the government has chosen not to go down that path. To argue that the government is being secretive in some way, and is not being open and accountable, is totally incorrect, because it could well have taken that administrative path. As Hon George Cash has noted, establishing the account by legislation allows the interest earnings to be credited to the account, thereby providing a source of funding for any cost escalation on the project. Such an approach was not used for the New MetroRail project - this is one of the points raised by the honourable member - because when the rail project first commenced, the government was not generating cash surpluses of the magnitude currently being experienced, thanks to the booming Western Australian economy. That project was initially funded primarily by new borrowings, but the government has now repaid all those borrowings using the 2005-06 cash surplus. Hon George Cash also asked about the government’s commitment to the number of beds. The $1.09 billion is for stage 1 of the hospital, which will provide 643 beds. This amount is shown as item 138 in volume 1 of the Budget Statements. During debate on this bill in the other place, both the Treasurer and the Minister for Health indicated the government’s support for stage 2 of the hospital, which would provide for approximately 1 000 beds in total. Hon George Cash also talked about the alternative options of using the cash surplus to repay debt or to fund new infrastructure. In fact, this point was raised by a number of members who spoke on this bill. Why could the money not have been put to an alternative use? Obviously there is an opportunity cost in forgoing other projects because of the government’s decision to put the money into Fiona Stanley Hospital. It is worth noting that, over the past three years, the government has done both. In other words, it has repaid debt and has also used money to fund new infrastructure. For example, the government has retired $774 million in consolidated account debt, resulting in the consolidated account now being debt free for the first time ever, which is a very significant achievement. We have also retired $322 million in debt left over from the privatisation of Westrail freight. We have also fully funded the New MetroRail project without any ongoing debt burden on future generations of Western Australian taxpayers, and now we propose to use the 2006-07 cash surplus to fund the debt-free construction of Fiona Stanley Hospital. All up, in the past three years, the government has used its budget surpluses to retire existing debt and avoid taking out new debt to the tune of $3.5 billion, saving taxpayers around $222 million per annum in debt interest payments. The criticism has been levelled at the government that it could have put the money to better use and retired debt. We have certainly done both, as demonstrated there. A number of members raised the issue of construction dates. The commencement will be in 2008, the date for completion is 2012-13, and the facility will be built debt free. Hon George Cash suggested that it is possible for the government to fund the debt-free construction of Fiona Stanley Hospital from the 2006-07 cash surplus only because the government has over-taxed the people of Western Australia. The financial circumstances we are experiencing are very much the result of the state’s booming economy. For example, in 2006-07, the state’s domestic economy as measured by state final demand grew by a very strong 8.8 per cent. However, I always remember the figure - it sticks in my mind - for the September quarter last year, when we had a growth rate of something like 13.8 per cent, compared with China’s growth rate for the same period of about 10.5 per cent. Quite clearly, when this state’s level of economic growth is outperforming the economic growth of a nation such as China to that extent, it indicates that the flow of revenues would be fairly strong. Consequently, the benefits to Western Australian people would also be fairly strong. Western Australia has the strongest growth of any state or territory. It is almost double the national growth of 4.5 per cent. I think the honourable member was making the point that all this money is coming as a result of the government over-taxing Western Australians. If that was not the case, it is certainly the way I interpreted it. It may well have not been intended to come across like that. However, in this regard, it needs to be realised that taxation revenue accounts for only about 31 per cent of total general government revenue. The remaining 69 per cent comes from commonwealth grants, mining and petroleum royalties, agency sales of goods and services, dividends and tax equivalent payments from public corporations, and other minor revenue sources. Therefore, I do not know that that argument really holds true from the point of view that -

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] 5065

Hon George Cash: Is your argument that because the revenues flow from areas other than taxation, that in itself is the reason that you can’t reduce rates of taxation? I would have thought that the fact that they flow from royalties and all those other places that you mentioned would suggest that you can reduce rates of taxation. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Of course, but the decisions about how much to reduce, where to reduce and whether to reduce, as opposed to, for example, building a hospital, are matters of policy and matters on which the executive makes decisions. Hon George Cash: But the government has monthly accounts that show it exactly what revenues are coming in. They didn’t all come in in the two weeks before 30 June. The $2.2 billion surplus didn’t occur in a matter of two weeks; it occurred throughout the year. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Yes, that is true, but the point I make is that that is a decision that the Treasurer makes together with the cabinet. That is a government decision, and we will have varying views about how the government will spend - Hon George Cash: That is why it is called over-taxation. The view of the Treasurer is that he should not reduce rates. The consequence of doing that is over-taxation. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: I do not necessarily agree with that point. Hon George Cash: What would you call it? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: I would say that the government has chosen to put its money into infrastructure. We have already made significant reductions in some areas of taxation. Hon George Cash: But there is a distinction between taxation and what you do with a surplus. You have decided to apply the surplus. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: That is exactly right, in the way that we have. Hon George Cash: Exactly. That does not excuse the over-taxation. That is what I am getting to. Hon Kim Chance: Assuming it occurs. Hon George Cash: There’s no assumption; it’s a fact. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: The honourable member has based his argument on the assumption that it has occurred. We would argue that it has not occurred. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Hon Ken Travers): Order, members! The minister should address her comments to the Chair. Although I understand the relevance of the comments, I think the amount of time we are spending on them probably is not warranted. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: I think it is an interesting point of difference. Quite clearly, Hon George Cash would argue that there has been over-taxation, and I would argue that that is not the case. He bases the rest of his argument on the premise that there has been, and I would argue that there has not been. Therefore, we could go around in circles for a long time, but I do not think it really gets us anywhere, quite frankly. Hon George Cash: What it does is send the community broke in due course, but that’s another matter. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Okay. Hon George Cash also asked question without notice 770 in the Parliament about section 38(7) of the Financial Management Act 2006 regarding the prohibition of payments of interest on public money held in a special purpose account and whether another written law provides otherwise. This is a continuation of a previous arrangement; that is, there is no provision. This is a part of a previous arrangement under the old Financial Administration and Audit Act. The rationale for the prohibition in section 38(7) of the Financial Management Act is that if agencies were able to generate and retain interest on special purpose accounts, that would provide agencies with a source of funding that was not subject to the scrutiny of the budget process, and it would be very difficult to actually work out how much funding of this type different agencies had under their control. Therefore, to ensure proper scrutiny, interest is typically credited to the consolidated account and then appropriated to agencies in accordance with the appropriation act. As Hon George Cash noted, the prohibition on interest in section 38(7) of the Financial Management Act is one of the major reasons that we need this bill. In fact, that is exactly what the response to part (3) of the question highlights. There is some conjecture about whether such examples, although the Department of Treasury and Finance is not aware of them, do exist. Anyway, I take the view that if the department is not aware of them, it would be highly unlikely that they exist; and, in the event that they did, certainly they would not exist in any number, because otherwise they would be more obvious. I want to touch on some issues raised by Hon Ray Halligan. He asked whether the Fiona Stanley Hospital and the New MetroRail projects would ever be able to pay for their operating costs. Quite clearly, the operating costs of the hospital will, like those of any other public hospital, be funded by appropriation from the

5066 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] consolidated account; that is, the operating costs of the hospital will be funded by the taxpayer. The only real alternative is to charge public hospital patients a cost-recovery fee. I do not know whether Hon Ray Halligan was suggesting that this is what government should do or, indeed, whether he would suggest that if he were in government. Hon Ray Halligan: Not at all. All I asked was: how much is it going to cost the taxpayer? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: We have not contemplated doing that, so I do not know that any sums have ever been done in respect of that. I am advised that they have not. However, if Hon Ray Halligan is contemplating having this policy, whereby his party will fully cost recover the provision of hospital services - Hon Ray Halligan: Did I say that? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: No, but it was implied in the question. Hon Ray Halligan: Are you misquoting me by any chance? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: No, I would not dare. The operating costs of the New MetroRail project will also be subsidised by the consolidated account to the tune of probably about 80 per cent. Therefore, to remove this subsidy would require once again significant cost increases based on a cost-recovery model. That would simply hike up the cost of fares, and that would be passed on to the consumer. Obviously, we hold the view that that would not be in the public interest. Therefore, we would not support such a policy. The issue of how much has been spent on the Fiona Stanley Hospital project was raised by a number of members. To date, it is understood that the Department of Health has expended some $3.8 million on the planning of the hospital. This amount was appropriated to the Department of Health out of the consolidated account as part of the 2006-07 budget. It is in the budget papers. The Department of Health can access the remaining funding for the project only from the account established by this bill, hence the urgency of this legislation getting through. I am also advised that this is the last budget-related bill that has not been dealt with. From that point of view, we are naturally keen that this legislation is passed through this place because until such time as that is the case, the money cannot be drawn down for the purposes of making payments to any manner of things. Debate interrupted, pursuant to standing orders. PARENTAL SUPPORT AND RESPONSIBILITY BILL 2005 Assembly’s Message Message from the Assembly received and read notifying that it had agreed to amendments 1 to 3, 5, 9, 13, 37, 38, 46 and 47 made by the Council; had disagreed to amendments 4, 6 to 8, 10 to 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 23 to 36, 39 to 45, 49 and 50; had disagreed to amendments 15, 17 and 20 to 22 and substituted new amendments; and had agreed to amendment 48 subject to further amendments, and desires the Council’s concurrence. SURROGACY BILL 2007 Receipt and First Reading Bill received from the Assembly; and, on motion by Hon Sue Ellery (Minister for Child Protection), read a first time. Second Reading HON SUE ELLERY (South Metropolitan - Minister for Child Protection) [10.02 pm]: I move - That the bill be now read a second time. This bill provides a framework for the regulation of surrogacy and for the legal parentage of children born as a result of surrogacy arrangements. Surrogacy is a practice whereby a woman agrees to become pregnant and bear a child for another person or persons - the arranged parents - to whom she intends to transfer the child’s care at, or shortly after, birth. This bill will give couples the chance to be a family and to love and care for a child they so desperately want. It is an example of using technology and the law to fulfil their dream to be a family. The use of surrogacy as a means of helping women who are unable to bear a child has a long history in various cultures. In Australia, the demand for surrogacy has increased since the 1970s with the decline in the number of babies available for adoption and the increased availability of assisted reproductive technology. The use of artificial reproductive technology has increased options for conception in connection with surrogacy and allows the creation of embryos that are genetically related to the arranged parents. The regulation of surrogacy presents challenges because of the need to balance the possibly conflicting interests of the parties who may be involved in a surrogacy arrangement. These interests include the child’s right to be protected and to know about the circumstances of his or her birth, the arranged parents’ interest in being able to

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] 5067 have a child and to be recognised by law as parents of that child, and the birth mother’s right to be protected from exploitation. Five Australian jurisdictions have legislation regulating surrogacy: the Australian Capital Territory, Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania and Queensland. In each of those jurisdictions there are prohibitions in connection with commercial surrogacy arrangements, and surrogacy arrangements are not enforceable. The ACT is the only jurisdiction that has comprehensive legislation dealing with the parentage of children born following surrogacy arrangements. Currently, there is no legislation in Western Australia dealing directly with surrogacy. Other legislation such as the Human Reproductive Technology Act 1991, the Artificial Conception Act 1985 and the Adoption Act 1994 indirectly impact on surrogacy arrangements. The Human Reproductive Technology Act regulates access to in- vitro fertilisation procedures and currently restricts access to IVF in connection with surrogacy. The Artificial Conception Act provides for the legal parentage of all children born as a result of assisted reproductive technology - ART - and means that the birth parents of a child, rather than the parents who intend to raise the child, are legally recognised as the parents. The Adoption Act effectively restricts adoption as a method for arranged parents to be legally recognised as the parents of a child born under a surrogacy arrangement. The regulation of surrogacy has been considered by Parliament through the select committee process. In 1999, the Select Committee on the Human Reproductive Technology Act 1991 released its report, including recommendations supporting the development of legislation regulating the practice of surrogacy. The bill, with some exceptions, reflects the recommendations of the 1999 select committee. An earlier, 1988 select committee also considered this issue, but recommended that the practice of surrogacy be discouraged. Thinking on surrogacy has come a long way in the past 19 years. In summary, under the bill, surrogacy will be provided for by allowing access to IVF for a woman who has agreed to bear a child for a woman or couple who would be eligible for IVF; providing a parentage order that will alter the birth certificate to make the arranged parents the legal parents of the child; and regulating activities around the making of surrogacy arrangements. The bill will amend the Human Reproductive Technology Act to allow IVF procedures to be used in connection with surrogacy when the arranged parents, rather than the birth parents, meet the existing eligibility requirements for IVF. This represents a limited expansion of IVF to allow women who are not able to conceive or carry a child themselves due to medical reasons to arrange for another woman to become pregnant and to carry a child on their behalf. Directions issued under the Human Reproductive Technology Act will require comprehensive assessment and preparation of all the parties to a surrogacy arrangement using assisted reproductive technology procedures, including requirements for counselling and independent legal advice prior to assisted reproductive technology services being provided in connection with the arrangement. All providers of assisted reproductive technology services are required to comply with the directions. The bill does not deal with the initial birth registration of a child. This means that in most cases the child should be registered in accordance with the Artificial Conception Act, with the birth mother recorded as the mother of the child and her consenting partner as a legal parent of the child. The bill provides a mechanism for a judge of the Family Court of Western Australia to make an order transferring legal parentage of the child to the arranged parents in certain circumstances. The requirements for a parentage order include - the arranged parents must reside in Western Australia and must have met the criteria for the use of IVF procedures set out in the Human Reproductive Technology Act; the application cannot be made until one month after the child’s birth and must be made within six months of the child’s birth unless the court gives leave for the application to be made later; the birth parents must freely consent to the order being made; the child must be living with the arranged parents; all the parties must have received counselling and independent legal advice about the effect of the orders; and the order must be in the best interests of the child. The court must also approve a plan agreed between the parties about any contact or communication between the child and the birth parents or any other person. The bill provides that these parentage orders will make the arranged parents the legal parents of the child for all purposes of state law. The bill also deals with provisions relating to the registration of the parentage order and access to information and copies of the birth registration. These are generally modelled on the provisions for adoption orders. The bill provides for a range of offences in connection with surrogacy arrangements. These are: making a surrogacy arrangement that provides for payment or other reward to the birth mother, apart from payment of

5068 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] reasonable expenses incurred in connection with the conception, pregnancy and birth of the child; advertising or providing services in connection with a commercial surrogacy arrangement; and offering or receiving a payment or other reward for introducing potential parties to a surrogacy arrangement. A surrogacy arrangement is not enforceable. This means that the birth mother could not be forced to give up the child because of the surrogacy arrangement. The circumstances in which a birth mother changes her mind after the birth of a child are distressing to all the parties, and careful preparation and counselling before the arrangement is intended to minimise the chances of this occurring. The Surrogacy Bill seeks to balance and protect the interests of all parties to surrogacy arrangements by providing a framework for the best interests of the child to be paramount in any decision about surrogacy and legal parentage, requiring careful preparation and assessment of the parties and preventing surrogacy for commercial gain. For that reason, I hope this bill will enjoy the support of the Parliament. I commend the bill to the house. Debate adjourned, pursuant to standing orders. HUMAN REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY AMENDMENT BILL 2007 Receipt and First Reading Bill received from the Assembly; and, on motion by Hon Sue Ellery (Minister for Child Protection), read a first time. Second Reading HON SUE ELLERY (South Metropolitan - Minister for Child Protection) [10.10 pm]: I move - That the bill be now read a second time. This bill amends the Human Reproductive Technology Act 1991 in respect of the regulation of embryo research and prohibited practices that relate to reproductive technology. In April 2002, the Council of Australian Governments agreed to develop nationally consistent legislation to regulate human embryo research and ban human cloning. The commonwealth passed the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 - the commonwealth acts - and all jurisdictions except the Northern Territory have since enacted complementary legislation. In WA this was done by amending the HRT act in 2004. In 2005, a committee chaired by the late John Lockhart, AO, QC, a former judge of the Federal Court, reviewed the commonwealth acts and the corresponding state and territory legislation, including the HRT act. The Legislation Review Committee was appointed by the commonwealth minister with the agreement of all the states and territories, and included Western Australia’s Professor Barry Marshall. The committee consulted the community extensively in the course of the review through a review website, written submissions, face-to-face meetings with key stakeholders, public hearings and some private meetings - at stakeholders’ requests - facilitated stakeholder discussion forums and selected site visits. In addition, the committee reviewed the latest results of focus group and telephone survey research by the Public Awareness Program of Biotechnology Australia, and a literature review - commissioned by the National Health and Medical Research Council on behalf of the Minister for Health and Ageing - of recent scientific and technological advances in human cloning, human embryo research and related matters, including stem cell technologies. As a result of the review, the committee produced a report containing 54 recommendations. This report was tabled in the Legislative Assembly on 29 March 2006. In December 2006, the commonwealth acts were amended by a private member’s bill introduced by Senator Kay Patterson to give effect to most of the recommendations of the Lockhart review. The amendments to the commonwealth acts came into effect on 12 June 2007. Similar legislation has been passed in both Victoria and New South Wales. The bill amends the HRT act to maintain consistency with the commonwealth acts. In summary, the amendments, firstly, retain the existing framework in relation to embryos created by fertilisation of human eggs by human sperm. Such embryos can be created only for the purpose of achieving pregnancy in a woman. If at the end of assisted reproductive technology - ART - treatment the embryos are excess to the needs of the people for whom they were created, they can be donated for research. Any use of the excess ART embryos for research will continue to be subject to the strict licensing requirements that are provided in the HRT act. Secondly, the amendments retain the ban on human cloning for reproductive purposes. Thirdly, they allow for the creation of embryos by means other than fertilisation and the use of those embryos for research. Both the creation and the use of the embryo are subject to the same strict licensing that applies to excess ART embryos. Embryos created by means other than fertilisation cannot be developed by any means for more than 14 days and

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] 5069 must not be used for reproductive purposes. Fourthly, the amendments require the tabling of reports prepared by the relevant commonwealth minister regarding the establishment of a national stem cell bank, the establishment of a national register of excess ART embryos that have been donated for research, and the feasibility of a national approach to non-blood human tissue based therapies. Fifthly, the amendments require the WA minister to cause a further independent review of the legislation in three years, which may be undertaken as part of the required review of the commonwealth acts. Research that may be licensed under the bill includes research aimed at improving ART services as well as research into understanding and treating a range of diseases. Allowing the creation of embryos by methods other than fertilisation would allow the creation of embryos under licence using somatic cell nuclear transfer - SCNT - whereby a cell from a patient, such as a skin cell, is placed into a human egg that has had its nucleus removed. This is sometimes called therapeutic cloning. Embryos created using SCNT can be used as a source of embryonic stem cells that have a specific genetic disease. The stem cells can be used to undertake research about the progression of the disease and also research about the effect of treatment options. Stem cells obtained from an embryo that is a genetic match to a person with a disease also hold the potential for therapeutic application. Stem cells created with the same genetic make-up as the person means that the problem of rejection of tissue that is placed back into the person is avoided. The other activities that may be licensed are directed at facilitating research to improve ART treatment. The bill will assist research into freezing human eggs and developing mature eggs from ovarian tissue by allowing testing of the viability of the resulting eggs. A number of women have had ovarian tissue stored prior to undergoing chemotherapy that may destroy their reproductive capacity. If egg cells in the ovarian tissue can be developed to maturity, these eggs could be used to allow those women to have a child that is genetically related to them. Research into infertility caused by diseases in the mitochondria - which is found in the cytoplasm of cells and which does not affect the characteristics of the person - would also be facilitated. Testing of sperm quality by attempting fertilisation of animal eggs could be licensed, as could training and research on human embryos that are not fit for implantation. As the legislation review committee noted, there is a divergence of views in Australian society about the issues encompassed by this legislation. The committee noted a broad community support for medical research and clinical practice aimed at understanding, preventing or treating disease, and for research and clinical practice aimed at assisting people to have children. In making its recommendations, the committee considered the need to balance the social and moral value that some people in the community attach to the human embryo against the social and moral value that is attached to the treatment of disease and to helping people to have a family. The bill reflects the balance by allowing some research opportunities under rigorous licensing requirements. I commend the bill to the house. Debate adjourned and bill referred to the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review, pursuant to standing orders. ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE HON KIM CHANCE (Agricultural - Leader of the House) [10.18 pm]: I move - That the house do now adjourn. Wubin Primary School - Adjournment Debate HON PETER COLLIER (North Metropolitan) [10.18 pm]: This afternoon I spoke in support of the motion moved by Hon Ray Halligan about the lack of consultation by the government in a number of areas. In my speech I dealt specifically with two schools - Blackmore Primary School and Wubin Primary School. The Minister for Education, to his credit, acknowledged that the consultation about Blackmore Primary School could have been done a little better. Unfortunately, the same acknowledgement has not been made about Wubin Primary School. Wubin is a small country town about 275 miles north east of Perth. Wubin is about to lose its primary school. I want to remind members about the way in which the people of Wubin found out about this situation. The parents and teachers found out only when they received a letter from the Director General of Education dated 6 August, telling them that their school would be closed. This afternoon I also read a letter from the president of the Wubin Primary School Parents and Citizens Association to Karen Morrissey, the president of the Isolated Children’s Parents’ Association of WA, complaining about the lack of consultation and articulating some very real reasons that that school should stay open. I also read from a letter to Sharyn O’Neill, Director General of the Department of Education and Training, from the Isolated Children’s Parents’ Association of WA again complaining about the lack of consultation. I also read from a letter that was unanimously signed by all parents of children at Wubin Primary School complaining about the lack of consultation and pleading for the school to remain open. Once again, there was a lack of consultation on this issue. As I said this afternoon, primary schools in any community reflect the heart and soul of that community. Most people in the community have some attachment to their primary school, either directly or indirectly, or they have had or will have a

5070 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] connection with the primary school. That is particularly pertinent in rural country towns. In a small country town like Wubin, essentially this act will wrench the heart from that community. The community is outraged but it is really disappointed that there has been no consultation whatsoever. The first time they found out about the school’s closure was in a letter from the Director General of the Department of Education and Training that the school was going to be closed next year in 2008. I read from section 57 of the School Education Act, which states that the Minister for Education and Training must consult with the local community before he closes a school, not after he closes a school, which is what he has done with Blackmore Primary School. Once again the minister has not done this. As I said, he certainly disappointed community members in a small country town who are already struggling with the drought and diminishing facilities. This is just another dagger in the heart to them. A flyer was sent out by the parents and citizens association of Wubin Primary School, headed “Wubin Primary School Should Not Be Closed: Why?” A couple of extracts from the flyer state - WUBIN PRIMARY SCHOOL IS A SMALL RURAL SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE. IT HAS AND CONTINUES TO PROVED ITSELF AS A LEARNING OASIS FOR THE WUBIN COMMUNITY’S CHILDREN. IT IS ALSO A COMMUNITY OASIS FOR THE YOUNG PARENTS AND GRANDPARENTS. THE STUDENTS’ PARENTS ARE UNANIMOUS IN THEIR CHOICE TO KEEP WUBIN SCHOOL OPEN FOR THEIR CHILDREN THERE ARE A LARGE NUMBER OF VERY YOUNG CHILDREN NOT BEING CONSIDERED IN THE DECISION TO CLOSE WUBIN PRIMARY SCHOOL WHO ARE IN EARLY CHILDHOOD AND WHO BENEFIT, WITH THEIR PARENTS, FROM THE SHARED LEARNING ENVIRONMENT WITHIN THE SMALL SCHOOL CAMPUS. . . . WUBIN PRIMARY SCHOOL IS AT THE HEART OF THE COMMUNITY WHICH IS INCLUSIVE OF OUTLYING PROPERTIES. THERE HAS BEEN NO TOWN SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT STUDY DONE TO ASSESS THE FLOW ON AFFECT OF CLOSURE. . . . WUBIN PRIMARY SCHOOL IS A COMMUNITY OF VERY IMPORTANT PEOPLE PROVIDING A QUALITY EDUCATION IN A CARING AND CO-OPERATIVE COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT AND MUST NOT BE CLOSED. I will also draw attention to the impact that the school’s closure will have on the children in their accessing Dalwallinu school, which these children will now have to attend, as opposed to Wubin school. The information I am about to read out came from the president of the P&C. Eight students currently enrolled in Wubin Primary School use bus facilities to access the school. Six of those eight currently travel a total of 86 kilometres to get to and from the school. As a result of the closure of Wubin Primary School, those six students will now have to travel 130 kilometres every day to get to and from the school. The other two currently travel 30 kilometres to get to and from the school and will now have to travel 74 kilometres. The impact, therefore, on those children will be quite profound. I will read once again a letter signed unanimously by all parents at the school about the impact on the community and also on their children. I read from this letter earlier today, but in part it says - We are all wondering who makes these decisions, how much research, time and upon what procedure was undertaken to close us down. We believe Wubin Primary School should remain open. We feel we are owed a meeting to explain the above concerns prior to any Implementation Committee meeting for school closure taking place. I am asking the government again to perhaps give some real consideration to the processes and procedures it adopts to close schools. The manner in which it has closed Blackmore and Wubin Primary Schools is, quite frankly, disgraceful. It has treated these two communities with contempt, particularly Wubin Primary School, which is closing in a matter of months. The community obviously has not been consulted. Every single parent has signed that letter to the director general pleading with the director general to reconsider her decision. If the director general will not reconsider her decision, I request the Minister for Education and Training to at least give some consideration to accessing the views of the local community. If the director general will not reconsider the decision to close Wubin Primary School, perhaps the minister will. The community does not want the school to close. The community feels that the closure will impact negatively upon the community and upon the students at that school. Quite frankly, I think that their concerns are very valid. Aged Care Facilities, Carnarvon - Adjournment Debate HON VINCENT CATANIA (Mining and Pastoral) [10.25 pm]: This is about perhaps another type of closure on the other side of the life spectrum. Last Tuesday a bombshell was dropped on the community of Carnarvon

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] 5071 by the providers of Carnarvon’s only aged care facility - that is, the Olive Laird Hostel - that the facility would wind down its services over the coming months and services would not be continued any more in Carnarvon. A letter to community representatives from the Churches of Christ Homes and Community Services states - Dear Community Representative Withdrawal of Carnarvon Aged Care Services I am writing to advise you that Churches of Christ Homes and Community Services Incorporated . . . has been forced to make the reluctant decision to withdraw our residential and community services in Carnarvon over the coming months. This decision, which was brought about by a failure to secure Federal Government funding for our new facility and to cover base operational costs, has been a difficult one for COCH. That is, the Churches of Christ Homes. It continues - We recognise that service delivery in regional areas has many challenges and have sought flexible solutions to ensure the continuity of residential care in the area. Unfortunately, we are now unable to provide a staffed service under a per capita funding basis, as required by the Commonwealth Government. COCH is also unable to carry the significant capital costs of providing a new residential facility. No date has yet been set for the withdrawal of the services, as COCH is currently working with residents, clients and staff to establish transitional arrangements and ensure sufficient time is provided to enable alternative arrangements to be put in place. COCH will continue to place the highest priority on the care and support of our residents and clients through this period, including assisting them in relocating to alternative care, matching them with other locally based services and meeting reasonable moving costs. COCH has also advised all funding and regulatory authorities, as well as staff and local stakeholders, of the decision. Further information on this issue and COCH’s plans for a supported transition is enclosed. It is with great regret that I advise you of this decision and I again assure you that COCH will continue to work with all stakeholders to ensure a smooth transition for residents, clients and staff. Yours sincerely Wayne L Belcher Chief Executive The community representatives were very disappointed to receive that letter. As I said, it was a bombshell not only for me, but also obviously for the seniors in Carnarvon. Currently, 10 permanent residents are living in Olive Laird Hostel, and the Churches of Christ Homes and Community Services have another 13 clients. What makes this decision to close the hostel so upsetting is that the Olive Laird Hostel is the only residential aged care facility between Geraldton and Port Hedland. The community has for some time been aware of the Churches of Christ negotiations with the federal government and its endeavour to improve the aged care facilities in Carnarvon. The Churches of Christ actually purchased a motel, the Fascine Lodge, to improve the aged care facilities in Carnarvon. It was then unable to actually renovate it, because it believed it was a cheaper option. The Churches of Christ had planned to purchase the building so that it could upgrade and renovate it to meet the category 3 standard required to provide 47 flexible positions for clients in Carnarvon. I understand that it was to receive federal government financial support to do this. However, the rules have apparently changed, and it was informed that any facility it sought to renovate and provide would be changed to category 9. This has blown the viability of the project out of the water. It is disappointing that the rules were changed because it means that Carnarvon will no longer have an aged care facility. It is also disappointing for the reason that the federal government has known about this since earlier this year. It has made no move to try to get another service provider or to work out a way in which to deal with the aged care crisis we now have. To date, the only response from the federal member has been an assurance that commonwealth funding is available for any aged care providers in Carnarvon willing to work with the government. I believe there is an aged care provider willing to work with the government, and that is the Churches of Christ, but it is unable to obtain the necessary funds, which will create an aged care crisis. The federal government is cost-shifting yet again, and making sure that the state picks up the responsibility for aged care. Carnarvon Regional Hospital already caters for 11 aged patients who should be in an aged care facility. I believe that more than 2 000 hospital beds are being taken up by elderly patients who should be in aged care facilities. It is disappointing that the federal government has yet again shirked its responsibility and pushed it onto the state. Carnarvon really is a hub for seniors because of its climate and amenities, and it is a great shame that it will no longer have an aged care facility. There are a lot of seniors

5072 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] in Carnarvon who are very concerned, because the only other option they have is to go to Geraldton or Perth. Many people who are born in country Western Australia want to remain there and do not want to move to another place. The situation is particularly stressful for seniors who do not have the flexibility to just pack up and move. I will continue to work with the shire to find a solution, and hopefully we can come up with a solution for what is a federal failure. Since being elected to the Mining and Pastoral Region, I have discovered that this is one among many areas, particularly the area of health, in which the federal government has failed. It is also a failure on the part of the federal member for Kalgoorlie, who has not fought for what I believe are the rights of regional Western Australia. Question put and passed. House adjourned at 10.33 pm ______

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] 5073

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Questions and answers are as supplied to Hansard.

RESOURCES SECTOR - LICENCE APPLICATIONS - MARKING-OUT PROVISIONS AND NOTIFICATION OF PASTORALISTS 4989. Hon Giz Watson to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Industry and Enterprise I refer to the assessment of all applications for prospecting licences, exploration licences, miscellaneous licences and mining lease applications for compliance with marking out provisions and notifications by registered post required to pastoralists, adjoining tenement holders and others required under the Mining Act 1978 and Mining Regulations 1981, and I ask - (1) Do all Mining Registrar offices within the state assess and check all applications for prospecting licences, exploration licences, miscellaneous licences and mining lease applications for compliance with marking out provisions and notifications by registered post required to pastoralists, adjoining tenement holders and others required under the Mining Act 1978 and Mining Regulations 1981? (2) If no to (1), why not? (3) If yes to (1), how is this specifically done? (4) Does the Department of Industry and Resources have a policy, after having made preliminary assessment of affidavits required for all types of applications, that should the Department recognise a breach or failure to comply with notifications by registered post to pastoralists, adjoining tenement holders and others required under the Mining Act 1978 and Mining Regulations 1981, the tenement is then recommended for refusal? (5) If no to (4), what is the specific policy or approach taken in these matters? (6) If yes to (4), how long a period of time has this policy or approach been taken? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: The Minister for Industry and Enterprise has been provided with the following response: (1) Yes (2) Not applicable (3) An assessment of applications for mining tenements is completed by all Mining Registrar offices to ensure compliance with the Mining Act 1978 and Regulations 1981. Part of the assessment requires that a compliance affidavit is filed by the applicant within 28 days following lodgement of the application. The affidavit is required to specifically identify the requirements relevant to the application and if applicable requires that proof of service on a pastoralist, other tenement holders, private land holders and the Chief Executive Officer of the relevant local government authority is supported by evidence in the form of a registered mail slip and in the case of advertising a copy of the relevant section of the newspaper. (4) No (5) The issue is one of regulatory compliance. If an applicant for a mining tenement fails to provide evidence in relation to compliance with the provisions of the Mining Act 1978 and Regulations 1981, the Mining Registrar or Warden should refuse the application if that application is a prospecting licence or a miscellaneous licence. If the mining tenement application an exploration licence, mining lease, general purpose lease or retention licence, the Mining Registrar or Warden should make a recommendation to the Minister for refusal. (6) Not applicable YALLINGUP FORESHORE LAND BILL - LOBBYING 4990. Hon Norman Moore to the Minister for Child Protection representing the Attorney General I refer the Minister to question on notice No. 4983, and I ask - (1) Who, on behalf of the Yallingup Residents Association, lobbied the Minister? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: (1) Ron Edwards Ross Woss, and Phillip Clifford.

5074 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007]

MINISTER FOR HEALTH - BUSINESS DEALINGS IN OPERATION OF HEALTHCARE SYSTEM 4991. Hon Norman Moore to the Minister for Child Protection representing the Minister for Health (1) Can the Minister table documentation to prove he made a formal request for the Health Department to meet Eddy Lee and/or representatives from Amcom? (2) If no to (1), why not? (3) Is it common practice for the Minister to instruct the Health Department to meet contractors or subcontractors regarding potential business dealings for the operation of the health system? (4) How many times has the Minister instructed the Department to meet contractors or subcontractors regarding potential business dealings for the operation of the health system since becoming Minister for Health? (5) What is the normal process for contract tendering or potential business dealings for IT if no instruction is given by the Minister? (6) Was any work undertaken in relation to broadband or voice over IP systems for the Health Department after 1 May 2006? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: (1 & 2) A meeting was arranged between the Department of Health and Amcom at my request. (3 & 4) It is not unusual for IT vendors to approach my office regarding sales of their product. When this occurs, they are usually referred to the Department of Health for the Department's information. This may be transfer of written sales material and/or a vendor's contact details. No obligations are made to the vendor, given that IT procurement is subject to appropriate tendering processes. (5) The Department of Health (DOH) adheres to the State Supply Commission policy for all IT related procurements by using either: • The mandatory Common Use Arrangements (administered by the Department of Treasury and Finance). • Purchasing goods using the specified HealthSupply WA financial thresholds. Any exemptions to the above are to be endorsed by the State Supply Commission. Note: Information on the above is available at the Department of Treasury and Finance and HealthSupply WA websites respectively. If the nature of an IT vendor request is to inform the DOH of a product, then a suitable meeting and/or presentation is arranged. DOH staff may also be invited to attend vendor related industry briefings where appropriate. (6) Voice Over IP: not applicable. Broadband service: Telstra has provided 58 new and relocated one existing ADSL service for WA Health, procured using the methods outlined in question 5. Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line (ADSL) is a private connection directly between WA Health's wide area network (WAN) and Telstra's Government ADSL service. It is different to the home use of Telstra's Broadband ADSL services (ie, Bigpond). URANIUM - TRANSPORTATION 4993. Hon Giz Watson to the Minister for Child Protection representing the Minister for Employment Protection (1) What controls are in place regarding the transportation of materials and by-products containing uranium both within the State and to other jurisdictions within Australia? (2) Are mining companies required to notify the State Government if uranium ore is being stockpiled in this way? (3) If yes to (2), what is the notification process? (4) How much of the information is available to the public, and will the Minister advise where the public can access this information? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: The Department of Consumer and Employment Protection (DOCEP) has advised the Minister for Employment Protection:

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] 5075

(1) The Radiation Health Branch of the Health Department is responsible for controlling the transport of radioactive materials through the Radiation Safety Act (1975), Radiation Safety (Transport Radioactive Materials) Regulations (2002) and Code of Practice for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material - Radiation Safety Series No. 2 ARPANSA. (2) The State Government requires the relevant authorities be notified by mining companies of storage of any mineral ore, concentrate or by-product that meets the definition of a radioactive material under the Radiation Safety Act (1975). In addition, the Mines Safety and Inspection Regulations (1995) require that radioactive materials may not be removed from a mining operation without prior approval of the State Mining Engineer. (3) Mining companies notify the Radiological Council by letter and submit applications for relevant licences and registrations where applicable. The State Mining Engineer is also notified. (4) Typically this information is not available to the public for commercial and also security reasons. . MINING OPERATIONS - STORAGE OF URANIUM ORE 4994. Hon Giz Watson to the Minister for Child Protection representing the Minister for Employment Protection (1) Is the Minister aware of any mining operations in Western Australia that are storing uranium ore as a by-product of mining other commodities? (2) If yes to (1), will the Minister list any such operations? (3) What controls are in place to regulate the processing and storage of materials and by-products that contain uranium? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: The Department of Consumer and Employment Protection (DOCEP) has advised the Minister for Employment Protection: (1) During ore processing small amounts of naturally occurring radioactive materials may be incidentally incorporated into mineral concentrates. (2) Greenbushes produces tantalum concentrates with U3O8 at levels between 0.1 and 0.7% (3) The Resources Safety Division of DOCEP is responsible for control of regulating the processing and storage of radioactive material (uranium and thorium) at mines sites under the Mines Safety and Inspection Act (1994) and Regulations (1995). The Radiation Health Branch of the Health Department is responsible for licensing persons and registering sites that process and store radioactive materials. This is through the Radiation Safety Act (1975), Radiation Safety (Transport Radioactive Materials) Regulations (2002) and Code of Practice for the Safe Transport of radioactive Material - radiation safety series No. 2 ARPANSA. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS - RECYCLING FACILITIES 4997. Hon Nigel Hallett to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for the Environment (1) How many Shire recycling facilities have been closed in rural and regional Western Australia in - (a) 2001-2002; (b) 2002-03; (c) 2003-04; (d) 2004-05; (e) 2005-06; and (f) 2006-07? (2) How much funding has gone to local Government for recycling in the years - (a) 2001-02; (b) 2002-03; (c) 2003-04; (d) 2004-05; (e) 2005-06; and (f) 2006-07?

5076 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007]

Hon SALLY TALBOT replied: 1. The Department of Environment and Conservation does not keep records on the number of recycling facilities which have closed in rural and regional Western Australia. However, data from the Resource Recovery Rebates Scheme suggest that very few have closed. Over the life of the Resource Recovery Rebate Scheme since 1998, which was a scheme established to reward local government recycling efforts, claims for recycling rebate payments have consistently been received from the same councils, with between 71 and 76 claims submitted in each period. As this number includes some rural and regional councils, this suggests that it is unlikely that many recycling facilities have closed. 2. The following table outlines the amount of grants and rebate payments awarded to local governments for recycling in the years requested: Year Rebates Data payments Grants Total 2001/02 $2,329,775 $514,165 $2,843,940 2002/03 $2,484,188 $2,484,188 2003/04 $2,589,418 $899,425 $3,488,843 2004/05 $2,555,026 $9,450 $2,564,476 2005/06 $1,401,395 $62,500 $1,463,895 2006/07 $64,000 $17,500 $81,500 Total $12,926,833 The Hon Member will note that rebate payments ceased in 2006/07. This is because the rebate scheme is in the process of being replaced with a new scheme which will award local governments with funding totalling about $3.1 million for the development of Zero Waste Plans. This will establish a strategic framework for local governments to improve waste management and recycling. Once local governments have Zero Waste Plans they will be able to apply for funding under the Government's new waste management assistance schemes.

POLICE PERSONNEL - NUMBER 4999. Hon George Cash to the Minister for Regional Development representing the Minister for Police and Emergency Services Would the Minister provide a list of the number of police officers; police staff and the total personnel in each of the following regions/portfolios - (a) Office of the Commissioner; (b) Deputy Commissioner (Operations); (c) Deputy Commissioner (Specialist Services); (d) Executive Director; (e) media and public affairs; (f) strategy and performance; (g) corruption prevention and investigation; (h) asset management; (i) corporate and community development; (j) corporate programmes and development; (k) finance; (l) human resources; (m) temporary holdings and others; (n) professional development; and (o) Police Academy?

Hon JON FORD replied: The table overleaf shows the actual strength of officers as at 30 August 2007 expressed as Full Time Equivalents:

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] 5077

Police Recruits APLO Police Wages Cadets Others Total Officers Staff Office of the 6 2.9 8.9 Commissioner Deputy 3583.9 43 357.8 13.4 37 4036.1 Commissioner (Operations) Deputy 990.1 400.2 8.7 5 5 1409 Commissioner (Specialist Services) Executive 4 10 14 Director Media and Public 32 41 73 Affairs Strategy and 12 30.7 42.7 Performance Corruption 77 22.9 99.9 Prevention and Investigation Asset 34.4 34.4 Management Corporate and 0 Community Development Corporate 38.6 280.3 7 325.9 Programs and Development Finance 36.3 36.3 Human 19.3 101.6 2 121.9 Resources Temporary 34 28.6 52.6 Holdings and others Professional 116.4 76.1 192.5 Development Academy 221 221 (Recruits)

AUDITOR GENERAL’S THIRD PUBLIC SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT 2007 - MANAGEMENT OF LAND TAX AND METROPOLITAN REGION IMPROVEMENT TAX 5000. Hon Ray Halligan to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Treasurer I refer to the Auditor General’s Third Public Sector Performance Report of 2007 concerning the management of land tax and metropolitan region improvement tax, and ask - (1) What caused the data inaccuracies to which the Auditor General referred? (2) What actions have been taken or are planned to correct these procedures that resulted in about 10 per cent of land tax assessments in 2006-2007 being incorrect? Hon KATE DOUST replied: Department of Treasury and Finance answer (1) As noted in the Auditor General's report (page 9), "The underlying causes of these errors are data incompatibilities, data quality and data format issues that arise in the uploading of data to the RCIS database from the Western Australian Land Information Authority's (Landgate) database." (2) The Office of State Revenue has implemented a number of strategies, some of which are ongoing, to improve the accuracy of assessments. These include: (a) The establishment in early 2005 of a dedicated team to review and correct land data mismatches;

5078 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007]

(b) The establishment in 2004?05 of a project to streamline and improve the automated processing and matching of land sales records received from Landgate, and to improve street address information and data matching with external agencies; and (c) The establishment in early 2005 of a dedicated compliance team for land tax matters to investigate land ownership issues and to validate exemptions. These strategies are having an impact. For example, monthly land sale mismatches have fallen from an average of 2,370 per month in 2005?06 to 1,916 per month in 2006?07. Furthermore, since the examination by the Auditor General, the Office of State Revenue has reduced the number of outstanding land and ownership variance work items from 115,868 to 96,795. AUDITOR GENERAL’S THIRD PUBLIC SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT 2007 - MANAGEMENT OF LAND TAX AND METROPOLITAN REGION IMPROVEMENT TAX 5001. Hon Ray Halligan to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Treasurer I refer to the Auditor General’s Third Public Sector Performance Report of 2007 concerning the management of land tax and metropolitan region improvement tax, and ask - (1) What was the cause of the 2 159 adjusted assessments that were issued by the Office of State Revenue? (2) How much did the biggest single re-assessment involve? (3) How many tax years were involved? (4) What action has been taken to ensure that procedures are correct in future? (5) Why does the Office of State Revenue believe it will take 18 months to clear the backlog identified in the report? (6) Is there any reason this process cannot be done more expeditiously? (7) What is the estimated ‘likely loss of significant revenue’ to which the Auditor General referred? Hon KATE DOUST replied: (1) The 2,159 figure referred to was for assessments issued in 2006/07 that related in full or in part to a prior year. The majority related to re-directing unadjusted assessment amounts to a new address (62%) and issuing of assessments for the first time for 2005/06 (34%). The balance (4%) adjusted the assessed amount mainly due to changes of exemption, land holding or taxable land valuation. (2) $1,739,998. (3) Four assessment years (from 2002/03 to 2005/06 inclusive). (4) The Office of State Revenue has implemented a number of strategies to improve the accuracy of assessments, some of which are ongoing. These include: (a) The establishment in early 2005 of a dedicated team of five officers to review and correct land data mismatches; (b) The establishment in 2004/05 of a project to streamline and improve the automated processing and matching of land sales records received from Landgate and to improve street address information and data matching with external agencies; and (c) The establishment in early 2005 of a dedicated compliance team for land tax matters to investigate land ownership issues and to validate exemptions. (5) While over 50,000 of the work items on hand are being dealt with through a system-based solution, the majority of the identified land data mismatches on hand need to be dealt with manually. The 18 month figure is based on an estimated 63,000 manual work items, each taking around 10 minutes on average to complete. (6) Yes. While it would be possible to expedite the clearance of these land data mismatches, given the materiality involved, it is resourced appropriately relative to other revenue and customer service risks. (7) The estimated annual revenue loss is between $3 million and $5 million. This represents less than 1% of estimated annual collections for land tax and metropolitan region improvement tax. AUDITOR GENERAL’S THIRD PUBLIC SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT 2007 - MANAGEMENT OF LAND TAX AND METROPOLITAN REGION IMPROVEMENT TAX 5002. Hon Ray Halligan to the Minister for Local Government representing the Minister for Land Information I refer to the Auditor General’s Third Public Sector Performance Report of 2007 concerning the management of land tax and metropolitan region improvement tax, and ask -

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] 5079

(1) Does the Minister accept the Auditor General’s statement that the majority of the errors in land and ownership matters have their origin in Landgate’s database? (2) How does the Minister explain that, in a single month in 2006, the number of identified mismatches more than trebled? (3) Is it proposed to evaluate the work of the Land Data Integrity Project and Land Data Management Team in their efforts to resolve land and ownership discrepancies? (4) What does the Minister regard as an acceptable monthly variation in these figures? (5) Is any further action proposed to reduce the current average of 6 408 new variations every month? (6) If yes to (5), what further actions are proposed? (7) If no to (5), why not? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: (1) No. It is considered that freehold land records provided to the Office of State Revenue are reliable and accurate. The issue referred to by the Auditor General arises largely due to the provision of data relating to Crown land and other non taxable land by automated data transfer processes. (2) This question should be referred to the Treasurer. (3)-(6) Landgate advises that it is proposed to work with the Land Data Integrity Project and the Land Data Management Team to address any issues arising out of the current data extraction and load processes (7) Not applicable. MAGISTRATES COURT ACT 2004 - REVIEW 5006. Hon Giz Watson to the Minister for Child Protection representing the Attorney General Regarding the answer to question on notice No. 1287 of 13 June 2006, and question on notice No. 4696 of 27 March 2007, in relation to the Magistrates Courts Act review, I ask - (1) When did the Steering Committee finalise its review of the Magistrates Courts Act 2004 and associated legislation? (2) Has the Committee made any recommendations to the Attorney General as a consequence of the findings of the review? (3) If yes to (2), have these recommendations led to the drafting of amendments to the Magistrates Courts Act and associated legislation? (4) If yes to (3), can the Attorney General give any indication as to the legislative priority which has been allocated to the proposed changes to the legislation? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: (1) 29 May 2006. (2) Yes. (3) Yes. (4) A Bill is to be introduced in the Spring Session. COURTS - RECORDING CONTRACT FOR TRANSCRIPTION OF PROCEEDINGS 5007. Hon Giz Watson to the Minister for Child Protection representing the Attorney General Regarding the court recording contract which came into effect in mid December 2006, I ask - (1) What date did the current court recording contract, which governs the preparation of transcripts of court proceedings and the monitoring of court recordings, comes into effect? (2) Which companies or individuals were awarded the contract for the provision of court recording services for each jurisdiction in Western Australia? (3) What were the total costs of the court recording contract for each of the following jurisdictions for the first six months of the calendar year to 30 June 2006 - (a) Magistrates Courts; (b) District Court; (c) Supreme Court; and (d) Family Court?

5080 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007]

(4) What were the total costs of the court recording contract for each of the following jurisdictions for the first six months of the calendar year to 30 June 2007 - (a) Magistrates Courts; (b) District Court; (c) Supreme Court; and (d) Family Court? (5) What were the total number of transcripts prepared for each month from 1st January 2006 to 30th June 2006, and 1st January 2007 to 30th June 2007, for - (a) Magistrates Courts; (b) District Court; (c) Supreme Court; and (d) Family Court? (6) Has the Department audited the performance of the court recording contract for all jurisdictions of the court system up to 30 June 2007, and has an evaluation been received by the Director General of the Department of the Attorney General and the Attorney General? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: (1) 18 December 2006. (2) Spark & Cannon Australasia Pty Ltd (S&C) were appointed the main contractor with National Transcription Services Pty Ltd (NTS) as the second or overflow contractor. The overflow contractor is engaged when the workload approaches levels that will result in non-compliance with specified delivery times and disruption to service delivery. (3) a) $583,899 b) $1,443,386 c) $714,861 d) $167,852 (4) a) $754,236 b) $1,162,242 c) $551,912 d) $224,574 (5) a) January 2006 558 February 2006 628 March 2006 833 April 2006 522 May 2006 692 June 2006 663 Total 3,896 January 2007 486 February 2007 339 March 2007 305 April 2007 509 May 2007 588 June 2007 697 Total 2,924 b) January 2006 177 February 2006 333 March 2006 346 April 2006 276 May 2006 402 June 2006 314 Total 1,848

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] 5081

January 2007 222 February 2007 322 March 2007 320 April 2007 245 May 2007 409 June 2007 321 Total 1,839 c) January 2006 105 February 2006 219 March 2006 251 April 2006 210 May 2006 240 June 2006 215 Total 1,240 January 2007 134 February 2007 234 March 2007 216 April 2007 182 May 2007 234 June 2007 166 Total 1,166 d) January 2006 82 February 2006 69 March 2006 83 April 2006 60 May 2006 77 June 2006 55 Total 426 January 2007 119 February 2007 115 March 2007 182 April 2007 132 May 2007 103 June 2007 147 Total 798 (6) Auditing of the performance of the court recording contract is undertaken by jurisdictional representatives. These audits are reported to the Contract Management Committee and to the Executive Manager of each jurisdiction. Any non compliance issues are referred to the Contract Manager for resolution. The Director General and Attorney General would only be informed where issues could not be resolved through normal contract management practices. There have been no issues of this nature to date. The jurisdictions have the option under the contract to undertake scheduled audits or continuous monitoring. The jurisdictions have used a mix of scheduled audit and continuous monitoring to audit the performance of the contractor. This has been done for the first quarter of the year and is currently occurring for the second quarter of the year. YALLINGUP FORESHORE LAND BILL - LOBBYING 5008. Hon Norman Moore to the Minister for Child Protection representing the Attorney General I refer to the answer to question on notice No.4943 and ask - (1) Who were the representatives of the Yallingup Residents Association who lobbied the Minister? (2) Are any of these persons included on the Government’s register of lobbyists? (3) If yes to (2), who are they? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: 1. Ron Edwards Ross Woss, and Phillip Clifford

5082 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007]

2. No. The Contact with Lobbyist Code and the Register of Lobbyists was not in existence. 3. Not applicable. HERITAGE LAWS - REVIEW 5010. Hon Robyn McSweeney to the Minister for Local Government representing the Minister for Heritage I refer to the Labor Government’s 2001 election policy, ‘Heritage for the New Millennium’, and ask - (1) Did the policy state that Labor will, ‘work to pass a new heritage Act that will protect the State’s heritage interests’, and that, ‘a review is long overdue? (2) Is the Minister aware that the Government’s procrastination on this promised Bill was raised in Parliament on, 20 June 2002 (grievance), 12 December 2003 (question), 1 April 2004 (grievance), 22 June 2004 (two questions), and 1 August 2006 (question)? (3) What amendments has the Government made to the Heritage Act 1990, since being elected in 2001? (4) Given the recommendation of the Select Committee on Heritage laws that the Heritage Act 1990 be re- written in plain English, will a Bill for a new Act be introduced? (5) If yes to (4) - (a) when; and (b) what is the current drafting status? (6) If no to (4), why not? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. (1)-(6) There are no current plans to replace the Heritage Act with a new Act. That had been our policy in 2001, and after we were elected to Government there was a review of the Act and some new drafts were suggested. The policy upon which we were re-elected in 2005 did not include a revision of the Act, and so we have not proceeded with that course of action, nor have we sought to amend the Act.

"HERITAGE FOR THE NEW MILLENNIUM" - LABOR GOVERNMENT’S 2001 ELECTION POLICY 5011. Hon Robyn McSweeney to the Minister for Local Government representing the Minister for Heritage I refer to the promises made in Labor Governments 2001 election policy, ‘Heritage for the New Millennium’, and ask - (1) What is the current status of each of the promises listed in the following sections of the policy - (a) executive summary; (b) The Heritage Act; (c) review heritage assessment processes; (d) protect State owned heritage sites; (e) work with local Government to preserve heritage sites; (f) assistance and advice; and (g) improve heritage awareness throughout Western Australia? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. (1) The policy which currently operates is the 2005 policy, which is a revision of the 2001 policy document. As the Hon. Member well knows, political parties do change their policies from time to time and from election to election. The Liberal Party has done it; the National Party has done it (it has even changed its name); the Labor Party has done it. Since the Hon. Member is interested in 2001, I will say that since that time, 489 places have been added to the permanent Register of Places of State Heritage significance, of which 122 have been places owned outright by the State. In addition, we have spent $10 million in direct heritage grants to private owners and for the maintenance and repair of such heritage icons as St George's Cathedral and St Mary's Cathedral in Perth, St Patrick's Basilica in Fremantle, and Maley's Bridge at Greenough. The Heritage Council collaborates with local government on a number of levels, most specifically through the Heritage Loan Scheme which it operates in partnership with a number of local authorities. In September last year, I launched, together with the Minister for Tourism,

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] 5083

a strategy for Heritage Tourism across the State and since that time the Heritage Council has employed an officer specifically to develop heritage tourism.. "HERITAGE FOR THE NEW MILLENNIUM" - LABOR GOVERNMENT’S 2001 ELECTION POLICY 5012. Hon Robyn McSweeney to the Minister for Local Government representing the Minister for Heritage I refer to the promises made in Labor Governments 2001 election policy, ‘Heritage for the New Millennium’, and ask - (1) Is the Minister aware that, other than local heritage funding which may be mentioned in policies for regional areas, there is no dedicated heritage policy listed on the Australian Labor Party’s website under ‘WA Labor’s 2005 Election Policies’? (2) Did Labor have a 2005 heritage policy? (3) If yes to (2) - (a) what was the title; and (b) where can it be obtained? (4) If no to (2), why not? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) The Labor Party has a policy in its platform published in 2005. The former title of this policy was "Labor's Plan for WA Heritage" and is now entitled "Preserving Cultural Heritage". The policy is available on the website at www.wa.alp.org.au/download/new/platform.pdf at pages 52-3. . SWAN VALLEY CENTRE 5020. Hon Helen Morton to the Minister for Child Protection representing the Minister for Health With regard to the Swan Valley Centre, I ask - (1) Have performance standards been reviewed and set, and up to date job descriptions in line with authority clearly identified, recommended to be completed by the first quarter 2007 as outlined by the Futures Group in their report of December 2006? (2) Have management been provided with training to ensure that all levels of managerial staff have the necessary skills to manage effectively, with ongoing provision and needs assessment, as recommended by the Futures Group in their report of December 2006? (3) Has an effective performance management system for all staff, commencing at the most senior levels, been introduced and completed, as recommended to be completed by the second quarter 2007 by the Futures Group in their report of December 2006? (4) If yes to (3), is this performance management system monitored by the Executive, as recommended by the Futures Group in their report of December 2006? (5) If yes to (4), what form of monitoring takes place? (6) Have concerns about management style and practices with the managers concerned been raised by the Nursing Director, as recommended by the Futures Group in their report of December 2006, which was to have been completed immediately? (7) If yes to (6), were their meetings recorded or documented in any way? (8) Has the Nursing Director taken steps to ensure that the managers concerned have set clear standards of behaviour, as recommended by the Futures Group in their report of December 2006, which was to have been completed immediately? (9) If yes to (8), are there clear standards of behaviour in written form? (10) What method of monitoring adherence to the standards is taking place? (11) Has the Nursing Director taken steps to ensure that staff have the necessary management skills, and provided training or coaching as needed, as recommended by the Futures Group in their report of December 2006, which was to have been completed immediately? (12) Have the afternoon and night RN Level Three positions been relocated to the Emergency Department as CNS positions, as recommended by the Futures Group in their report of December 2006, which was to have been completed immediately? (13) Have the RN Level Three roles on the unit been reassessed with a view to creating a more senior position providing on-site supervision and overall responsibility for the day to day direction and

5084 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007]

performance management of the unit, as recommended by the Futures Group in their report of December 2006, which was to have been completed by the first quarter of 2007? (14) Has an assessment for flow on impact across the Health Service as a result of the proposed structural change, both in regard to other similar facilities and the immediate positions affected (RN Level Three and Nurse Director positions) been assessed by the Clinical Director and Director of Human Resources, as recommended by the Futures Group in their report of December 2006, which was to have been completed by the second quarter of 2007? (15) Has a culture change and ongoing risk management program to embed changes and identify any further vulnerabilities been implemented by the Executive Group, as recommended by the Futures Group in their report of December 2006, which was to have been completed immediately? (16) If yes to (15), how was the cultural change and ongoing risk management program undertaken? (17) Has a new structure been put into place by the Executive Group, as recommended by the Futures Group in their report of December 2006, which was to have been completed by the second quarter of 2007? (18) Do you refute that the brief for the Futures Group was to investigate the veracity of allegations of a culture of bullying at the Swan Valley Centre, and report to the Director of Human Resources, North Metropolitan Health Service? (19) Do you refute that the Futures Group documented staff reporting of managerial practices including ‘correction that is delivered with yelling and screaming,’ perceptions of favouritism, and unfair treatment of those not in the ‘in group?’ (20) What is the name of the staff member located at the Swan Valley Centre who has responsibility for ensuring these recommendations are progressed? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: 1. Yes, action has been undertaken. 2. Yes, action has been undertaken. 3. Yes. The performance development cycle occurs on a regular basis. 4. Yes. 5. Weekly meetings between the Swan Valley Centre (SVC) Executive and the Adult Program Clinical Director. 6. Yes. 7. Yes, performance management sessions are documented. (Note: excludes information sessions). 8. All staff members in the North Metropolitan Area Health Service (NMAHS) are subject to the clear standards of behaviour as detailed in the NMAHS Code of Conduct. An operational circular has been circulated to all Swan Adult Mental Health staff. 9. Yes. 10. All NMAHS staff members have access to public sector grievance procedures and consumers of the services have access to a complaints/compliments management process. A SVC nursing forum commenced in October 2006. 11. Yes, action has been undertaken. 12. Yes. The after hours SRN level 3 staff are located in the Swan Emergency Department. Note: The staff spend a large proportion of their time assisting in the in-patient unit. 13. Yes, action has been undertaken. 14. Yes. 15. Yes, action has been undertaken. 16. Area support for the supervision of HR processes is in place. Procedures for the automatic reporting of risks have been established and built into the management structure. 17. The NMAHS Mental Health Adult Program has committed to a review of management structure. This will include the SVC. 18. The Brief was to investigate the veracity of allegations raised regarding the closure of beds in the SVC because of staff shortages resulting from a culture of bullying in the facility, and then report to the Director, Human Resources and the Clinical Director Mental Health Adult Program North Metropolitan Area Health Service on the findings and recommendations for rectifying the situation. 19. This matter was detailed in the Futures Group report.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] 5085

20. Swan Mental Health executives have responsibility for ensuring different components of these recommendations are progressed. Acting Adult Program Clinical Director, Dr Nathan Gibson, has oversight responsibility for ensuring that the agreed recommendations are progressed.

ADVISORY BODIES WITHIN MINISTERS’ PORTFOLIOS - MEMBERS AND REMUNERATION 5021. Hon Helen Morton to the Minister for Agriculture and Food (1) Please provide the names of each member of any advisory body within the Minister’s portfolio over the past two years? (2) Please indicate if any of these people receive any payments for their participation as members of the advisory body? (3) If yes to (2), please identify those individuals and indicate how much they were paid for their participation as members of the advisory body over the past two years? (4) Please indicate if any of the people who received payment are public servants? (5) If yes to (4), please identify those individuals? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1) No public servants received remuneration for sitting on a board or committee so question 5 is Not Applicable. Agricultural Produce Commission Name Public Servant 2005/06 2006/07 $ $ Harry Morgan AM (Chairman) (Ceased Jan 2007) No 13,082 8,741 Peter Wells (Chairman) (Commenced Jan 2007) No Nil 6,280 KC Boughton No 4,868 6,500 Y Fahl No 4,868 6,500 Rob Delane (Ceased Jan 2007) Yes Nil Nil Roger O'Dwyer (Commenced Jan 2007) Yes Nil Nil 22,818 28,021

Agricultural Protection Board Name Public Servant 2005/06 2006/07 $ $ Chris Richardson (Chairman) No 26,737 31,000 Michelle Allen No 10,681 12,400 Maxinne Sclanders No 10,681 12,400 Ron Creagh No 10,681 12,400 Robert Gillam No 10,681 12,400 John O'Brien No 10,681 12,400 Brian Young No 10,681 12,400 Keith Wright No 10,681 12,400 Peter Brown No 10,681 12,400 Keith Bridgart No 10,681 12,400 Michael Blackburn No 10,681 12,400 Ex officio Director General of the Department of Agriculture Yes Nil Nil and Food (DAFWA) Rob Delane - Deputy Director General Yes Nil Nil of DAFWA 133,547 155,000

5086 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007]

Cattle Industry Research Advisory Committee Name Public Servant 2005/06 2006/07 $ $ Renata Paliskis Bessell (Ceased 2005) Yes Nil N/A Mark Dolling (Commenced Feb 2006) Yes Nil Nil Wally Treloar (Ceased 2006) No Nil Nil Anthony Hiscock (Commenced Aug 2006) No N/A Nil Michael Norton No Nil Nil

Chicken Meat Industry Committee Name Public Servant 2005/06 2006/07 $ $ Bruce Thorpe Yes N/A Nil Tom Dean No N/A Nil Peter Smetana (Ceased) Yes Nil N/A Peter Manning (Ceased) No Nil N/A Rohit Chand (Ceased) No Nil N/A Lennard Brajkovich No Nil Nil Craig Menzie No Nil Nil Justin Byatt No Nil Nil Terrance Packard (Ceased) No Nil N/A Joyce Stowe No Paid direct by industry Jan Trenorden No Paid direct by industry Deputies: William Hopkinson No Nil Nil Paul Jeffrey (Ceased) No Nil N/A John Witherspoon No N/A Nil Colleen Broad No N/A Nil Rob Kestral No N/A Nil

Dry Season Assistance Committee Name Public Servant 2005/06 2006/07 $ $ Dexter Davies No 23,480 Sandy McTaggart No Nil Trevor DeLandgrafft No Nil Paul McKenzie No Nil David Williams No 1,660 Bruce Thorpe Yes Nil Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Australia Representatives Yes Nil

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] 5087

Maree Gooch No 2,360 Bill Mitchell No Nil John Dagostino Yes Nil Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Australia Representatives Yes Nil Sue Middleton No James Hall No 340 Nil 27,840 DSAC did not sit in 2005/06 Grains Licensing Authority (GLA) Name Public Servant 2005/06 2006/07 $ $ Colin Mann - (Past Chairman) No 29,569 57 Wayne Obst (Chairman) No 17,467 28,419 Mr Kim Halbert (Appointed April 2005) No 11,577 10,790 Mr John Richardson No N/A 11,927 Dr David Morrison - Treasury and Finance Yes Nil Nil David Bowran - DAFWA (Appointed April 2005) Yes Nil Nil 59,613 51,193 Natural Resource Management Council Name Public Servant 2005/06 2006/07 $ $ Rex Edmondson (Chair) No 2,551 Garry English No 5,152 Barbara Morrell No 4,762 Tom Morrissey No 1,522 Jan Star No 4,612 Ron (Doc) Reynolds No 2,592 Bruce Hamilton No 3,210 Sue Walker No 1,632 Sue Metcalf (Resigned Nov 05) No 320 Director General (ex officio), DAFWA Yes Nil Executive Director (ex officio), Department of Conservation and Land Management Yes Nil Director General (ex officio), Department of Environment Yes Nil Director General (ex officio), Department for Planning and Infrastructure Yes Nil General Manager (ex officio), Forest Products Commission Yes Nil 26,353 0 * Council was in abeyance in 2006/07, no meetings were held and no remuneration paid. The Council will meet again in 2007/08 with new members.

5088 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007]

Perth Market Authority Name Public Servant 2005/06 2006/07 $ $ David Taylor No 26,490 26,748 Dennis Cerinich No 11,800 11,800 Bruce Munro No 14,901 15,009 Dianne Fry No 16,194 15,218 Ermie Robinson No 11,800 11,800 David Thomas No 14,250 13,550 Graham Morgan No 13,900 13,900 109,335 108,025 Potato Marketing Corporation Name Public Servant 2005/06 2006/07 $ $ Salvatore Calameri (Expired Sept 2006) No 14,083 3,542 Deborah Pitter (Resigned Feb 2006) No 16,500 N/A Eddie Atchison No 14,083 14,170 Andrew Tempra No 14,083 14,170 Herbert Russell No 19,523 24,361 Annemarie McAuliffe (Start Feb 06) No 5,417 14,170 Ian Flack (Start Feb 06) No 5,417 12,989 David Sash (Expired Feb 06) No 9,750 N/A Mr Greg Starkie (Start Oct 2006) No N/A 10,627 98,856 94,029 Rural Business Development Corporation Name Public Servant 2005/06 2006/07 $ $ Robert Sands No 22,279 21,548 Kerrine Blenkinsop (Resigned April 06) No 6,738 N/A Maree Gooch (Appointed Dec 03) No 10,327 8,639 Dexter Davies (Appointed May 05) No 8,706 8,639 Richard Joyce (Appointed May 05) No 10,461 8,639 Director General of DAFWA Yes Nil Nil Murray Gmeiner N/A 7,571 58,510 55,036 State Planning Group of FarmBis Name Public Servant 2005/06 2006/07 $ $ Peter Cooke No 5,345 7,140 Steve Dilley No 308 Nil

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] 5089

Ric Newman Yes Nil Nil Bruce Thorpe Yes Nil Nil Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Australia Representatives Yes Nil Nil Anne Jennings No 1,035 1,920 Leigh Ballard No 1,561 1,920 Sue Middleton No 1,576 680 9,825 11,660 Veterinary Surgeons Board 2005/06 Member Deputy Dr Peter Buckman Yes Nil Mr Preston Suijdendorp (part) Yes Nil Dr Peter Punch No 1,300 Ms Fiona Sunderman (part) Yes Nil Dr Richard Read No 646 Dr Bryan Hilbert No Nil Dr Michael Lumsden No 904 Dr David Fraser No 258 Ms Sarah Harrison No 86 Dr David Marshall No 86 Ms Fiona Calley No 688 2006/07 Member Deputy Dr Peter Buckman Yes Nil Mr Preston Suijdendorp (Ceased Dec 2006) Yes Nil Dr Peter Punch (Moved to Dep Dr Brian McErlean Dec 2006) No 1,280 (Ceased Dec 2006) No Nil Dr Richard Read No 1,440 Ms Fiona Calley No 320 Dr Michael Lumsden Dr David Fraser (Ceased Dec 2006) No Nil (Ceased Dec 2006) No 86 Ms Sarah Harrison No 886 Dr David Marshall No 726 Dr Sue Beetson Dr Fiona Sunderman (Commenced Jan 2007) No 800 (Commenced Jan 2007) Yes Nil Dr David Neck Dr Lyndy Scott (Commenced Jan 2007) No 800 (Commenced Jan 2007) No Nil Dr Peter Punch (Dep from Jan 2007) No 320 Western Australian Meat Industry Authority Name Public Servant 2005/06 2006/07 $ $ Martine Pop (Resigned July 2006) No 10,462 N/A Renata Paliskis-Bessell (Resigned Jan 2007) Yes Nil Nil Dr Mark Dolling (Commenced Mar 2007) Yes Nil Nil Gary Minton (Resigned July 2006) No 5,233 N/A Peter Trefort (Resigned July 2006) No Nil N/A

5090 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007]

Warren Robinson No 7,400 7,400 John Pugh No 7,400 7,400 Malcolm Seymour No 7,400 7,400 David Hopperton (Resigned July 2006) No Nil N/A Kerry Mcauliffe No 4,650 18,600 Graeme Haynes No 7,400 7,400 Des Griffiths No 3,700 7,400 Mark Panizza No Nil 1,850 53,645 57,450 ADVISORY BODIES WITHIN MINISTERS’ PORTFOLIOS - MEMBERS AND REMUNERATION 5022. Hon Helen Morton to the Minister for Forestry (1) Please provide the names of each member of any advisory body within the Minister’s portfolio over the past two years? (2) Please indicate if any of these people receive any payments for their participation as members of the advisory body? (3) If yes to (2), please identify those individuals and indicate how much they were paid for their participation as members of the advisory body over the past two years? (4) Please indicate if any of the people who received payment are public servants? (5) If yes to (4), please identify those individuals? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(3) Native Forest Products Ministerial Advisory Committee (NFPMAC) Name (1) Paid Sitting Fee (2) Payment (3) Mr Paul Baldock Yes $2025.00 Ms Letisha Campbell Yes $2925.00 Mr Tim Daly Yes $2475.00 Mr Max Evans Yes $2925.00 Mr Paul Ferreira Yes $1575.00 Mr Ian Hearn Yes $2700.00 Mr Keith Liddelow Yes $2475.00 Mr Greg Meachem Yes $450.00 Mr Bob Pearce Yes $2475.00 Mr Trevor Richardson Yes $2700.00 Mr Alan Trevaskis Yes $450.00 Dr Paul Biggs No Nil Mr Tony Jupp No Nil Mr David Taylor No Nil Plantations Industry Ministerial Advisory Committee (PIMAC) Name (1) Paid Sitting Fee (2) Payment (3) Mr Martin Beel Yes Nil Ms Letisha Campbell Yes $284.00 Mr Tim Daly Yes $426.00 Mr Gavin Ellis Yes $284.00 Mr Paul Ferreira Yes $284.00 Mr Jim Frith Yes $284.00 Mr Kevin Forbes Yes $447.00* Mr David Gardner Yes $1443.30* Mr Ian Hearn Yes $284.00 Ms Julia Levinson Yes $426.00 Ms Leonie Offer Yes $859.56* Mr Keith Parnell Yes $648.65* Mr Bob Pearce Yes $284.00

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] 5091

Mr Paul Rose Yes Nil Mr David Wettenhall Yes $1132.65* Mr Robert Chandler No Nil Mr Murray Jorgensen No Nil Mr Tony Jupp No Nil Mr Keith Low No Nil Dr Andrew Montgomery No Nil Mr John Ruprecht No Nil Dr Peter Taylor No Nil Timber Plantations Strategy Group (TPSG) Name (1) Paid Sitting Fee (2) Payment (3) Mr Ron Adams No Nil Mr Tim Browning No Nil Ms Letisha Campbell No Nil Mr Tim Daly No Nil Mr Gavin Ellis No Nil Mr Paul Ferreira No Nil Mr Kevin Forbes No Nil Mr Alan Gerrard No Nil Dr Gary Inions No Nil Mr James Malone No Nil Mr Bob Pearce No Nil Mr Tony Price No Nil Mr Denis Sawers No Nil Mr Ian Telfer No Nil Dr Paul Biggs No Nil Mr Tony Jupp No Nil Note: 1. The above details relate to the membership and payment of advisory bodies for the 2005/06 and 2006/07 financial years. 2. In some cases sitting fees are paid to the advisory body member's employer. 3. Amounts marked * include reimbursement of travel and/or accommodation expenses. (4)-(5) Public servants who are members of these advisory bodies participate as part of their duties and are not paid. ADVISORY BODIES WITHIN MINISTERS’ PORTFOLIOS - MEMBERS AND REMUNERATION 5023. Hon Helen Morton to the Minister for the Mid West and Wheatbelt (1) Please provide the names of each member of any advisory body within the Minister’s portfolio over the past two years? (2) Please indicate if any of these people receive any payments for their participation as members of the advisory body? (3) If yes to (2), please identify those individuals and indicate how much they were paid for their participation as members of the advisory body over the past two years? (4) Please indicate if any of the people who received payment are public servants? (5) If yes to (4), please identify those individuals? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: Mid West Development Commission 1. The Mid West Development Commission did not have and did not sit on any Ministerial advisory bodies in the 2005/06 or 2006/07 financial years. 2-5. Not applicable Wheatbelt Development Commission (1) Avon Industrial Park Advisory Board 05/06 Darren West Paul Tomlinson (Chair)

5092 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007]

Dudley Kingsnorth Peter Dempster Robert Milner Ray Head David Singe 06/07 Darren West Paul Tomlinson (Chair) Dudley Kingsnorth Peter Dempster Mary Askey Ray Head Steve Downard Amanda Abbott David Singe (2) Yes (3) 05/06 Darren West $370.00 Paul Tomlinson (Chair) $13,240.00 Dudley Kingsnorth $1,170.00 Peter Dempster $220.00 Robert Milner $440.00 Ray Head $1250.00 David Singe $0.00 06/07 Darren West $380.00 Paul Tomlinson (Chair) $14,500.00 Dudley Kingsnorth $570.00 Peter Dempster $640.00 Mary Askey $640.00 Ray Head $720.00 Steve Downard $640.00 Amanda Abbott $560.00 David Singe $0.00 (4)-(5) Not applicable ADVISORY BODIES WITHIN MINISTERS’ PORTFOLIOS - MEMBERS AND REMUNERATION 5024. Hon Helen Morton to the Minister for Great Southern (1) Please provide the names of each member of any advisory body within the Minister’s portfolio over the past two years? (2) Please indicate if any of these people receive any payments for their participation as members of the advisory body? (3) If yes to (2), please identify those individuals and indicate how much they were paid for their participation as members of the advisory body over the past two years? (4) Please indicate if any of the people who received payment are public servants? (5) If yes to (4), please identify those individuals? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1) The Great Southern Development Commission did not have and did not sit on any Ministerial advisory bodies in the 2005/06 or 2006/07 financial years. (2)-(4) Not applicable ADVISORY BODIES WITHIN MINISTERS’ PORTFOLIOS - MEMBERS AND REMUNERATION 5045. Hon Helen Morton to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Deputy Premier (1) Please provide the names of each member of any advisory body within the Deputy Premier’s portfolio over the past two years?

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] 5093

(2) Please indicate if any of these people receive any payments for their participation as members of the advisory body? (3) If yes to (2), please identify those individuals and indicate how much they were paid for their participation as members of the advisory body over the past two years? (4) Please indicate if any of the people who received payment are public servants? (5) If yes to (4), please identify those individuals? Hon KATE DOUST replied: Economic Regulation Authority (1) Nil (2)-(5) N/A Office of Native Title Financial Year 2005/2006: (1) Nil (2)-(5) N/A Financial Year 2006/2007: (1) Nil (2)-(5) N/A Office of the Auditor General (1) None (2)-(5) N/A State Supply Commission (1)-(5) N/A Western Australian Treasury Corporation (1) Nil. (2)-(5) N/A Department of Treasury and Finance (1) Please see table below. (2) One member of the State Tax Review Technical Committee received payment for their participation. No members of the State Tax Review Reference Group or the State Infrastructure Strategy Reference Group received payment for their participation. However, one member of the State Infrastructure Strategy Reference Group is reimbursed for the cost of travel. (3) Mr Jonathan Ilbery (State Tax Review Technical Committee) received payments totalling $129,512.90 (including GST) for his services as Chair of the State Tax Review Reference Group. (4) No. (5) N/A The following Advisory Boards/Committees that provide advice to the Minister are: The State Tax Review Reference Group: Member Organisation Mr Philip Achurch Western Australian Small Business and Enterprise Association (not able to participate after July 2006) Ms Anne Arnold Real Estate Institute of Western Australia Mr Nigel Barker Council on the Ageing Western Australia (represented on occasions by Mr Ken Marston) Ms Shaheen Hughes Chamber of Minerals and Energy (replaced Ms Julie Bremner)

5094 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007]

Mr Alex Sanchez Insurance Council of Australia (replaced Mr Daryl Cameron) Mr Mark Cole Australian Bankers' Association Professor Gregory Craven Curtin University (represented by Professor Peter Kenyon) Mr John Dastlik Housing Industry Association Mr Trevor De Landgrafft Western Australian Farmers Federation (represented on occasions by Mr Ross Hardwick and Mr Gerry Crowden) Mr Peter Fitzpatrick Motor Trade Association of Western Australia (represented on occasions by Mr Craig Marsland) Mr Gavan Forster Master Builders Association of Western Australia Mr Ron Hardaker Australian Finance Conference (represented on occasions by Ms Helen Gordon) Mr Scott Grimley Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia and CPA Australia Ms Fiona Harris Western Australian Division Australian Institute of Company Directors Mr Garry Hyde Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia (represented on occasions by Ms Bindi Thomson) Mr Jonathan Ilbery Jackson McDonald Mr John Langoulant Chamber of Commerce and Industry (represented by Mr John Nicolaou) Mr Joe Lenzo Property Council of Australia Professor Dale Pinto Taxation Institute of Australia (replaced Mr Brian Lovitt) Mr Barry MacKinnon Disability Services Commission Board Mr Brian Reynolds Retail Traders Association of Western Australia Mr Graham Short Western Australian Fishing Industry Council Mr Rod Slater Royal Automobile Club Mr Justin Walawski Association of Mining and Exploration Companies Mr John Walker Unions Western Australia (represented on occasions by Ms Janine Freeman) Ms Rae Walter Western Australian Council of Social Services (represented on occasions by Ms Lisa Baker) Mr John Wood Caravan Industry Australia - Western Australia

State Tax Review Technical Committee (only active during 2005-06 in Stage 1 of the Review): Member Organisation Mr Rami Brass Taxpayers Australia Mr Graeme Cotterill Taxation Institute of Australia Mr Jonathan Ilbery Jackson McDonald Mr Guy Lehmann National Institute of Accountants

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] 5095

Ms Koo Lloyd-Kane Australian Institute of Conveyancers Mr Rob Maurich Finance and Treasury Association Mr Peter Moltoni Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia Associate Professor Jeff Pope Curtin University Evelyn Tucker Independent Settlement Agents Association Mr Grahame Young Law Society of Western Australia Department of Industry and Resources (1)-(5) The Department of Industry and Resources advises that there have been no advisory bodies relating to the State Development portfolio over the past two years. ADVISORY BODIES WITHIN MINISTERS’ PORTFOLIOS - MEMBERS AND REMUNERATION 5046. Hon Helen Morton to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Treasurer (1) Please provide the names of each member of any advisory body within the Treasurer’s portfolio over the past two years? (2) Please indicate if any of these people receive any payments for their participation as members of the advisory body? (3) If yes to (2), please identify those individuals and indicate how much they were paid for their participation as members of the advisory body over the past two years? (4) Please indicate if any of the people who received payment are public servants? (5) If yes to (4), please identify those individuals? Hon KATE DOUST replied: Refer to question on notice 5045.. ADVISORY BODIES WITHIN MINISTERS’ PORTFOLIOS - MEMBERS AND REMUNERATION 5047. Hon Helen Morton to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for State Development (1) Please provide the names of each member of any advisory body within the Minister’s portfolio over the past two years? (2) Please indicate if any of these people receive any payments for their participation as members of the advisory body? (3) If yes to (2), please identify those individuals and indicate how much they were paid for their participation as members of the advisory body over the past two years? (4) Please indicate if any of the people who received payment are public servants? (5) If yes to (4), please identify those individuals? Hon KATE DOUST replied: Refer to question on notice 5045. ADVISORY BODIES WITHIN MINISTERS’ PORTFOLIOS - MEMBERS AND REMUNERATION 5050. Hon Helen Morton to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Water Resources (1) Please provide the names of each member of any advisory body within the Minister’s portfolio over the past two years? (2) Please indicate if any of these people receive any payments for their participation as members of the advisory body? (3) If yes to (2), please identify those individuals and indicate how much they were paid for their participation as members of the advisory body over the past two years? (4) Please indicate if any of the people who received payment are public servants? (5) If yes to (4), please identify those individuals? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: Busselton Water (1) The CEO of Busselton Water served on the State Water Council over the past two years. Otherwise, in a capacity as either member or employee of the Busselton Water Board, there were no involvements with Advisory Committees directly making recommendations to a Minister or Agency during the last two years.

5096 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007]

(2) No (3)-(5) Not applicable Department of Water (1)-(5) The following Advisory Boards/Committees that provide advice to me are:

Advisory Committee Members Remuneration Public Servant Broome Groundwater $131.00 full day Advisory Committee $ 86.00 half day Has not met for 2 years Susan Worley No Yes David Munday No Yes Keith Dalley $0 No Valerie Douglas $0 No David Ross $0 No Carnarvon Water Allocation $131.00 full day Advisory Committee $ 86.00 half day Ron Shepherd No Yes Hamid Mohsenzadeh No Yes David Bauer $392 No Joyce Babun $392 No Terry Fitzgerald $612 No Gary Gibson $612 No Bruce Munro $416 No Bruce Teede $612 No

Advisory Committee Members Remuneration Public Servant Carnarvon Artesian Basin Chairman Rehabilitation Group $323.00 full day $213.00 half day Member: $215.00 full day $142.00 half day Note: 'not on payroll' is the result of pending appointments and reappointments process Hamid Mohsenzadeh No Yes John Forsyth Not on payroll No Peter Johnson Not on payroll No Mark Lewis Not on payroll No Dudley Maslen Not on payroll No Justin Steadman Not on payroll No Brian Wake Not on payroll No Canning-Wungong-Southern $131.00 full day Rivers Irrigation Advisory $ 86.00 half day Committee Has not met for 2 years Paul Rosair No Yes Jan Elliot $0 No Pat Hart $0 No Graeme Hughes $0 No Eric Martin $0 No Swan Groundwater Advisory $131.00 full day

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] 5097

Committee $ 86.00 half day Has not met for 2 years Rob Hammond No Yes Ross Sheridan No Yes Suzanne Hurt $0 No Matt Katich $0 No Charlie Knezovic $0 No Jim Lovreta $0 No Ron Page $0 No Kevin Smith $0 No Wanneroo Groundwater $167.00 full day Advisory Committee $110.00 half day Has not met for 2 years Catherine Harrison No Yes Ross Sheridan No Yes Russell Anderson $0 No Bill Duffy $0 No Charlie Knezovic No Yes Figaro Natoli $0 No Frank Tedesco $0 No Frank Cvitan No Yes Warren Water Management $167.00 full day Area Advisory Committee $110.00 half day Fionnuala Hannon No Yes Dianne Fry $2310 No Kesi Kesavan No Yes John Omodei $2090 No Bob Pessotto $1760 No Tony Ryan $1980 No Water Resources Allocation None Committee Verity Allan No Chairman Water and ($57,900 as Chairman WRC Rivers Commission Board) Board Tony Allen No Member ($20,598 as member WRC Water and Rivers Board) Commission Board Paul Frewer No Yes Rob Hammond No Yes Ed Hauck No Yes John Loney No Yes Paul Rosair No Yes John Ruprecht No Yes Liz Western No Yes Susan Worley No Yes Cockburn Groundwater $131.00 full day Advisory Committee $ 86.00 half day Disbanded 9/12/05 Had not met for 2 years

Catherine Harrison No Yes Don Martin No Yes Ray Lees $0 No Don Glenister $0 No

5098 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007]

Mr Brian Vidovich $0 No Serpentine-Dandalup-Murray $131.00 full day Rivers Irrigation Advisory $ 86.00 half day Committee Disbanded 9/12/05 Had not met for 2 years Roy Stone No Yes Lester Mullins $0 No Geoffrey Manning $0 No Bruce Campbell $0 No Graeme Hughes $0 No Water Corporation (1)-(5) Not applicable Aqwest (1)-(5) Not applicable. ADVISORY BODIES WITHIN MINISTERS’ PORTFOLIOS - MEMBERS AND REMUNERATION 5051. Hon Helen Morton to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Sport and Recreation (1) Please provide the names of each member of any advisory body within the Minister’s portfolio over the past two years? (2) Please indicate if any of these people receive any payments for their participation as members of the advisory body? (3) If yes to (2), please identify those individuals and indicate how much they were paid for their participation as members of the advisory body over the past two years? (4) Please indicate if any of the people who received payment are public servants? (5) If yes to (4), please identify those individuals? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: WA Sports Centre Trust (1) Nil (2)-(5) Not applicable WA Institute of Sport (1) Mr Grant Boyce (Chairman) Mr Ron Alexander Ms Meredith Eddington Mr Steven Lawrence (Executive Director) Ms Jenny Morris Mr Michael O'Neill (Deputy Chairman) Mr Andrew Syme Mrs Fiona Tory Ms Amanda Wheeler (2) Yes (3) Mr. Grant Boyce (Chairman) receives $6000.00 per annum for his participation. (4) No (5) Not applicable Department of Sport and Recreation COMMUNITY SPORT AND RECREATION FACILITIES FUND ADVISORY COMMITTEE (1) For both 2006/07 round and 2007/08 round: Ron Alexander, Nigel McCombe, Mal Parr, Steve Hammond, Wendy Pritchard, Anne McAlister, Leon Van Erp and Michelle Pucci. (2) Yes

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] 5099

(3) Leon Van Erp 06/07 - $480 Leon Van Erp 07/08 - $480 Wendy Pritchard 06/07 - $480 Wendy Pritchard 07/08 - $480 Michelle Pucci 06/07 - $480 This includes the reading fee and attendance of meeting. . Michelle Pucci was also reimbursed for travel expenses both years, as these were necessarily and reasonably incurred. 2006/07- $377.40 and 2007/08 - $432.70 (4) No. Current Public Servants do not receive payment (5) Not applicable TRAILS WA REFERENCE PANEL (1) For 2005/06 and 2006/07: Ronnie Hurst, Kathleen Lowry, Hugh Maclean, Tracy Shea, Jim Sargeant, Shonagh Bradstock, Tom Perrigo, Mike Wood, Jim Chesterman. (2) Yes (3) Shonagh Bradstock (Travel recoups) 2005/06 $2038.03, 2006/07 $529.56. (4) No. (5) Not applicable RECREATION ADVISORY PANEL (1) For both 2005/06 & 2006/07: Maria Osborne, Simon Holthouse, Ruth Simpson, Allan Tranter, Bruce Manning, Ralph Gurr, Fiona Bentley, Graham Brimage, Kath Lowry, Kevin Harrison, Michael Cutler, Peter Sharp, Mike Wood, Ron Alexander, Ronnie Hurst (2) No (3)-(5) Not applicable MAJOR STADIA TASKFORCE (1) Members, John Langoulant, Ron Alexander, Terry Budge, Eric Lumsden, Faye McMath, Paul Jones and Richard Longley. (2) Yes (3) John Langoulant - $37,531.25, Paul Jones $3,080 and Richard Longley $2,966.40. (4) No. (5) Not applicable. ADVISORY BODIES WITHIN MINISTERS’ PORTFOLIOS - MEMBERS AND REMUNERATION 5055. Hon Helen Morton to the Minister for Child Protection representing the Minister for Employment Protection (1) Please provide the names of each member of any advisory body within the Minister’s portfolio over the past two years? (2) Please indicate if any of these people receive any payments for their participation as members of the advisory body? (3) If yes to (2), please identify those individuals and indicate how much they were paid for their participation as members of the advisory body over the past two years? (4) Please indicate if any of the people who received payment are public servants? (5) If yes to (4), please identify those individuals? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: The following Advisory Boards/Committees that provide advice to the Minister are: The Employment Protection arm of the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection: (1) For the Resources Safety Division of DOCEP: Mining Industry Advisory Committee Mr Brian Bradley (Chairperson) Ms Kathryn Heiler Mr Martin Knee Dr Peter Lilly Mr Henry Rozmianiec Ms Nicole Roocke

5100 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007]

Mr Robert Watson Mr Gary Wood Ms Jacinta Wandel (resigned) For the WorkSafe Division of DOCEP: Commission for Occupational Safety and Health Mr Tony Cooke (Chairperson) Ms Nina Lyhne Mr Brian Bradley Mr Malcolm Russell Ms Anne Bellamy Ms Andrea Roelofs Mr Reg Howard-Smith Mr Gary Woods Dr John Suthers Dr Steve Allsop Dr Matthew Davies Mr Mike Phillips (resigned March 2006) Mr Bob Bryant (resigned March 2006) Ms Janine Freeman (resigned December 2006) Mr Darren Kavanagh (temporary member at a number of meetings) Ms Joy Barrett (temporary member at a number of meetings) Ms Nicole Roocke (acting member at a number of meetings) (2) Yes for both Committees. (3) Mining Industry Advisory Committee - Since 15 August 2005 Member Amount Kathryn Heiler $3732 Gary Wood $2140 Commission for Occupational Safety and Health Member Amount Paid To Tony Cooke $40000 Tony Cooke Anne Bellamy $5082 Chamber of Commerce and Industry WA Andrea Roelofs $4840 People Impact Pty Ltd Reg Howard-Smith $3146 Chamber of Minerals and Energy WA Gary Wood $3630 Construction Forestry Mining & Energy Union Bob Bryant $484 Trades and Labor Council Janine Freeman $4114 Trades and Labor Council John Suthers $4598 John Suthers Pty Ltd Matthew Davies $1452 Dr Matthew Davies Mike Phillips $1452 Green Dragon Consultants Joy Barrett $1694 State School Teachers Union Darren Kavanagh $3388 Construction Forestry Mining & Energy Union Nicole Roocke $1694 Chamber of Minerals and Energy WA (4) Ms Kathryn Heiler is now an employee of the New South Wales Government. (5) Not applicable. Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission: (1) None. (2)-(5) Not applicable. WorkCover: (1) (2) (3) (4) & (5) Costs Committee Janine Freeman No N/A N/A Graham Greig No N/A N/A Daryl Cameron No N/A N/A Lisa Biglin No N/A N/A

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] 5101

Clare Thompson No N/A N/A Marcus Cocker No N/A N/A Professor Robert Guthrie No N/A N/A * There was an ex-gratia payment of $3,060 approved by the former Minister for Employment Protection on 13 June 2006 to a member who was unaware that the committee was non-remunerated. Construction Industry Long Service Leave Payments Board: (1) None. (2)-(5) Not applicable. ADVISORY BODIES WITHIN MINISTERS’ PORTFOLIOS - MEMBERS AND REMUNERATION 5059. Hon Helen Morton to the Minister for Local Government representing the Minister for Land Information (1) Please provide the names of each member of any advisory body within the Minister’s portfolio over the past two years? (2) Please indicate if any of these people receive any payments for their participation as members of the advisory body? (3) If yes to (2), please identify those individuals and indicate how much they were paid for their participation as members of the advisory body over the past two years? (4) Please indicate if any of the people who received payment are public servants? (5) If yes to (4), please identify those individuals? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: Landgate advises: The following Advisory Boards/Committees provide advice to the Minister are - (1) Transition Advisory Committee Mr Monty House (Chair) Ms Katrina Burton Mr Peter Cooke Ms Gail Curtis Ms Sue Thomas Mr Grahame Searle Community Titles Advisory Committee Mr Ed McKinnon (Chair) Mr Kumar Balakrishnan Ms Jacky Courtney Ms Shirley Courtney Mr David Clark Mr David Hoops Ms Ruth Genneff Mr Graham Glasson Ms Sheryal Griggs Mr Eric Horlin Mr Kevin Kannis Ms Mara Karabanovs Mr Peter Kerschuer Mr Jake Kneebone Ms Eleanor Logiudice Mr Graham Marion Mr Terry McCarthy Mr Peter Munday Mr Dean Mudford Mr Frank Poeta Mr Clive Raymond Mr Bruce Roberts Mr Paul Turner Mr Greg Vellacott Mr Shane White Mr Paul Wilson

5102 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007]

Geographic Names Committee Mr Gary Fenner (Chair) Mr John Beswick Mr Russell Burnett Mr Tony Caravella Mr Brian Goodchild Ms Vera Novak Ms Melissa Pexton Mr Allan Riley Ms Pam Thorley Cr Robert Tizard Mr Ray Tollefsen Cr Kevin Trent Mr Brian Williams WALIS Advisory Committee Mr Rob Freeth (Chair) Mr Richard Bentley Ms Marianne Broadgate Mr Henry Esbenshade Mr Rob Edkins Mr Paul Drechsler Mr John Lazarus Ms Val MacDuff Mr Derek Milton Mr Guy Perkins Mr Phil Poole Mr Harvey Tipping Mr Ray Wills Mr Graeme Wright (2) Yes (3) Transition Advisory Committee Mr Monty House (Chair) $26,127.77 Ms Katrina Burton $2,645.40 Mr Peter Cooke $2,645.40 Ms Gail Curtis $2,883.48 Ms Sue Thomas $2,645.40 Community Titles Advisory Committee Mr Ed McKinnon (Chair) $2,040.00 Ms Jacky Courtney $50.00 Mr David Clark $900.00 Mr David Hoops $150.00 Ms Ruth Genneff $200.00 Mr Eric Horlin $800.00 Ms Mara Karabanovs $640.00 Mr Jake Kneebone $1,320.00 Ms Eleanor Logiudice $160.00 Mr Peter Munday $1,420.00 Mr Dean Mudford $160.00 Mr Frank Poeta $100.00 Mr Greg Vellacott $1,480.00 Mr Paul Wilson $50.00 Geographic Names Committee Mr Russell Burnett $219.00 Cr Robert Tizard $292.00 WALIS Advisory Committee Mr Rob Freeth (Chair) $6,480.00 Mr Richard Bentley $2,250.00 Ms Marianne Broadgate $300.00 Mr Henry Esbenshade $2,250.00 Mr Paul Drechsler $2,400.00 Mr John Lazarus $2,400.00 Ms Val MacDuff $600.00 Mr Derek Milton $1,650.00 Mr Guy Perkins $2,100.00 Mr Phil Poole $3,000.00

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] 5103

Mr Harvey Tipping $1,350.00 Mr Ray Wills $150.00 Mr Graeme Wright $2,250.00 (4) No. (5) Not applicable. ADVISORY BODIES WITHIN MINISTERS’ PORTFOLIOS - MEMBERS AND REMUNERATION 5061. Hon Helen Morton to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Disability Services (1) Please provide the names of each member of any advisory body within the Minister’s portfolio over the past two years? (2) Please indicate if any of these people receive any payments for their participation as members of the advisory body? (3) If yes to (2), please identify those individuals and indicate how much they were paid for their participation as members of the advisory body over the past two years? (4) Please indicate if any of the people who received payment are public servants? (5) If yes to (4), please identify those individuals? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: (1) The Ministerial Advisory Council for Disability Services is established under the Disability Services Act (1993) and advises and makes recommendations to the Minister for Disability Services on policies, plans and practices. Members over the past two years are identified below. Ms Kerry ALLAN-ZINNER (Current Chair) Ms Claire ANDERSON (Retired) Ms Normae BENNETT (Retired) Mr Alan BOERS (Current member) Ms Leah CIANCIO (Current member) Mr Alexander CLARK (Current member) Ms Jane EACOTT (Current member) Dr Lindy GULLAND (Current member) Ms Melanie HAWKES (Retired) Mr Keith HAYES (Current member) Ms Norma JOSEPHS (Retired -Previous Chair) Ms Sarah LIDDELOW (Current member) Mr Jasbir MANN (Retired) Ms Melinda MANNERS (Current member) Mr Michael MULROY (Current member) Ms Hilary RUMLEY (Retired) Ms Jackie SOFTLY (Current Deputy Chair) Mr Anthony THOMAS (Current member) Ms Suzi VINCENT (Current member) Mrs Bethel WALKER (Retired) Mr Michael WRIGHT (Retired) (2) Yes. All the people listed above receive/d payment, except Michael Wright who was a public servant. (3) Ms Kerry ALLAN-ZINNER $ 20,266.92 Ms Claire ANDERSON $ 1,721.65 Ms Normae BENNETT $ 2,720.00 Mr Alan BOERS $ 0 (recently appointed) Ms Leah CIANCIO $ 0 (recently appointed) Mr Alexander CLARK $ 3,400.00 Ms Jane EACOTT $ 6.196.66 Dr Lindy GULLAND $ 6,821.65 Ms Melanie HAWKES $ 5,801.65 Mr Keith HAYES $ 6,821.65 Ms Norma JOSEPHS $ 14,985.76 Ms Sarah LIDDELOW $ 6,821.65 Mr Jasbir MANN $ 5,801.65

5104 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007]

Ms Melinda MANNERS $ 3,400.00 Mr Michael MULROY $ 3,400.00 Ms Hilary RUMLEY $ 2,456.66 Ms Jackie SOFTLY $ 9,779.59 Mr Anthony THOMAS $ 6,196.66 Ms Suzi VINCENT $ 3,400.00 Mrs Bethel WALKER $ 3,081.65 Mr Michael WRIGHT $ 0 (4) No. Michael Wright was a full-time public servant and received no payment. (5) Not applicable. ADVISORY BODIES WITHIN MINISTERS’ PORTFOLIOS - MEMBERS AND REMUNERATION 5067. Hon Helen Morton to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Energy (1) Please provide the names of each member of any advisory body within the Minister’s portfolio over the past two years? (2) Please indicate if any of these people receive any payments for their participation as members of the advisory body? (3) If yes to (2), please identify those individuals and indicate how much they were paid for their participation as members of the advisory body over the past two years? (4) Please indicate if any of the people who received payment are public servants? (5) If yes to (4), please identify those individuals? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(5) [See paper 3135.] ADVISORY BODIES WITHIN MINISTERS’ PORTFOLIOS - MEMBERS AND REMUNERATION 5075. Hon Helen Morton to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Peel (1) Please provide the names of each member of any advisory body within the Minister’s portfolio over the past two years? (2) Please indicate if any of these people receive any payments for their participation as members of the advisory body? (3) If yes to (2), please identify those individuals and indicate how much they were paid for their participation as members of the advisory body over the past two years? (4) Please indicate if any of the people who received payment are public servants? (5) If yes to (4), please identify those individuals? Hon SALLY TALBOT replied: (1) Nil (2)-(5) Not applicable NURSES - STATISTICS ON LEAVE 5078. Hon Anthony Fels to the Minister for Child Protection representing the Minister for Health (1) For the financial year 2006/2007, please detail the number of nurse annual leave applications and long service leave applications received, for each of the following hospitals - (a) Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital; (b) Royal Perth Hospital; (c) Fremantle Hospital; (d) Kalgoorlie Hospital; (e) Geraldton Regional Hospital; and (f) South West Health Campus (Bunbury Hospital)? (2) For the financial year 2006/2007, please detail the number of nurse annual leave applications and long service leave applications approved, for each of the following hospitals -

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] 5105

(a) Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital; (b) Royal Perth Hospital; (c) Fremantle Hospital; (d) Kalgoorlie Hospital; (e) Geraldton Regional Hospital; and (f) South West Health Campus (Bunbury Hospital)? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: See attached document. [See paper 3136.] OFFICE OF SHARED SERVICES CONTRACT 5079. Hon Anthony Fels to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Treasurer Please name the Acting Treasurer who ‘signed off’ on the Office of Shared Services contract? Hon KATE DOUST replied: The Hon Member will need to be more specific with his question with regard to which Office of Shared Services contract he is referring. NURSES - STATISTICS ON LEAVE 5080. Hon Anthony Fels to the Minister for Child Protection representing the Minister for Health For the financial year 2006/2007, please detail - (1) The number accrued annual leave hours for nurses across the public sector? (2) The number of accrued long service hours for nurses across the public sector? (3) The number of accrued sick leave hours for nurses across the public sector? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: (1) 2,115,576 hours. (2) 2,919,144 hours. (3) 2,053,976 hours. Note: (1) Excludes agency nurses, registered dental nurses and dental clinic assistants. Annual Leave excludes Time Off in Lieu. (2) Excludes agency nurses, registered dental nurses and dental clinic assistants. Includes LSL hours that the employee may not yet be entitled to take. (3) Represents the value of accrued sick leave as at August and not June 2007 Source: Extracted on 30 August 2007 by Health Corporate Network, HR Data warehouse. HOUSING - FIRST HOME OWNER GRANT SCHEME 5081. Hon Donna Faragher to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Treasurer I refer to page 92 of the Department of Treasury and Finance’s 2006 Annual Report concerning the First Home Owner Grant Scheme and the statement that, ‘of those investigated, 386 were found to be eligible for the grant and 223 were either refused the grant or had to repay the grant’ and ask, of those that had to repay the grant, how many applicants have actually done so? Hon KATE DOUST replied: Of those that had to repay the grant, 116 grants have been repaid and the remaining 22 are either the subject of instalment payment arrangements or ongoing recovery action. BUSSELTON - CONSTRUCTION OF NEW HOSPITAL 5085. Hon Robyn McSweeney to the Minister for Child Protection representing the Minister for Health I refer the proposed new hospital to be built in Busselton, and ask - (1) In what location will the new hospital be built? (2) If on another site to the present hospital location, what will happen to the present site regarding future plans?

5106 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007]

(3) Will the Local Government authority have any say on what is to happen to the present hospital site, if the proposed hospital is in a different location? (4) Is there opposition in the community about a new site for the proposed hospital? (5) If yes to (4), what has the Government done to give the community some say in where the hospital is located? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: 1. Vasse Newtown. 2. No decision will be made regarding the future of the current site until the new hospital is operational, expected to be at the end of 2010. 3. Yes. 4. Yes. 5. The community has had the opportunity to participate in eight focus groups conducted with stakeholders (March and April 2006), write to me and express their views, and to sign a petition that circulated within the local community. HAIRDRESSING INDUSTRY - REVIEW OF REGULATIONS 5087. Hon Robyn McSweeney to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Consumer Protection I refer to the Hairdressers Registration Board of Western Australia, and ask - (1) Is the Hairdressers Registration Act and Regulations under review? (2) If yes to (1), - (a) when did this review commence; (b) when will this review be completed; and (c) are there any recommendations for change? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. The Minister has provided the following answer: Consumer Protection arm of (DOCEP) (1) Yes (2) (a) The Position Paper titled the 'Regulation of the Hairdressing Industry in Western Australia' was released in August 2006. Submissions formally closed in October 2006. Some late submissions were also accepted. In total, 50 submissions were received. (b) The review has been completed. A final report has recently been provided to the Minister for Consumer Protection for consideration. (c) The review report contains comprehensive research and analysis about the regulation of hairdressers in Western Australia and provides several options for consideration about the future regulation of the industry. STATE GOVERNMENT CORPORATE CREDIT CARD GUIDELINES 5088. Hon Ray Halligan to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Public Sector Management I refer to the Western Australian Government Corporate Credit Card Guidelines of September 2003, page 9, ‘Care should be taken to record and retain all transaction details, particularly unusual transactions such as restaurant bills’, and ask - (1) In view of the guidelines, why has no action been taken for the automated extraction of expenditure on specific items such as ‘restaurant bills’ from credit card transactions? (2) How can such transactions be accountable and transparent if there are no such facilities for simple extraction? (3) Have any inquiries been carried out as to the process and cost involved in providing for such ‘automated extraction?’ (4) If no to (3), why not? (5) Does the Minister believe that the people of Western Australia are not entitled to such information?

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] 5107

Hon KIM CHANCE replied: Department of the Premier and Cabinet advises: I refer the Member to the Premier's response to Question on Notice 4451 Tuesday 1 May 2007. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES - BAD DEBTS INCURRED 5094. Hon Ray Halligan to the Minister for Agriculture and Food For each Department and Agency within the Minister’s portfolio, will the Minister provide from each Department and Agency financial system - (1) The amount and number of bad debts incurred between 1 July 2006 and 30 June 2007? (2) The names of outstanding debtors? (3) What measures, if any, have been taken in the period between 1 July 2006 and 30 June 2007 to keep bad debts to a minimum? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1) Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia: The total amount of bad debts incurred in the 2006-2007 financial year was $1,722.74. Agriculture Protection Board of Western Australia: The total amount of bad debts incurred in the 2006-2007 financial year was $5,340.30. Rural Business Development Corporation - Nil. Agriculture Practices Board of Western Australia - Nil. Agricultural Produce Commission - Nil. LandCare Trust - Nil. (2) Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia: Aqua-Versity; Argyle Kimberley Resort; Bates Pet Paradise - Bullcreek; Best of Friends Food; Carmody Industries; CS Global; EMG Pty Ltd; Glen Terhorst; GT Transport; Harvesting Specialists; Hawk Valley Nursery; Henry Walker Eltin; Hudson Haulage; Japanese Water Gardens; Justin Tomatoes; Karratha Nursery; Marine West Rent a Reef; Minh Hung Tran; PDL; P K Nursery - Kerr's Kiri's; R Adams; TD DO & Son; WA Pet Supplies; Waldecks (Osborne Park). Agriculture Protection Board of Western Australia: Youanmi Downs Station. (3) The Department and Statutory Authorities have had in place for the last seven years a Debtor management framework. The measures include: - monthly management review of aged debtors; - engagement with debtors exceeding the Department's payment terms through the remittance of late payment notices and follow up telephone calls; and - use of debt collection agency where required.. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES - BAD DEBTS INCURRED 5097. Hon Ray Halligan to the Minister for Great Southern For each Department and Agency within the Minister’s portfolio, will the Minister provide from each Department and Agency financial system - (1) The amount and number of bad debts incurred between 1 July 2006 and 30 June 2007? (2) The names of outstanding debtors? (3) What measures, if any, have been taken in the period between 1 July 2006 and 30 June 2007 to keep bad debts to a minimum? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: Great Southern Development Commission (1) Nil (2) Not applicable

5108 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007]

(3) All invoices GSDC issue are followed up after 21 days and then each 10 days thereafter. The majority of GSDC payments are received within 30 - 40 days of issue, resulting in nil bad debts being recorded. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES - CREDITORS - NUMBER AND AMOUNT OUTSTANDING 5149. Hon Ray Halligan to the Minister for Agriculture and Food For each Department and Agency within the Minister’s portfolio, will the Minister provide from each Department and Agency financial system - (1) The amount and number of creditors outstanding for greater than 120 days, as at 30 June 2007? (2) What measures, if any, have been taken in the period between 1 July 2006 and 30 June 2007 to expedite payments to creditors? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1) Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia - Nil Agriculture Protection Board of Western Australia - Nil Rural Business Development Corporation - Nil Agriculture Practices Board of Western Australia - Nil Agricultural Produce Commission - Nil LandCare Trust - Nil (2) The Department and Statutory Authorities have had a framework in place for the last 7 years to manage its obligation required under Treasurer's Instructions 323 "Timely payment of accounts". The framework includes some of the following: - Establishment of corporate polices and procedures. - Monthly management review of aged creditors. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES - CREDITORS - NUMBER AND AMOUNT OUTSTANDING 5152. Hon Ray Halligan to the Minister for Great Southern For each Department and Agency within the Minister’s portfolio, will the Minister provide from each Department and Agency financial system - (1) The amount and number of creditors outstanding for greater than 120 days, as at 30 June 2007? (2) What measures, if any, have been taken in the period between 1 July 2006 and 30 June 2007 to expedite payments to creditors? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: Great Southern Development Commission (1) $2,750.00 - One (1) Creditor (2) GSDC pays most creditors within 30 days of receipt of invoices. The exception to this is where conditions are attached to payments such as grants or if goods received do not match original purchase order and negotiation delays payment. The above invoice is a grant payment which requires audited financial documentation in order for the Commission to release the final milestone payment. GSDC can not pay this until the documentation meets the requirements as set out in the contract. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES - CREDITORS - NUMBER AND AMOUNT OUTSTANDING 5178. Hon Ray Halligan to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Water Resources For each Department and Agency within the Minister’s portfolio, will the Minister provide from each Department and Agency financial system - (1) The amount and number of creditors outstanding for greater than 120 days, as at 30 June 2007? (2) What measures, if any, have been taken in the period between 1 July 2006 and 30 June 2007 to expedite payments to creditors?

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] 5109

Hon KIM CHANCE replied: Aqwest (1) Nil. (2) No measures taken. Most creditors cleared on a monthly basis. Department of Water (1) Nil. (2) Improved processes and procedures developed to ensure the timeliness of payments. Increased usage of corporate purchasing cards. Water Corporation (1) Nil. (2) Not applicable. Busselton Water (1) Nil (2) Busselton Water has moved to near full use of Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) arrangements. (Previously cheques were in use) GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES - CREDITORS - NUMBER AND AMOUNT OUTSTANDING 5194. Hon Ray Halligan to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for South West For each Department and Agency within the Minister’s portfolio, will the Minister provide from each Department and Agency financial system - (1) The amount and number of creditors outstanding for greater than 120 days, as at 30 June 2007? (2) What measures, if any, have been taken in the period between 1 July 2006 and 30 June 2007 to expedite payments to creditors? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1) Nil (2) Not applicable GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES - CREDITORS - NUMBER AND AMOUNT OUTSTANDING 5203. Hon Ray Halligan to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Peel For each Department and Agency within the Minister’s portfolio, will the Minister provide from each Department and Agency financial system - (1) The amount and number of creditors outstanding for greater than 120 days, as at 30 June 2007? (2) What measures, if any, have been taken in the period between 1 July 2006 and 30 June 2007 to expedite payments to creditors? Hon SALLY TALBOT replied: In respect of Peel Development Commission: (1) Nil (2) Creditors are to be entered into financial system daily to prevent backlogs if finance staff are unavoidably absent at any period. Payment runs are made at least twice per month.. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES - COMMITTEES, TASK FORCES AND OTHER INQUIRIES - NAME, DURATION AND COST 5206. Hon Ray Halligan to the Minister for the Mid West and Wheatbelt For each Department and Agency within the Minister’s portfolio, will the Minister provide from each Department and Agency - (1) The number of committees, task forces and other inquiries set up between 1 July 2006 and 30 June 2007? (2) The name of the chair of each committee, task force and other inquiry?

5110 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007]

(3) The duration of each committee, task force or other inquiry? (4) The expected cost, both annual and total, of each committee, task force or other inquiry? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: Mid West Development Commission (1) Nil (2)-(4) Not applicable Wheatbelt Development Commission (1) Nil (2)-(4) Not applicable GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES - COMMITTEES, TASK FORCES AND OTHER INQUIRIES - NAME, DURATION AND COST 5207. Hon Ray Halligan to the Minister for Great Southern For each Department and Agency within the Minister’s portfolio, will the Minister provide from each Department and Agency - (1) The number of committees, task forces and other inquiries set up between 1 July 2006 and 30 June 2007? (2) The name of the chair of each committee, task force and other inquiry? (3) The duration of each committee, task force or other inquiry? (4) The expected cost, both annual and total, of each committee, task force or other inquiry? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: Great Southern Development Commission (1) Nil (2)-(4) Not applicable MINISTERIAL OFFICES, GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES - COMPUTERS - LOST OR STOLEN 5277. Hon Ray Halligan to the Leader of the House representing the Premier For each Department and Agency under the Premier’s control, including the Premier’s Office - (1) How many laptop, notebook and palm computers have been reported lost or stolen for the six months to 30 June 2007? (2) What was the total value of the computers that were lost or stolen? (3) Did any of these computers contain information that could be regarded as sensitive? (4) What steps have been taken to ensure that any commercial or sensitive information was not compromised? (5) Was the loss or theft of any of these computers reported to the police? (6) If yes to (5), when were these reports made? (7) Of those reported, what has been the outcome? (8) If any were not reported to the police, why not? (9) What steps, if any, have been put into place with a view to eliminating, or at least reducing, these losses? (10) When were these steps put into place? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: Please refer to question on notice LA2518. MINISTERIAL OFFICES, GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES - COMPUTERS - LOST OR STOLEN 5278. Hon Ray Halligan to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Federal-State Relations For each Department and Agency under the Minister’s control, including the Ministerial Office -

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] 5111

(1) How many laptop, notebook and palm computers have been reported lost or stolen for the six months to 30 June 2007? (2) What was the total value of the computers that were lost or stolen? (3) Did any of these computers contain information that could be regarded as sensitive? (4) What steps have been taken to ensure that any commercial or sensitive information was not compromised? (5) Was the loss or theft of any of these computers reported to the police? (6) If yes to (5), when were these reports made? (7) Of those reported, what has been the outcome? (8) If any were not reported to the police, why not? (9) What steps, if any, have been put into place with a view to eliminating, or at least reducing, these losses? (10) When were these steps put into place? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: Please refer to question on notice 5277. MINISTERIAL OFFICES, GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES - COMPUTERS - LOST OR STOLEN 5279. Hon Ray Halligan to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Trade For each Department and Agency under the Minister’s control, including the Ministerial Office - (1) How many laptop, notebook and palm computers have been reported lost or stolen for the six months to 30 June 2007? (2) What was the total value of the computers that were lost or stolen? (3) Did any of these computers contain information that could be regarded as sensitive? (4) What steps have been taken to ensure that any commercial or sensitive information was not compromised? (5) Was the loss or theft of any of these computers reported to the police? (6) If yes to (5), when were these reports made? (7) Of those reported, what has been the outcome? (8) If any were not reported to the police, why not? (9) What steps, if any, have been put into place with a view to eliminating, or at least reducing, these losses? (10) When were these steps put into place? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: Please refer to question on notice 5277. MINISTERIAL OFFICES, GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES - COMPUTERS - LOST OR STOLEN 5280. Hon Ray Halligan to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Innovation For each Department and Agency under the Minister’s control, including the Ministerial Office - (1) How many laptop, notebook and palm computers have been reported lost or stolen for the six months to 30 June 2007? (2) What was the total value of the computers that were lost or stolen? (3) Did any of these computers contain information that could be regarded as sensitive? (4) What steps have been taken to ensure that any commercial or sensitive information was not compromised? (5) Was the loss or theft of any of these computers reported to the police? (6) If yes to (5), when were these reports made?

5112 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007]

(7) Of those reported, what has been the outcome? (8) If any were not reported to the police, why not? (9) What steps, if any, have been put into place with a view to eliminating, or at least reducing, these losses? (10) When were these steps put into place? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: Please refer to question on notice 5277. MINISTERIAL OFFICES, GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES - COMPUTERS - LOST OR STOLEN 5281. Hon Ray Halligan to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Science For each Department and Agency under the Minister’s control, including the Ministerial Office - (1) How many laptop, notebook and palm computers have been reported lost or stolen for the six months to 30 June 2007? (2) What was the total value of the computers that were lost or stolen? (3) Did any of these computers contain information that could be regarded as sensitive? (4) What steps have been taken to ensure that any commercial or sensitive information was not compromised? (5) Was the loss or theft of any of these computers reported to the police? (6) If yes to (5), when were these reports made? (7) Of those reported, what has been the outcome? (8) If any were not reported to the police, why not? (9) What steps, if any, have been put into place with a view to eliminating, or at least reducing, these losses? (10) When were these steps put into place? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: Please refer to question on notice 5277. MINISTERIAL OFFICES, GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES - COMPUTERS - LOST OR STOLEN 5282. Hon Ray Halligan to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Public Sector Management For each Department and Agency under the Minister’s control, including the Ministerial Office - (1) How many laptop, notebook and palm computers have been reported lost or stolen for the six months to 30 June 2007? (2) What was the total value of the computers that were lost or stolen? (3) Did any of these computers contain information that could be regarded as sensitive? (4) What steps have been taken to ensure that any commercial or sensitive information was not compromised? (5) Was the loss or theft of any of these computers reported to the police? (6) If yes to (5), when were these reports made? (7) Of those reported, what has been the outcome? (8) If any were not reported to the police, why not? (9) What steps, if any, have been put into place with a view to eliminating, or at least reducing, these losses? (10) When were these steps put into place? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: Please refer to question on notice 5277.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] 5113

MINISTERIAL OFFICES, GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES - COMPUTERS - LOST OR STOLEN 5283. Hon Ray Halligan to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Deputy Premier For each Department and Agency under the Deputy Premier’s control, including the Deputy Premier’s Office - (1) How many laptop, notebook and palm computers have been reported lost or stolen for the six months to 30 June 2007? (2) What was the total value of the computers that were lost or stolen? (3) Did any of these computers contain information that could be regarded as sensitive? (4) What steps have been taken to ensure that any commercial or sensitive information was not compromised? (5) Was the loss or theft of any of these computers reported to the police? (6) If yes to (5), when were these reports made? (7) Of those reported, what has been the outcome? (8) If any were not reported to the police, why not? (9) What steps, if any, have been put into place with a view to eliminating, or at least reducing, these losses? (10) When were these steps put into place? Hon KATE DOUST replied: Please refer to Assembly Question Number 2519 for an answer to this question. MINISTERIAL OFFICES, GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES - COMPUTERS - LOST OR STOLEN 5284. Hon Ray Halligan to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Treasurer For each Department and Agency under the Treasurer’s control, including the Treasurer’s Office - (1) How many laptop, notebook and palm computers have been reported lost or stolen for the six months to 30 June 2007? (2) What was the total value of the computers that were lost or stolen? (3) Did any of these computers contain information that could be regarded as sensitive? (4) What steps have been taken to ensure that any commercial or sensitive information was not compromised? (5) Was the loss or theft of any of these computers reported to the police? (6) If yes to (5), when were these reports made? (7) Of those reported, what has been the outcome? (8) If any were not reported to the police, why not? (9) What steps, if any, have been put into place with a view to eliminating, or at least reducing, these losses? (10) When were these steps put into place? Hon KATE DOUST replied: Please see the answer to Council Question Number 5283 for an answer to this question. MINISTERIAL OFFICES, GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES - COMPUTERS - LOST OR STOLEN 5285. Hon Ray Halligan to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for State Development For each Department and Agency under the Minister’s control, including the Ministerial Office - (1) How many laptop, notebook and palm computers have been reported lost or stolen for the six months to 30 June 2007? (2) What was the total value of the computers that were lost or stolen? (3) Did any of these computers contain information that could be regarded as sensitive?

5114 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007]

(4) What steps have been taken to ensure that any commercial or sensitive information was not compromised? (5) Was the loss or theft of any of these computers reported to the police? (6) If yes to (5), when were these reports made? (7) Of those reported, what has been the outcome? (8) If any were not reported to the police, why not? (9) What steps, if any, have been put into place with a view to eliminating, or at least reducing, these losses? (10) When were these steps put into place? Hon KATE DOUST replied: Please see the answer to Council Question Number 5283 for an answer to this question. MINISTERIAL OFFICES, GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES - COMPUTERS - LOST OR STOLEN 5286. Hon Ray Halligan to the Minister for Regional Development representing the Minister for Police and Emergency Services For each Department and Agency under the Minister’s control, including the Ministerial Office - (1) How many laptop, notebook and palm computers have been reported lost or stolen for the six months to 30 June 2007? (2) What was the total value of the computers that were lost or stolen? (3) Did any of these computers contain information that could be regarded as sensitive? (4) What steps have been taken to ensure that any commercial or sensitive information was not compromised? (5) Was the loss or theft of any of these computers reported to the police? (6) If yes to (5), when were these reports made? (7) Of those reported, what has been the outcome? (8) If any were not reported to the police, why not? (9) What steps, if any, have been put into place with a view to eliminating, or at least reducing, these losses? (10) When were these steps put into place? Hon JON FORD replied: Please refer to question on notice LA2522. MINISTERIAL OFFICES, GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES - COMPUTERS - LOST OR STOLEN 5287. Hon Ray Halligan to the Minister for Regional Development representing the Minister for Community Safety For each Department and Agency under the Minister’s control, including the Ministerial Office - (1) How many laptop, notebook and palm computers have been reported lost or stolen for the six months to 30 June 2007? (2) What was the total value of the computers that were lost or stolen? (3) Did any of these computers contain information that could be regarded as sensitive? (4) What steps have been taken to ensure that any commercial or sensitive information was not compromised? (5) Was the loss or theft of any of these computers reported to the police? (6) If yes to (5), when were these reports made? (7) Of those reported, what has been the outcome? (8) If any were not reported to the police, why not?

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] 5115

(9) What steps, if any, have been put into place with a view to eliminating, or at least reducing, these losses? (10) When were these steps put into place? Hon JON FORD replied: Please refer to question on notice LA2522. MINISTERIAL OFFICES, GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES - COMPUTERS - LOST OR STOLEN 5288. Hon Ray Halligan to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Water Resources For each Department and Agency under the Minister’s control, including the Ministerial Office - (1) How many laptop, notebook and palm computers have been reported lost or stolen for the six months to 30 June 2007? (2) What was the total value of the computers that were lost or stolen? (3) Did any of these computers contain information that could be regarded as sensitive? (4) What steps have been taken to ensure that any commercial or sensitive information was not compromised? (5) Was the loss or theft of any of these computers reported to the police? (6) If yes to (5), when were these reports made? (7) Of those reported, what has been the outcome? (8) If any were not reported to the police, why not? (9) What steps, if any, have been put into place with a view to eliminating, or at least reducing, these losses? (10) When were these steps put into place? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: Please refer to question on notice LA2522. MINISTERIAL OFFICES, GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES - COMPUTERS - LOST OR STOLEN 5289. Hon Ray Halligan to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Sport and Recreation For each Department and Agency under the Minister’s control, including the Ministerial Office - (1) How many laptop, notebook and palm computers have been reported lost or stolen for the six months to 30 June 2007? (2) What was the total value of the computers that were lost or stolen? (3) Did any of these computers contain information that could be regarded as sensitive? (4) What steps have been taken to ensure that any commercial or sensitive information was not compromised? (5) Was the loss or theft of any of these computers reported to the police? (6) If yes to (5), when were these reports made? (7) Of those reported, what has been the outcome? (8) If any were not reported to the police, why not? (9) What steps, if any, have been put into place with a view to eliminating, or at least reducing, these losses? (10) When were these steps put into place? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: Please refer to question on notice LA2522. MINISTERIAL OFFICES, GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES - COMPUTERS - LOST OR STOLEN 5299. Hon Ray Halligan to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Disability Services For each Department and Agency under the Minister’s control, including the Ministerial Office -

5116 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007]

(1) How many laptop, notebook and palm computers have been reported lost or stolen for the six months to 30 June 2007? (2) What was the total value of the computers that were lost or stolen? (3) Did any of these computers contain information that could be regarded as sensitive? (4) What steps have been taken to ensure that any commercial or sensitive information was not compromised? (5) Was the loss or theft of any of these computers reported to the police? (6) If yes to (5), when were these reports made? (7) Of those reported, what has been the outcome? (8) If any were not reported to the police, why not? (9) What steps, if any, have been put into place with a view to eliminating, or at least reducing, these losses? (10) When were these steps put into place? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. The Minister has provided the following answer: Please refer to question on notice LA 2526 MINISTERIAL OFFICES, GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES - COMPUTERS - LOST OR STOLEN 5300. Hon Ray Halligan to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Tourism For each Department and Agency under the Minister’s control, including the Ministerial Office - (1) How many laptop, notebook and palm computers have been reported lost or stolen for the six months to 30 June 2007? (2) What was the total value of the computers that were lost or stolen? (3) Did any of these computers contain information that could be regarded as sensitive? (4) What steps have been taken to ensure that any commercial or sensitive information was not compromised? (5) Was the loss or theft of any of these computers reported to the police? (6) If yes to (5), when were these reports made? (7) Of those reported, what has been the outcome? (8) If any were not reported to the police, why not? (9) What steps, if any, have been put into place with a view to eliminating, or at least reducing, these losses? (10) When were these steps put into place? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. The Minister has provided the following answer: Please refer to question on notice LA 2526 MINISTERIAL OFFICES, GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES - COMPUTERS - LOST OR STOLEN 5301. Hon Ray Halligan to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Culture and the Arts For each Department and Agency under the Minister’s control, including the Ministerial Office - (1) How many laptop, notebook and palm computers have been reported lost or stolen for the six months to 30 June 2007? (2) What was the total value of the computers that were lost or stolen? (3) Did any of these computers contain information that could be regarded as sensitive?

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] 5117

(4) What steps have been taken to ensure that any commercial or sensitive information was not compromised? (5) Was the loss or theft of any of these computers reported to the police? (6) If yes to (5), when were these reports made? (7) Of those reported, what has been the outcome? (8) If any were not reported to the police, why not? (9) What steps, if any, have been put into place with a view to eliminating, or at least reducing, these losses? (10) When were these steps put into place? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. The Minister has provided the following answer: Please refer to question on notice LA 2526 MINISTERIAL OFFICES, GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES - COMPUTERS - LOST OR STOLEN 5302. Hon Ray Halligan to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Consumer Protection For each Department and Agency under the Minister’s control, including the Ministerial Office - (1) How many laptop, notebook and palm computers have been reported lost or stolen for the six months to 30 June 2007? (2) What was the total value of the computers that were lost or stolen? (3) Did any of these computers contain information that could be regarded as sensitive? (4) What steps have been taken to ensure that any commercial or sensitive information was not compromised? (5) Was the loss or theft of any of these computers reported to the police? (6) If yes to (5), when were these reports made? (7) Of those reported, what has been the outcome? (8) If any were not reported to the police, why not? (9) What steps, if any, have been put into place with a view to eliminating, or at least reducing, these losses? (10) When were these steps put into place? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. The Minister has provided the following answer: Please refer to question on notice LA 2526. MINISTERIAL OFFICES, GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES - MOBILE PHONES - LOST OR STOLEN 5338. Hon Ray Halligan to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Deputy Premier For each Department and Agency under the Deputy Premier’s control, including the Deputy Premier’s Office - (1) How many mobile phones have been reported lost or stolen for the six months to 3O June 2007? (2) What was the total value of the mobile phones that were lost or stolen? (3) Was the loss or theft of any of these mobile phones reported to the police? (4) If yes to (3), when were these reports made? (5) Of those reported, what has been the outcome? (6) If any were not reported to the police, why not? (7) What steps, if any, have been put into place with a view to eliminating, or at least reducing, these losses? (8) When were these steps put into place?

5118 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007]

Hon KATE DOUST replied: Please refer to Assembly Question Number 2504 for an answer to this question. MINISTERIAL OFFICES, GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES - MOBILE PHONES - LOST OR STOLEN 5339. Hon Ray Halligan to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Treasurer For each Department and Agency under the Treasurer’s control, including the Treasurer’s Office - (1) How many mobile phones have been reported lost or stolen for the six months to 3O June 2007? (2) What was the total value of the mobile phones that were lost or stolen? (3) Was the loss or theft of any of these mobile phones reported to the police? (4) If yes to (3), when were these reports made? (5) Of those reported, what has been the outcome? (6) If any were not reported to the police, why not? (7) What steps, if any, have been put into place with a view to eliminating, or at least reducing, these losses? (8) When were these steps put into place? Hon KATE DOUST replied: Please refer to Council Question Number 5338 for an answer to this question. MINISTERIAL OFFICES, GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES - MOBILE PHONES - LOST OR STOLEN 5340. Hon Ray Halligan to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for State Development For each Department and Agency under the Minister’s control, including the Ministerial Office - (1) How many mobile phones have been reported lost or stolen for the six months to 3O June 2007? (2) What was the total value of the mobile phones that were lost or stolen? (3) Was the loss or theft of any of these mobile phones reported to the police? (4) If yes to (3), when were these reports made? (5) Of those reported, what has been the outcome? (6) If any were not reported to the police, why not? (7) What steps, if any, have been put into place with a view to eliminating, or at least reducing, these losses? (8) When were these steps put into place? Hon KATE DOUST replied: Please refer to Council Question Number 5338 for an answer to this question. SCHOOLS - GIRRAWHEEN AREA 5369. Hon Giz Watson to the Minister for Local Government representing the Minister for Education and Training Regarding the proposed amalgamations and closures of schools in the Girrawheen area, I ask - (1) What, if any, consultation with the Blackmore Primary School community was undertaken regarding the proposed amalgamation with Girrawheen Primary School? (2) I understand that the parents from the three other primary schools involved in the amalgamations in Girrawheen were all given surveys to fill out and allowed parent representatives on the consultation committee. Why were the Blackmore parents excluded from this process? (3) Why was the Girrawheen School chosen for the proposed amalgamation? (4) Was a detailed comparison of the two sites undertaken before the decision was made? (5) Have anticipated residential development trends been taken into account in making the decision? (6) Is the Minister concerned that there will be no school servicing the west of Girrawheen?

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] 5119

(7) What is the longest distance that children would need to walk to school within the school intake area? (8) Is the Minister concerned that parents will send the Blackmore students to neighbouring schools rather than the proposed amalgamated school? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: 1. The Local Area Education Planning (LAEP) process commenced in 2003 for the Girrawheen cluster of schools comprising of Blackmore, Girrawheen, Montrose, Hainsworth, Koondoola, Marangaroo and Rawlinson Primary Schools, Koondoola Intensive English Centre, Burbridge School and Montrose Education Support Centre. This process included representatives from each of the schools and their parent communities. The LAEP Drafting Committee developed a plan, comprising two stages. In part, Stage 1 related to the amalgamation of Hainsworth and Montrose PS and the building of a new school on the Montrose PS site, the upgrading of the facilities at Girrawheen PS and some other matters such as the transfer of the Year 7 students to Girrawheen SHS. Stage 2 related to the amalgamation of Blackmore PS and Girrawheen PS on the Girrawheen PS site when the enrolments declined at Blackmore PS. 2. Consultation for Stage 1 of the plan for Girrawheen schools occurred in 2005 and as Blackmore Primary School was not part of Stage 1 there was no requirement for the school to be included. 3. Girrawheen was chosen because of its geographic location in relation to other schools in the Girrawheen cluster and in consideration of the amalgamation of Hainsworth and Montrose Primary Schools on the Montrose PS site. 4. As part of the original LAEP process both sites were considered. Since the announcement a more detailed facilities audit has been completed to assess each school. 5. Initial planning considered the potential residential development in the local area. The Department will continue to monitor enrolment trends and the consequential impact on the accommodation needs of the school. 6. Girrawheen was chosen because of its geographic location in relation to other schools in the Girrawheen cluster. An investigation of enrolment patterns at both schools indicates that less than 50% of students enrolled come from the schools' local intake area. 7. The distance to be travelled is approximately 2.5 km. 8. Parents have the right to choose which school their children attend. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ACT 1984 5376. Hon Helen Morton to the Minister for Agriculture and Food (1) By agency, please name each position for which an exception 50(d) under the Equal Opportunity Act 1984, applied as at 1 July 2007? (2) Which of these positions has had the 50(d) exception removed as at 28 August 2007? (3) Will further positions have the 50(d) exception removed in the next 12 months? (4) If yes to (3), which positions are being considered for removal of the 50(d) exception? (5) Were all Aboriginal staff whose positions were covered by the 50(d) exception counselled prior to removal of the exception up until 28 August 2007? (6) If no to (5), which staff in which positions were not counselled? (7) Why were the staff referred to in (6), not counselled? (8) Will all staff whose positions will be affected by (4), be consulted prior to a decision to remove the 50(d) exception? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: Department of Agriculture and Food (1) 20000090 - Coordinator 20060053 - Manager (Southern Agricultural Indigenous Land Service) 20070012 - Technical Officer 20070035 - Technical Officer (2) Nil.

5120 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007]

(3) No. (4)-(8) Not applicable. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ACT 1984 5377. Hon Helen Morton to the Minister for Forestry (1) By agency, please name each position for which an exception 50(d) under the Equal Opportunity Act 1984, applied as at 1 July 2007? (2) Which of these positions has had the 50(d) exception removed as at 28 August 2007? (3) Will further positions have the 50(d) exception removed in the next 12 months? (4) If yes to (3), which positions are being considered for removal of the 50(d) exception? (5) Were all Aboriginal staff whose positions were covered by the 50(d) exception counselled prior to removal of the exception up until 28 August 2007? (6) If no to (5), which staff in which positions were not counselled? (7) Why were the staff referred to in (6), not counselled? (8) Will all staff whose positions will be affected by (4), be consulted prior to a decision to remove the 50(d) exception? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: Forest Products Commission (1)-(8) Not applicable. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ACT 1984 5379. Hon Helen Morton to the Minister for Great Southern (1) By agency, please name each position for which an exception 50(d) under the Equal Opportunity Act 1984, applied as at 1 July 2007? (2) Which of these positions has had the 50(d) exception removed as at 28 August 2007? (3) Will further positions have the 50(d) exception removed in the next 12 months? (4) If yes to (3), which positions are being considered for removal of the 50(d) exception? (5) Were all Aboriginal staff whose positions were covered by the 50(d) exception counselled prior to removal of the exception up until 28 August 2007? (6) If no to (5), which staff in which positions were not counselled? (7) Why were the staff referred to in (6), not counselled? (8) Will all staff whose positions will be affected by (4), be consulted prior to a decision to remove the 50(d) exception? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: Great Southern Development Commission (1)-(8) Not applicable. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ACT 1984 5403. Hon Helen Morton to the Minister for Regional Development representing the Minister for Police and Emergency Services (1) By agency, please name each position for which an exception 50(d) under the Equal Opportunity Act 1984, applied as at 1 July 2007? (2) Which of these positions has had the 50(d) exception removed as at 28 August 2007? (3) Will further positions have the 50(d) exception removed in the next 12 months? (4) If yes to (3), which positions are being considered for removal of the 50(d) exception? (5) Were all Aboriginal staff whose positions were covered by the 50(d) exception counselled prior to removal of the exception up until 28 August 2007? (6) If no to (5), which staff in which positions were not counselled?

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] 5121

(7) Why were the staff referred to in (6), not counselled? (8) Will all staff whose positions will be affected by (4), be consulted prior to a decision to remove the 50(d) exception? Hon JON FORD replied: Fire and Emergency Services Authority (1)-(8) Not applicable Fire and Emergency Services Superannuation Board (1)-(8) Not applicable WA Police (1) Currently WA Police has 47 Aboriginal Police Liaison Officer positions and one Aboriginal Community Liaison Officer position for which an exception 50(d) under the Equal Opportunity Act 1984, applies (2) Nil. (3) Unknown. (4)-(7) Not applicable (8) Yes. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ACT 1984 5405. Hon Helen Morton to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Water Resources (1) By agency, please name each position for which an exception 50(d) under the Equal Opportunity Act 1984, applied as at 1 July 2007? (2) Which of these positions has had the 50(d) exception removed as at 28 August 2007? (3) Will further positions have the 50(d) exception removed in the next 12 months? (4) If yes to (3), which positions are being considered for removal of the 50(d) exception? (5) Were all Aboriginal staff whose positions were covered by the 50(d) exception counselled prior to removal of the exception up until 28 August 2007? (6) If no to (5), which staff in which positions were not counselled? (7) Why were the staff referred to in (6), not counselled? (8) Will all staff whose positions will be affected by (4), be consulted prior to a decision to remove the 50(d) exception? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: Busselton Water (1) Nil (2)-(8) Not applicable Aqwest (1) Nil (2)-(8) Not applicable Department of Water (1) The Department of Water does not have any positions for which an exception 50(d) under the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 applied as at 1 July 2007. (2)-(8) Not applicable. Water Corporation (1) Nil (2)-(8) Not applicable EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ACT 1984 5410. Hon Helen Morton to the Minister for Child Protection representing the Minister for Employment Protection (1) By agency, please name each position for which an exception 50(d) under the Equal Opportunity Act 1984, applied as at 1 July 2007?

5122 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007]

(2) Which of these positions has had the 50(d) exception removed as at 28 August 2007? (3) Will further positions have the 50(d) exception removed in the next 12 months? (4) If yes to (3), which positions are being considered for removal of the 50(d) exception? (5) Were all Aboriginal staff whose positions were covered by the 50(d) exception counselled prior to removal of the exception up until 28 August 2007? (6) If no to (5), which staff in which positions were not counselled? (7) Why were the staff referred to in (6), not counselled? (8) Will all staff whose positions will be affected by (4), be consulted prior to a decision to remove the 50(d) exception? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: Employment Protection Arm of Department of Consumer and Employment Protection: (1) Nil. (2)-(8) Not applicable. Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission: (1) Nil. (2)-(8) Not applicable. WorkCover: (1) Nil (2)-(8) Not applicable. Construction Industry Long Service Leave Payments Board: (1) Nil. (2)-(8) Not applicable. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ACT 1984 5414. Hon Helen Morton to the Minister for Local Government representing the Minister for Land Information (1) By agency, please name each position for which an exception 50(d) under the Equal Opportunity Act 1984, applied as at 1 July 2007? (2) Which of these positions has had the 50(d) exception removed as at 28 August 2007? (3) Will further positions have the 50(d) exception removed in the next 12 months? (4) If yes to (3), which positions are being considered for removal of the 50(d) exception? (5) Were all Aboriginal staff whose positions were covered by the 50(d) exception counselled prior to removal of the exception up until 28 August 2007? (6) If no to (5), which staff in which positions were not counselled? (7) Why were the staff referred to in (6), not counselled? (8) Will all staff whose positions will be affected by (4), be consulted prior to a decision to remove the 50(d) exception? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: Landgate advises: (1) Nil. (2)-(8) Not applicable.. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ACT 1984 5421. Hon Helen Morton to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for South West (1) By agency, please name each position for which an exception 50(d) under the Equal Opportunity Act 1984, applied as at 1 July 2007? (2) Which of these positions has had the 50(d) exception removed as at 28 August 2007?

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 18 September 2007] 5123

(3) Will further positions have the 50(d) exception removed in the next 12 months? (4) If yes to (3), which positions are being considered for removal of the 50(d) exception? (5) Were all Aboriginal staff whose positions were covered by the 50(d) exception counselled prior to removal of the exception up until 28 August 2007? (6) If no to (5), which staff in which positions were not counselled? (7) Why were the staff referred to in (6), not counselled? (8) Will all staff whose positions will be affected by (4), be consulted prior to a decision to remove the 50(d) exception? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: South West Development Commission (1) Aboriginal Economic Development Officer (2) Nil (3) No (4)-(8) Not applicable EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ACT 1984 5430. Hon Helen Morton to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Peel (1) By agency, please name each position for which an exception 50(d) under the Equal Opportunity Act 1984, applied as at 1 July 2007? (2) Which of these positions has had the 50(d) exception removed as at 28 August 2007? (3) Will further positions have the 50(d) exception removed in the next 12 months? (4) If yes to (3), which positions are being considered for removal of the 50(d) exception? (5) Were all Aboriginal staff whose positions were covered by the 50(d) exception counselled prior to removal of the exception up until 28 August 2007? (6) If no to (5), which staff in which positions were not counselled? (7) Why were the staff referred to in (6), not counselled? (8) Will all staff whose positions will be affected by (4), be consulted prior to a decision to remove the 50(d) exception? Hon SALLY TALBOT replied: In respect of Peel Development Commission: (1) None. (2)-(8) Not applicable. EDUCATION - SYLLABUS DOCUMENTS FOR YEARS K-10 5438. Hon Peter Collier to the Minister for Local Government representing the Minister for Education and Training (1) Will the syllabus documents for years kindergarten to year ten, due for implementation in 2008, be mandated for all schools across all sectors? (2) Will the syllabus documents referred to in (1), be used to calculate grades for each year of schooling? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: (1) The K-10 syllabuses are advisory materials. They provide support for teachers as they continue with implementation of the Curriculum Framework. The syllabuses detail content to be taught and learned by students at each year of schooling and phase of development from kindergarten to year 10. Syllabuses will be provided for each year level from Kindergarten to Year 10. They will be provided free of charge to the independent sector and Catholic Education. (2) Syllabus documents referred to in (1) are advisory documents. They include some assessment tools. Public schools are obliged to comply with the “Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting K-10: Policy and Guidelines”, effective May 2007. ______