Legislative Assembly
Thursday, 14 August 2003
THE SPEAKER (Mr F. Riebeling) took the Chair at 9.00 am, and read prayers. AUSTRALIA BUSINESS ARTS FOUNDATION AWARDS Statement by Minister for Culture and the Arts MS S.M. McHALE (Thornlie - Minister for Culture and the Arts) [9.02 am]: I bring to the attention of the House Western Australia’s success in the recent Australia Business Arts Foundation Awards presented on 7 August 2003. The awards this year attracted nominations from 107 partnerships, which is the highest number received to date. Forty of those nominations were from Western Australia, and seven of the 27 finalists were from our State. It is pleasing to note that three of the nine national categories, and the Richard Pratt Business Leadership Award, were won by Western Australians. I congratulate Janet Holmes a Court on receiving the Richard Pratt Business Leadership Award. Members will be aware that Janet joins previous winner Michael Chaney in being presented this award in recognition of business leadership in support of the arts. I also congratulate Alcoa World Alumina on winning the Caliburn Corporate Strategy Award. This award recognises companies that are implementing strategies to maximise returns on their arts partnerships. The SPEAKER: Order, members! The background noise from other conversations means that I am having difficulty hearing the minister. Ms S.M. McHALE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Alcoa World Alumina has successfully linked its arts partnerships with what the company is trying to do as a whole, and has integrated its corporate objectives with the needs of its arts partners. Congratulations are also extended to Woodside Energy Ltd and the Western Australian Museum as winners of the City of Sydney Open Award for sponsorship of the Museum’s four-year survey of the marine life of the Dampier Archipelago. Woodside provided technical and scientific expertise to that survey. Our third category winner was the Rio Tinto WA Future Fund, Wesfarmers Arts, and Craftwest Centre for Contemporary Craft for the Designing Futures project. The project, which won the ABaF Councillors Community Award, worked in partnership with the design and timber industries to create economic and community opportunities arising out of the old-growth logging policy. It is evident that the resource sector in Western Australia is leading the way in the development of partnerships that provide benefits to the wider community and to their own corporate strategy. Western Australia is recognised as the national leader in business-arts partnership initiatives, and this year is the tenth anniversary of the State Arts Sponsorship Scheme Awards, upon which the national awards are modelled. The arts and cultural sector makes a significant economic and social contribution to our State, and the arts are essential to a healthy community. Our Government wants WA to be recognised as a place in which to live, work and do business, and to visit. I am sure the Parliament will join me in thanking corporate supporters who have joined us in recognising that culture is good for the community and for business, and that investment in the arts makes sense. VICTORIA PARK PHARMACY Statement by Minister for Health MR J.A. McGINTY (Fremantle - Minister for Health) [9.06 am]: The Victoria Park Pharmacy will be withdrawing from participation in the community program for opioid pharmacotherapy, effective from tomorrow. This community- based program provides treatment for opioid dependence. Participating medical practitioners and pharmacies are required to be authorised by the Commissioner of Health and must comply with guidelines and legislative requirements. Methadone solution and buprenorphine tablets, under the trade name Subutex, are supplied free of charge. Patients pay the pharmacy fee and the Commonwealth pays the drug costs. The program aims to cut opioid dependence and reduce harm to individuals and the community from illicit opioid use. Pharmacies in the program usually have between 50 and 75 clients. The Victoria Park Pharmacy had up to 250 clients. The pharmacy had been experiencing problems in complying with the Poisons Act, with the appropriate tracking and accounting of the tablets supplied to the pharmacy, and with proper supervision of clients using the tablets. The Department of Health reached an agreement with the owner of the pharmacy in August last year to enable the pharmacy to continue in the program, but a further inspection in May this year found that the pharmacy’s record keeping continued to be inadequate, and that three of the conditions set out in the agreement of August 2002 were not being complied with. The pharmacist acknowledged the problems and agreed to withdraw from the program. Prosecution was considered but there was no public benefit in taking this approach if corrective action could be achieved through other means. As a large number of clients use this pharmacy, a date of 15 August was set as the last day for participation in the program to allow those clients to find an alternative pharmacy with which to continue their
9990 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003] treatment. The Department of Health has helped the pharmacy find alternative treatment places for its 220 patients, and a notice was provided to clients advising what they needed to do before 15 August. The State Government appreciates the crucial role that pharmacists play in the community and acknowledges their ongoing support in the delivery of methadone and buprenorphine. The ongoing success of this program is dependent on ensuring that these drugs are supplied in a safe and responsible manner. It is the Department of Health’s responsibility to ensure that pharmacies participating in the distribution program comply with the guidelines and legislative requirements. It is not acceptable for the department to allow any practice that contravenes the Poisons Act. I understand the views of those who presented a petition to my office calling for the pharmacy to continue in the program. However, it is in the best interests of the program and the Victoria Park Pharmacy for tomorrow to be the last day that it participates in the community program for opioid pharmacotherapy. RECREATIONAL BOATING AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT Statement by Minister for Planning and Infrastructure MS A.J. MacTIERNAN (Armadale - Minister for Planning and Infrastructure) [9.09 am]: This year the State Government has allocated $1.1 million to improve coastal management and increase boating facilities around our State. The SPEAKER: Very good too. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Mr Speaker, your electorate has been a great recipient of these funds, so you would appreciate them. More than $600 000 has been allocated through the recreational boating facilities scheme for the purpose of building, maintaining and improving facilities for recreational boat users. In addition, we have allocated more than $500 000 under the new Coastwest grants program. This new program assists in protecting and repairing precious marine and coastal areas along the coast of Western Australia. Recreational boating facilities scheme funding is sourced from recreational boat registration fees and provided to local councils through the Department of Planning and Infrastructure on a dollar-for-dollar basis. Through the scheme the State Government gives back to the community and recreational boat users through the provision of boating facilities such as boat launches and jetties, and improvements to groynes and harbours. These improvements will help cater for the increasing number of recreational boats and enable greater access in the community to our coastal lifestyle. In July I announced an allocation of more than $200 000 for better boating facilities in Geraldton, Irwin, Derby-West Kimberley, Joondalup, Busselton and Albany. Today I announce the allocation of almost $400 000 for six additional recreational boating facilities projects: $95 500 for Geraldton’s coast for the extension of the rock groyne at the town beach and a proposed boat-launching facility at Pages Beach; $150 000 for a boat-launching facility at Carnarvon; and more than $150 000 for three projects in the Shire of Wyndham-East Kimberley, including the upgrade of the pontoon jetty at Wyndham port, the construction of a boat launch at lower Ord River and the upgrade of a boat launch at Lily Creek Lagoon in Kununurra. The allocation of more than $500 000 in Coastwest grants will provide opportunities and resources for local community members to play an active role in maintaining and enhancing their local coastal environment, with financial support from the Government. The Coastwest grants program is administered and managed by the Western Australian Planning Commission and builds upon the past achievements of the previous Coastwest-Coastcare environmental repair work. I am very pleased to announce 34 successful projects, including a $33 750 Coastwest grant for a long-term turtle monitoring program in the internationally significant Ningaloo Marine Park. The World Wildlife Fund Australia, the Department of Conservation and Land Management, the Cape Conservation Group and researchers from Murdoch University will work with industry and user groups, indigenous communities and pastoral leaseholders for the protection and conservation of marine turtles.
YARLOOP HOSPITAL Statement by Minister for Health MR J.A. McGINTY (Fremantle - Minister for Health) [9.13 am]: Yarloop’s timber and fibro hospital is more than 100 years old. It has up to 18 hospital beds, but low demand means that only 10 are usually required. In recent years the hospital has catered mainly for elderly care patients, with primary care provided by the Harvey Health Service. Significant fire risk problems have been identified and I am concerned there may be a serious problem for staff and patients. It is estimated that it would take five minutes from the start of a fire to an inferno in the hospital. A recent fire evacuation drill found that staff could realistically evacuate only three to four mobile or two immobile patients in that time. The risk was confirmed last December when a fire occurred in an airconditioning unit at the hospital. Fortunately, the fire was contained, but the danger to patients and staff - and the need to address the risk - was brought to the Department of Health’s attention. The Government has already taken a number of steps to ensure safety at the hospital. However, I agree with the department’s request to restrict in-patient admissions to a maximum of six. This is not expected to affect nursing staffing levels, but, if required, any hospital staff affected will have employment opportunities at other hospitals in the district.
[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003] 9991
The Government maintains a high level of commitment to the health of the people of Yarloop and the south west generally. Yarloop residents will continue to have a choice of local health services at Harvey and Peel, which are no more than 15 to 30 minutes away by car. Bunbury Regional Hospital is 45 minutes away and offers a full range of services, including specialist surgery. Emergency cases may be readily referred to Harvey, Peel or Bunbury. The Government’s continued commitment to health care in the south west is reflected in: the retention of Harvey Health Service, a 24-bed facility located 12 kilometres from Yarloop and offering general medical, surgical, obstetric, aged care and emergency department services; the establishment of the South West Area Health Service to better plan and coordinate all health services in the south west; and the establishment of the Yarloop Community Clinic in response to the recommendations of the Wagerup Medical Practitioners Forum. The Government will continue to ensure outpatient and primary health services are provided for the Yarloop community. In short, the facility at Yarloop may be restricted to fewer patients on site, but there will be no cost in terms of health services available to the people of Yarloop. This is the only responsible decision for the Government to make. We cannot, and will not, compromise the safety of staff and patients for any reason.
PROPOSED CARAVAN PARK AT LUDLOW Grievance MR B.K. MASTERS (Vasse) [9.14 am]: I begin by thanking the Minister for Health for making himself available for this grievance. The fact that the Minister for Health is also the Attorney General will, I hope, assist in the resolution of this grievance. Allan and Faye Bentley are dairy farmers at Ludlow. They are at least second-generation, and may even be third-generation, farmers on their property. In 2000, when the dairy industry was deregulated, it quite understandably forced them to evaluate all possible economic options that might be available to them for the use of their land. One of the options that they investigated was whether they could undertake ecotourism on their property. The reason that opportunity presented itself is that half of a wetland known as McCarley’s swamp is located on their land. McCarley’s swamp is arguably the most important waterbird breeding colony in the southern half of Western Australia. At this time of the year and right through until middle and late summer, black swans, various species of ducks, ibis, cormorants, darters, egrets and a range of other waterbirds live and breed in that area. Ecotourism would create wonderful opportunities for people to appreciate the natural environment of that area. In other words, McCarley’s swamp has extremely high conservation and ecotourism value. The Bentleys proposed a 12-bay caravan park on their property at Ludlow. Such a land use is potentially allowable under the Shire of Capel’s town planning scheme. Everything went smoothly in the assessment process, including a lack of objection by the Department of Conservation and Land Management - the department one would expect would have the greatest interest in an ecotourism project affecting a wetland - until a letter arrived from the Department of Health written on 30 January 2003 and addressed to the Shire of Capel. That letter made a number of statements, all of which, bar one, I have no problem with at all. The letter outlined the risks associated with Ross River virus and Barmah Forest virus. The letter also did a very professional job of covering the issues that needed to be addressed by both the proponents of this caravan park and the Shire of Capel in considering whether a caravan park should be allowed on the site. However, the letter did one thing to which I and others strongly object; namely, it gave legal advice which, when challenged, the department neither explained nor justified nor withdrew. The letter states at the bottom of the first page - Therefore, the Department has concerns about the risk to public health from mosquito-borne diseases at the proposed development. I have no problems with that. However, it then goes on to say - The Shire needs to consider whether the benefits of the facility would justify complaints and/or potential risk of litigation from disgruntled tourists that contract RR/BF diseases, in addition to the considerable ongoing costs of vector control programs. The minister may appreciate that that reference to the potential risk of litigation did not put the fear of God into the Shire of Capel but did put the fear of litigation into the Shire of Capel. I believe that for most people the fear of litigation is far worse than the fear of God. The issue was then raised with me, and I thought I had better ask some more questions. In question on notice 1418 answered on Thursday, 26 June 2003 I asked the Minister for Health a number of questions. The answer to the second question that I asked was that from 2000-01 until the current year no cases of Ross River virus and no cases of Barmah Forest virus have been recorded in the Ludlow area. I asked also whether any legal action has been undertaken anywhere in Western Australia with regard to people contracting these diseases. The answer was - No record of any legal action has been found. When I asked for a copy of the legal advice that the department had on which it must have based its comments contained in the letter to the Shire of Busselton, the reply was -
9992 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003]
Legal advice given on any topic is the subject of legal professional privilege and if such advice was received, it would not be tabled. That is completely unacceptable because the implication is that the Department of Health may have received legal advice, warned the Shire of Capel of the potential for legal action to be taken, and then refused to elaborate, explain and provide copies of that legal advice, or to elucidate to any degree whatsoever on that issue. The minister’s department has stepped outside its field of expertise by advising the Shire of Capel of the legal opinion it had received on an issue. Unexpectedly, the shire has reacted to this potential risk of being sued by saying to Allan and Faye Bentley that they must now pay for an expensive legal opinion from a qualified law firm or legal practitioner. This must happen despite the fact that the Bentleys will fully adopt all the other regulations of the Department of Health; that the shire is still allowing urban development to occur very close to Ludlow - I live at Peppermint Grove Beach which is very close to the Ludlow area - and that the Department of Conservation and Land Management is actively encouraging tourists to go into the Ludlow state forest to recreate. The Department of Health is either displaying double standards or it has stepped outside its field of expertise and unwisely and unfairly purported to give legal advice to the Shire of Capel. My request to the minister is a simple one: will he please direct his department to either explain or justify to the shire and the Bentleys the department’s legal statement about the potential risk of litigation, or will the minister instruct the department to withdraw this statement completely and let the shire make up its own mind about the legal risks associated with this proposal? MR J.A. McGINTY (Fremantle - Minister for Health) [9.23 am]: I thank the member for raising this difficult issue. There appears to be no precedents in Australia of litigation being commenced against a developer or a local council in respect of the contraction of a mosquito-borne virus. However, I will deal briefly with the legal issues because it is important for the developer to obtain his own legal advice on this matter, as should the council. The view that has been suggested is that it is arguable that an action could be commenced against a local council in the light of the High Court decision in Pyrenees Shire Council v Day 1988 in which the majority of the High Court found that a decision by a local council not to exercise its powers to prevent a fire risk constituted negligence. However, that is some distance away from the factual situation that the member has outlined today. It is not the job of the Department of Health to be offering legal advice and that issue is crystal clear. Mr B.K. Masters: That is the point I am making. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I agree with that point. It is, however, prudent to look at this issue and its legal ramifications. I will deal with the broader issue that is also raised; that is, that the Department of Health considers the individual circumstances of each proposed development brought to the attention of the department with a view to determining whether the relevant local government planning authority or developer should be advised of the need to warn the public about the risk of Ross River or Barmah Forest viruses and the need for effective mosquito management. From the public health perspective, the Department of Health does not support development in those areas identified by the department to be high-risk areas for those viruses and where the options for mosquito control are limited. A long-term surveillance program has shown that the Ludlow area is one of four major focuses of Ross River virus in the south west. Significantly high populations of mosquitoes are frequently trapped in the region. Ross River and Barmah Forest viruses are regularly isolated from these mosquitoes and a large population of the natural animal host, the western grey kangaroo, is also present. Surveys show that a high proportion of these animals have been infected with Ross River virus. The number of doctor-notified cases with a place of residence or likely history of exposure in the Ludlow area in the past eight years are as follows: in 1995-96, 24 cases of Ross River virus and five cases of Barmah Forest virus; in 1996- 97, no cases were reported; in 1997-98, seven cases of Ross River virus and one case of Barmah Forest virus; in 1998- 99, one case of Ross River virus and no cases of the other virus; and in 1999-00, 24 cases of Ross River virus and one case of Barmah Forest virus. No cases have been reported in the past three years - it is likely that many more cases have gone undiagnosed and unreported - because of unfavourable environmental conditions for mosquito breeding and virus activity. This has been the case throughout the south west and not just in the Ludlow region. The number of cases must be interpreted with the knowledge that the population in the Ludlow area is currently small; therefore, the outbreaks in 1995-96 and 1999-00 represent a high attack rate of Ross River virus. The number of cases is expected to increase if the number of people increases in the absence of effective mosquito management. The Department of Health did not lodge an objection to the development but provided recommendations to the Shire of Capel when requested. Mosquito control in the Ludlow region will be ongoing, very difficult and expensive. It may also have detrimental impacts on the natural environment; for example, fogging for adult mosquitoes will kill beneficial insects as well as mosquitoes. The nature of the proposed development - one that promotes outdoor activity and, therefore, exposure to mosquitoes - in a recognised endemic focus of Ross River virus is also of concern. The Department of Health has major concerns about development in known high-risk regions where effective mosquito management is unlikely to be achieved. Therefore it is the department’s recommendation that development in risk areas
[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003] 9993 should only proceed where effective mosquito management is a condition of approval. The department has provided information about the likely effectiveness of relevant management strategies to the Shire of Capel, which has been passed directly to the proponent. It is a matter, as the member has rightly observed, on which the shire and the developer should obtain their own legal advice. From what I have seen of the documentation, the Department of Health has not provided legal advice as such. In the two-page letter to the shire from Dr Mike Lindsay of 30 January 2003, to which the member objects, it states - Therefore, the Department has concerns about the risk to public health from mosquito-borne diseases at the proposed development. It then outlines the objectionable paragraph that the member - Mr B.K. Masters: Everyone is quite comfortable with everything else. It is the reference to litigation - Mr J.A. McGINTY: Yes. The letter continues - The Shire needs to consider whether benefits of the facility would justify complaints and/or potential risk of litigation from disgruntled tourists that contract . . . diseases, . . . I do not regard that as legal advice but rather an indication that this is a matter that should be addressed. It would be inappropriate for the Department of Health to be offering legal advice in any event. ILLEGAL RETAIL TRADING FROM A RESIDENTIAL HOME, EAST PERTH Grievance MR J.N. HYDE (Perth) [9.28 am]: My grievance is to the Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection regarding retail trading from residential homes and the harassment of legitimate objectors. My grievance concerns illegal retail trading from a residential home in East Perth that is causing distress and harassment to residents in the neighbourhood. I have had several complaints from residents about Designer Knitwear Exclusives. It is advertised as being in a convenient East Perth location, so convenient that the “Lets Go Shopping” bus used to roll up into a quiet residential street and deposit merry shoppers at the residential home at 46 Henry Lawson Walk, East Perth, which has neither commercial nor retail planning approval. My grievance is not only that this undeniable retail operation is occurring in a residential street, but also that this retail business is avoiding taxes and overheads that legitimate, proper, well-run businesses pay and adhere to in East Perth and elsewhere in my electorate. Proper receipts are not given to customers. I lay on the Table a flyer and a receipt from 18 July 2003. It is a “With compliments” slip, with no Australian business number, no evidence nor detail of goods and services tax paid and a company address in South Perth. No exchange or refund for defective goods is allowed. [The paper was tabled for the information of members.] Mr J.N. HYDE: The electoral roll has no-one registered as a resident at 46 Henry Lawson Walk, yet the person who says that she lives there in letters denying she runs a business there is Dianne Johnston - sometimes she spells it Johnson. However, customers are told by the on-site operator that her name is Rachelle Roberts, and that is the signature on the receipt. However, the South Perth company name on the receipt is registered to a Betty Diane Lulham. This business name and its operator are related to an avalanche of unpaid debts at another business premises in my electorate. All these aliases have remarkably similar handwriting styles, and all their various typed letters have identical spelling errors in identical words. Some of my residents who have complained to the City of Perth have received abusive e-mails and telephone calls. The different e-mails, mainly anonymous, have been traced back to a common server, identical to the one used by this business name. I also lay on the Table a signed statement by a shopper who telephoned the number on the flyer and was given and attended this residential address. [The paper was tabled for the information of members.] Mr J.N. HYDE: This signed statement was provided to the City of Perth confidentially and the shopper has now received abusive, anonymous phone calls to her private mobile phone, but with information links to her statement. The shopper details the extensive amount of men’s and women’s clothing displayed and a certificate of business name for Designer Knitwear Exclusives, dated 12 August 2002 with a Leederville business address. I have now independently established that the identified business owner left this address some years ago and still owes the building owner extensive sums of money. First, this person should not be retailing from a residential home, especially given the East Perth Redevelopment Authority rules on home occupations, which I will also lay on the Table. Secondly, this person cannot deceive the public that she is a legitimate business from an expired address. The shopper also details in her statement the extensive amount of price tickets, red-bordered “reduced” stickers and other paraphernalia people expect in a legitimate business. The flyer to local residents also details top designer labels such as Max Mara, Ralph Lauren and Escada. None was on display and when questioned, the owner said that they had
9994 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003] gone quickly, had been re-badged by the designer or were removed by the factories. Yet despite being told initially that these authentic clothes came from the top fashion houses of Europe, any labels evident said “Made in China”. The owner said that she made regular trips to Sydney to buy imported stock, which she could sell cheap because she did not have business overheads. This shopper’s statement details the hard-sell pressure she was subjected to and a number of defects she identified in clothing she was pressured to try on. According to my notes, her statement reads - Upon leaving, I felt strongly that I had been witness to and a participant of an underhand operation. I thought it seemed peculiar that I was subject to so much pressure to stay and buy, and that Rachel did not seem concerned to document the sale in the normal way, by issuing a receipt to me for the payment . . . She made me feel as if I was unusual in asking for a receipt and expecting the cheap prices. I also lay on the Table the East Perth Redevelopment Authority planning design guidelines policy 1.11 for home occupations. [The paper was tabled for the information of members.] Mr J.N. HYDE: The shopper’s letter clearly details that retail is not an acceptable home occupation. She continues - The policy on Home Occupations is not intended to provide for de facto approvals of general retail. Commercial or related type uses. These are quite distinct activities defined in the scheme, and for which formal development applications are required. I am confident there is a serious scam operating here. I know that the buyer must be aware and that many victims of scams are lured in by the prospects of a cheap buy, but we have a duty to protect consumers from themselves and their greed. This is not genuine designer wear, it is not being sold from a legitimate shop and the business is not adhering to the ethical business practices we expect it to. I will provide all this information to the Australian Taxation Office. Many schools, police stations and hospitals are under-funded because some businesses do not pay rightful taxes and GST. I and many of my self-employed constituents who do the right thing are being unfairly undercut in the marketplace by operators who cheat and dodge taxes. Secondly, from my local government experience, I know that unscrupulous people can pretend that they are undertaking an approved home occupation when they are a full-blown business that severely impacts on the amenity of local residents. I would appreciate any assistance that the minister’s Department of Consumer and Employment Protection can offer to my harried residents. The SPEAKER: Those documents will be laid on the Table for the balance of this day’s sitting. I point out to members that laying documents on the Table is for the information of members of this House and is not distributed to the wider community. If the member wishes it to be released to the Press, he must do so externally of this House. MR J.C. KOBELKE (Nollamara - Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection) [9.36 am]: I thank the member for Perth for his grievance. He has always taken a very keen interest in consumer protection matters and he has raised a particular case relating to what appears to be a retail operation in a residential area. A number of matters involved with these types of scams do not necessarily rest with consumer protection. They are all part of a mode of operation by which people can be deceived and misled. I will address a number of the key issues. Some of them relate to consumer protection and others do not. Clearly, the issue of a retail operation being conducted from a residential premises is a matter for local government zoning and control. As the member for Perth has indicated, that matter has already gone to the appropriate authority, the City of Perth. The Department of Consumer and Employment Protection does not have powers over the location of a business or the premises from which it operates; that matter relates to local government. The effect on neighbours can relate to the hours of business, which clearly does sit with the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection. Retailers must comply with retail trading hours legislation. In fact, in a totally different area, prosecutions are being prepared at the moment for people who have operated outside retail hours. One of those cases, of which the member for Perth would be aware, is in a similar neighbourhood to that in the issue he has raised today. If retail operators wish to trade outside general retail hours, it is necessary for them to either be a special retail shop - that is, a newsagent, video store etc - or seek a small shop exemption certificate. My inquiries have indicated that no such exemption has been sought for a retailer from this location. The inquiries that have been made, on the basis of early representation from the member for Perth, indicate that a business name is registered for this operation. However, there is also a need to ensure that the address for the registered business is up to date. If people change addresses, they are required to notify the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection within one month that they have changed the address at which their business operates. The issue of whether people can get a receipt is not a matter that is governed by the Fair Trading Act. It may relate to taxation laws. Proper accounts need to be kept, and receipts would normally be part of keeping proper accounts for taxation purposes. That is a matter into which the Australian Taxation Office may need to look, because the advice provided by the member for Perth leads me to suspect that it is not a normal form of business operation at which proper accounts are kept and proper receipts issued. Again, that is a matter for another authority; that is, the Australian Taxation Office. Misleading or deceptive advertising is an offence that clearly falls within the Fair Trading Act. Also,
[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003] 9995 the Trade Practices Act, the federal legislation, prohibits conduct that is misleading or deceptive. It is clearly deceptive practice to advertise, promote or describe particular pieces of apparel as being a designer brand - such as by putting a particular label on them - when they are not. If people made complaints and produced the required evidence, we would prosecute. There is always an issue in that things may contain a label reputing to have been made by a company that does not produce such an item. That is a matter of copyright. Some companies, particularly in some of our neighbours to the north, produce those items at a low cost and simply put a label on them. That falls outside our state jurisdiction, but we would be keen to follow through if particular products were falsely labelled. The issue of refund or exchange falls under the Fair Trading Act. If an item is faulty, the retailer has a responsibility to replace it. If the consumer returns an item, he or she has the right to have it repaired, replaced or refunded. Of course, that comes back to the issue of the receipt. A receipt is important if someone later finds that he or she is not satisfied with the product because it is defective or has been misrepresented. The receipt clearly helps people in making a claim about what they were sold and their desire to either receive a refund or have the item replaced. Signs in shops such as “no refunds” or “no refunds on sale items” are misleading and illegal. Those signs do not take away a consumer’s rights if they are entitled to a refund at law. Although some retailers may suggest that they are not willing to give a refund, such a sign does not take away the rights of a consumer who has been sold something that has been misrepresented or is defective. There is a very clear obligation on retailers and all people involved in sales - such as of much larger items - to not misrepresent the item they are selling. The item must also be fit for the purpose for which it is sold. If a mechanical device or something that is supposed to operate in a particular way or perform a particular task does not work, the retailer is purporting to sell something that is not what he claims. A range of measures requires that the rights of consumers be respected, and there are means by which we can seek to uphold those. However, if it is one person’s word against another, as it can be in a small operation such as that mentioned by the member, it can be difficult for us to get the necessary evidence to successfully prosecute. The member for Perth is quite rightly drawing to the attention of his community and the wider public that a particular operator does not seem to be complying with a range of measures and meeting expected standards, whether it be where it operates or the way in which it operates. In advising people about this particular operator, he is also clearly informing them that if they are in a situation such as this, they have rights and that if they wish to uphold those rights, they need to produce evidence so that we can take action. GRANDPARENTS CARING FOR THEIR GRANDCHILDREN Grievance MR R.F. JOHNSON (Hillarys) [9.43 am]: I grieve on behalf of the thousands of grandparents in this State who are forced to look after their grandchildren. This occurs for various reasons but many times it is because the parents of the children are drug addicts, in prison or do not want to look after their children and leave the State or country. Those little children must be looked after by somebody. I commend those grandparents for the fantastic job they do in looking after their grandchildren. I have two grievances: one against the federal Government and another against this Government, in particular the Minister for Community Development, Women’s Interests, Seniors and Youth. My grievances are about what I and many grandparents perceive as the lack of support and financial assistance for the wonderful job of bringing up young children who are in danger unless they are with the grandparents and cared for properly. I predicate my remarks by stating a few facts which I believe are obvious but with which the minister may not agree. We must ensure that the vital role of grandparents is not ignored. An office of the commissioner for children should be established so that grandparents have someone to go to for help. Currently, they do not get help from this Government or the federal Government. A commissioner for children would have the right to intercede with government departments and ensure that the best interests of the child are paramount. In extreme cases a commissioner could give some funding assistance. A commissioner would be able take into account the ability of the grandparents and, most importantly, their capacity to be heard. We must legislate to ensure that the commissioner is a decision maker and that in situations in which parents are deceased or incapable of caring for their children, the grandparents are the first to be considered to stand in loco parentis. This Government and this minister put in place an Aboriginal child placement principle, but it has done nothing similar for non-indigenous children. That is a disgrace and discriminatory. My position and that of the Liberal Party, which will be put in place when it resumes government, is for the establishment of a commissioner for children. Such a position would be equal to that of the Commissioner for Equal Opportunity. I have met with a great number of grandparents who care for their grandchildren. I know what it is like because I had to do it for six months. I was fortunate in that I did not need financial assistance or support from the Department for Community Development or Centrelink. However, I am one of a few people in that position. The vast majority of grandparents who are forced to look after their grandchildren are not fortunate enough to be in that financial position or receive adequate family support to do the job. The time allocated to me for this grievance is inadequate to do it justice. However, I want to summarise the points so that the minister can think carefully about what should happen. Obviously the interests and safety of the child must be paramount. I have a concern about the minister’s departments. I understand that many people in those departments,
9996 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003] including some of the team leaders, with responsibility for looking after children’s interests are not qualified social workers. I would like the minister to respond to that. If that is the case, unqualified people are not only doing a job that should be done by qualified people but also acting as team leaders. I have met a great number of grandparents in this situation. They come from all walks of life and all parts of Western Australia. In one particular case a suicidal child came into the care of his grandparents when the mother went to the Department for Community Development for help and to give up the child. The department approached the grandparents, who took the boy in and did a great job. However, they say that they received no help or assistance from the Department for Community Development. They received nothing to cover the child’s medical and pharmaceutical expenses and no financial benefit for doing that job. Another grandparent went to the Department for Community Development about custody of the child. The child was in extreme danger but the grandparents could not get social security payments. That was because when the child was spoken about with the department, the mother took the child back. The minute some mothers who are drug addicts come under the clear impression that their child will be taken permanently from them, they step in and take the child back, purely to get social security money to shoot up their arms. This happened in the south west of the State. A grandparent contacted the Department for Community Development and a representative from the department went to visit her. The grandparent desperately needed money for food and clothing for the child, who was dirty. The problem was that the mother of the child was also at the meeting. The grandparent pleaded with the departmental child protection worker to not give the money to the mother as she knew where it would go. The grandparent asked that she receive the money so that she could buy food and clothing and carry out the necessary duties to care for that child. The child protection worker refused to take the grandparent’s advice and gave the money to the mother. Naturally, the mother went away and shot that money up her arm. The grandparent was left with no money whatsoever to care for that child. Another grandparent said to me that on at least three or four occasions when the Department for Community Development had been contacted about the living conditions and the general situation that the grandchild was in, and in particular her being sent to school dirty, tired and with no lunch, no action whatsoever was taken. The Department for Community Development did not want to take the child away from the mother even though the child was obviously at risk. However, its staff recorded each conversation with the grandparents, so that when the records were subpoenaed for the court action which eventually followed, it proved that they were concerned and did try to take action on behalf of the child. What those examples say about the minister’s department is that it is a toothless tiger. MS S.M. McHALE (Thornlie - Minister for Community Development, Women’s Interests, Seniors and Youth) [9.52 am]: I thank the member for raising this grievance and his clear interest in this matter, which is an area of social policy in which I certainly share his concern. The Opposition has used this grievance to criticise the Government for doing nothing. At the outset I will disabuse the member of his impression that this Government has done nothing. This Government is the first Government in Australia to set up a service specifically for grandparents. Before I outline exactly what the Government has done, I want to take great issue with the member’s comments about team leaders in my department not being social workers. Mr R.F. Johnson: Qualified social workers. Ms S.M. McHALE: I cannot tell the member the qualifications of the team leaders and the staff. However, I can tell the member that the staff are totally dedicated to child protection and community development. They work under extremely difficult circumstances because of a decade of under-resourcing and, more importantly, because of the issues that confront social workers. As the member knows full well, those issues are highly complex, and involve many issues around dysfunctional families and complex interfamily relationships. I therefore want to disabuse the member that I have staff who are unqualified. I have staff who are totally dedicated to the task ahead of them. I would expect members to support them rather than suggest that they are unqualified. I am aware of this complex issue. Because of my concern for the growing number of grandparents who look after children, we have set up a number of services and supports for them. Some grandparents, for a range of reasons, take on the primary role of looking after their grandchildren in a willing way but often with great concern that at their time in life they are faced with taking on the primary parenting role. The member knows this full well. The three issues that face grandparents and that constantly surface in the work we do with grandparents are the need for financial advice and support, the need for legal support pertaining to parenting orders and the like, and the need for information on parenting skills, particularly when the children they take on have been living with parents who are drug dependent, alcohol dependent and sometimes victims of domestic violence. The grandparents are often taking on children who have a range of social needs. At a time when most grandparents are wanting to do other things in their lives and have finished their parenting roles, some are finding themselves confronted with being parents again in a very different environment from that which existed when they were young parents. The three issues are finance, law and parenting. In part as a response to the Community Drug Summit in 2001, this Government set up the first support mechanism for grandparents in 2001-02. It established the grandparents support service to provide the very support that grandparents
[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003] 9997 need. The service offers practical assistance, informal counselling and advice on child management, financial support, links to other community resources and support needs. The service is known as Grandcare and is provided by Wanslea Family Services. Since its inception, over 500 grandparents have contacted the service and accessed one of the six components of the service. Therefore, for the Opposition to say that this Government has done nothing in this area is for it to say the opposite of the truth. Mr R.F. Johnson: How much funding are you providing? Ms S.M. McHALE: It is $100 000 over three years. Mr R.F. Johnson: $30 000 a year is disgraceful. Ms S.M. McHALE: This is the first service of its kind in Australia, and the Government will go on to support and fund other services because it takes its social responsibilities very seriously and funds services. We do not just talk about them but confront some of the most difficult social issues in our community and deal with them. The Wanslea Family Services’ Grandcare has six components. It has an information line, a telephone-based support and advocacy service, a visiting assessment and support service, it gives ongoing grandparenting skills and personal development training, it provides grandparents with creche facilities, which is a new initiative, and of course it provides access to Wanslea Family Services. We are also working with Centrelink to make it easier for grandparents to access income support. We all know that it is very difficult for people to find their way through federal government funding sources. We need to make sure that the federal Government facilitates its services in a way that is more accessible. In the coming weeks we are also conducting a forum with service providers who link with grandparents. We are bringing them together and will be talking with those service providers and seeking from them their ideas about what additional services and support grandparents need. As a result, we will be committing additional funds to providing those services. The Government is doing something in this area. A ministerial council comprising all state ministers met recently. I was successful in amending the national foster care plan to include relatives and grandparents. In summary, we have established the first Australian service dedicated to grandparents. We will very shortly be providing material on legal and financial support and additional funds to set up new services. The department will work to clarify support that can be obtained and will work with the federal department to simplify the process for income support. The national plan for foster carers has been expanded to include supporting relatives. I am very proud of this Government’s record in this area and it is an Australian first. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Eyre to order for the first time for allowing his mobile phone to ring. FLY IN, FLY OUT ISSUES Grievance MR J.J.M. BOWLER (Eyre) [9.58 am]: My grievance is to the Deputy Premier and Treasurer. Last Sunday and Monday, along with members of the Gallop Cabinet, I went to the north west for the first time in my life and visited the town of Newman and flew to Jigalong. Members of the Cabinet and I found out about many of the issues facing people in the north west. I found that they are in general the same issues that face people in my electorate of Eyre and around the goldfields. There is no doubt that the biggest issue facing my electors and those in the north west is that of fly in, fly out. It is probably symptomatic of many other issues that lie on top of it and are part of it, but it is the end result. I have described it as the cancer of the bush. It has occurred in the goldfields for the best part of a decade and is now occurring in the Pilbara to the point that people in the Pilbara are becoming very concerned. As a matter of fact, a group called the Pilbara Sustainability Taskforce has been established. I met the leader of that task force, Sharon Thiel, and spoke to her about her concerns and the issues with fly in, fly out and how best to combat them and turn them around. I think she was surprised to find out that in the goldfields, which is much closer to Perth, despite its position in the State, fly in, fly out was just as bad an issue. There are two main ways to combat fly in, fly out. The first is to make changes to the fringe benefits tax. I concede that the tax was introduced by a Labor Government, but changes are needed. Changes made about 18 months ago went nowhere near to achieving their aim, which was to encourage individuals and mining companies to establish workers and their families where the jobs are - back in regional and remote Australia. The second and more important measure is to boost the taxation zone rebate back to the level at which it was originally intended to operate. The zone rebate was established about 40 years ago to offset the extra cost of living in remote Australia and to compensate for the loss of services and amenities faced by many people in remote Australia, including Newman. The zone rebate has not come near to keeping pace with inflation, to the point that it does not do a lot of good for people in places like Newman. An increase in the zone rebate would prove beneficial not only to the miners living in remote Western Australia, but also to the State and federal Governments. The State Government faces many problems in attracting nurses, teachers, doctors
9998 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003] and police officers to remote Western Australia. These problems could be overcome by a genuine zone rebate that truly reflected the extra cost of living in remote Western Australia. When we went to Newman at the weekend, we found that the people living there not only want the zone rebate increased, but also feel cheated, because people flying in and out of the north west for work are also receiving the zone rebate. Not only are those living in the north west not receiving a genuine rebate that covers their extra costs of living, but also those working in the north west who fly in to work and fly out to their families in Perth are claiming the rebate. The federal Government policy is almost an incentive to fly in, fly out, encouraging people to work in the bush but to live in Perth, where their families live and where they spend their money. They earn their money in the bush, but they do not spend it there. People in Newman feel threatened by this, and I am sure the Deputy Premier felt that in Newman. The decline in services attributable to fly in, fly out is of great concern to the people living there. They were surprised to be told by the Deputy Premier that 90 per cent of the royalties earned in Western Australia are taken by federal government grants to the States. The member for Pilbara, who is in the Chamber at this moment, is trying to get some of those royalties spent where they are earned, in areas like the goldfields and the Pilbara. When the federal Government takes 90 per cent of royalties straight back to Canberra, it becomes very difficult for the Western Australian Government to retain some of those royalties where they are earned. The people of the Pilbara are very concerned that fly in, fly out is eating away at their society. We know all the social problems produced by fly in, fly out, such as high divorce rates and other family problems caused by the absence of the father for up to six weeks at a time. However, those families in the Pilbara that are not affected by fly in, fly out employment also start to see the problems. When the size of the community is reduced, it may receive one less police officer, or one less teacher. Student numbers at the Newman Senior High School have declined to the point at which it cannot offer the same level of courses as other high schools. I call fly in, fly out the cancer of the bush, and I want to fight it. I know the Treasurer and Deputy Premier wants to join me in that fight. Changes to the fringe benefits tax and the zone rebate are needed, and I urge the Deputy Premier to use every means he can to make sure Canberra listens to us. MR E.S. RIPPER (Belmont - Deputy Premier) [10.05 am]: I thank the member for Eyre for raising this issue. He came to Newman and participated in discussions with the Newman community in connection with the cabinet meeting held in that town last Monday. He is correct in identifying two issues named by the Newman community as inhibiting its development. There has been a zone allowance for many years for people who live and work in remote areas. That allowance, however, has been progressively eroded by inflation. It is now worth a lot less in real terms than when it was first introduced, and does nothing to encourage people to live in remote areas. The maximum amount that can be claimed is $1 173 per annum, which falls a long way short of what is required to compensate people for the additional cost of living in regional areas, and the harsh climatic conditions. In addition, it is a tax rebate, so can only be claimed by those people who pay tax. Dependants of families who are not in employment would not be able to claim the rebate, so there is no compensation for their living costs. Worse still, because the zone rebate applies to taxpayers who reside in the zone for a minimum aggregate period of 26 weeks each financial year, a person employed by a fly in, fly out operator can also gain access to the rebate. People who do not endure the harsh climatic conditions, are not exposed to the high living costs, and whose families are able to access services in major urban centres still have access to the zone rebate. The rebate is not working to encourage employees to locate in the region or to encourage companies to employ people who have located in the region, because it is also given to people employed by fly in, fly out operators. Those two issues need to be taken up with the Commonwealth. The zone rebate should be increased, and fly in, fly out employees should not be eligible for it. The purpose of the rebate is eroded if fly in, fly out employees are eligible for it. The second issue that must be taken up with the Commonwealth is the impact of the fringe benefits tax. The tax is paid on many deemed benefits, including subsidised rental on company-supplied housing, subsidised housing loans under company home ownership schemes, annual leave fares for employees and their families, and electricity subsidies to compensate employees for the cost of airconditioning. Companies that attempt to compensate employees for the disadvantages of living in remote locations are then hit by the Commonwealth Government with the fringe benefits tax on those compensations. In general, the fringe benefits tax is a good tax, introducing an element of equity into the taxation system. However, it has had the unfortunate consequence or side effect of impacting on companies providing compensation to people who live in remote areas with harsh climatic conditions. Although to a certain extent that matter has been addressed by changes made in 2000, it still needs further attention. I can assure the member for Eyre that the Government of Western Australia is taking up these matters with the Commonwealth and it will continue to do so. We will take up the two questions with regard to the zone rebate to make it more generous, or at least bring it up-to- date with modern costs instead of allowing it to continue in its inflation-eroded state, and to apply it only to people who live in the area and not to fly in, fly out employees. We will also take up the question of the need for further reform of the fringe benefits tax arrangements. One of the issues that arose in Newman was the question of royalties. I think Pilbara people feel that their industries contribute substantially to the coffers of the State, and they would like the State to return a higher proportion of those royalties in the form of state government infrastructure, investment and services in the Pilbara. At one of our meetings I
[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003] 9999 explained to the people of Newman the impact of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. For every dollar we get in royalties, the Commonwealth comes along and reduces our commonwealth grants and redistributes them to the other States, including Queensland, Tasmania and South Australia, and to the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. Eventually, about 90 per cent of any additional royalty income we get is, in effect, redistributed to those States and Territories. This is a system that absolutely requires reform, because it penalises growth in Western Australia and the other States and it penalises the nation’s economic growth and prosperity. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Grievances noted. PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE Annual Report 2002-03 MR J.B. D’ORAZIO (Ballajura) [10.13 am]: I present for tabling the fourth report of the Public Accounts Committee entitled “Annual Report 2002-2003.” [See paper No 1376] Mr J.B. D’ORAZIO: I would like to bring to the attention of the House some of the activities of the Public Accounts Committee during 2002-03. It has been a busy and productive year for the Public Accounts Committee. During the year we have tabled three reports in the Legislative Assembly. We have also commenced two new inquiries, and we are in the process of concluding another of our major inquiries. The Public Accounts Committee has convened 19 deliberative meetings, and held 10 public hearings with 17 witnesses. We have undertaken extensive travel to London and Norway and presented a paper at the ninth biennial Comparative International Government Accounting Research conference, which is better known as the CIGAR conference, in Norway. Our paper was well received and it was indicated that we are at the forefront of public administration and accountability in the world. We also attended the Australian Council of Public Accounts Committees conference in Melbourne, Victoria. The Deputy Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee was very good at presenting a paper at that conference. Again, I am told that it was well received. We have hosted a number of delegates from various Public Accounts Committees, including members of the Kenyan Parliament and members of Parliament from the Pacific Islands of Tonga, Samoa, Tuvalu and Vanuatu. We have also hosted delegates from the New South Wales parliamentary committee on the Health Care Complaints Commission, and we hosted the annual event of briefing four members of Parliament on the state budget. As I said, it has been a busy time and I thank the members of the committee. During my time as a member, the Public Accounts Committee has worked extremely efficiently as a cohesive group. The committee comprises members of the three parties represented in this House, and I can honestly say that all our deliberations have been amicable and cordial. More importantly, we have all worked with the essence of trying to establish a great outcome for the Parliament and the community of Western Australia. I thank the Deputy Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the member for Stirling, who has been a great help. I also thank the other members of the committee, the members for Murray-Wellington, Bunbury and Roleystone, who have worked extremely hard. There have been a number of meetings and a number of complicated matters have come before the committee, and they have worked diligently to ensure that we get the correct outcome. I also thank our staff members, because without great staff the Public Accounts Committee could not operate. I thank Andrea McCallum, Alf Opie and Simon Kennedy, who have done a fantastic job, sometimes under stressful conditions. They have operated fantastically well. Again, my thanks to them. Once again, I thank all the members of the committee for their support, diligent attention to detail and the output from the committee. The reports we make to this Parliament will make, and have made, a difference and will allow for greater accountability for public servants and, more importantly, the confidence of the community of Western Australia. CASINO (BURSWOOD ISLAND) AGREEMENT AMENDMENT BILL 2003 Consideration in Detail Resumed from 13 August. Clause 7: Sections 11 to 17 inserted - Debate was adjourned after the clause had been partly considered. Clause put and passed. Clause 8 put and passed. Title put and passed. Leave granted to proceed forthwith to third reading. Third Reading MR E.S. RIPPER (Belmont - Treasurer) [10.18 am]: I move - That the Bill be now read a third time.
10000 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003]
MR R.F. JOHNSON (Hillarys) [10.18 am]: I will be brief. The Opposition does not wish to delay this Bill at all. I take this opportunity to make a small contribution to the debate on this Bill because of my shadow portfolio of tourism. I will say a few words about the issues that have been covered by other members and put on record my support for the Bill. I know that the Leader of the Opposition had some concern about various parts of the Bill because of a genuine concern for the parochial feelings that the Liberal Party has about Western Australia and the wonderful facilities at Burswood Casino. I understand his concerns about the eventual management of the casino, and I share some of them. However, they have been addressed and I hope that they will come to nothing. We hope that the casino will remain under Australian ownership - predominantly by Western Australians - and be properly managed from Western Australia. The Opposition is concerned that it might be taken over by a conglomerate of casinos and could become an insignificant part of that larger conglomerate. The Burswood Casino is more than just a casino. Although the casino is an extremely vital part of that facility, it must be recognised that the Burswood Resort Hotel is the prime tourism location in Perth. Many international visitors spend time in the Burswood Casino and use the other facilities that are available. The hotel has a fantastic theatre, which stages some top shows. It has one of the best hotels in Perth, and dare I say in Western Australia. The hotel also has wonderful sporting facilities, and its exhibition centre, which attracts many people, is second to none. That is due to the tremendous management of the Burswood Casino. I commend John Schaap, the general manager, for the tremendous work he has done in revitalising the Burswood complex. It also has other tremendous staff, including the manager of the hotel. The managers of the other parts of the Burswood International Resort Casino are very professional and do a wonderful job. The refurbishment of the Burswood resort over the past few years is very timely. As the shadow Minister for Tourism, I welcome it. Many visitors who come to Western Australia want to enjoy their time here. Regardless of whether they are gamblers, the Burswood Casino has a fantastic casino to enjoy. I go into the casino about once a year, because I am not a big gambler. However, like many other people, I enjoy going there because it is an experience. Even if people do not gamble more than $50 or $100, which might be a lot to some people, including me, the ambience and experience of visiting the casino is second to none. I have visited other casinos in Australia and indeed the world. The Burswood Casino and the resort have much to offer people who come to Western Australia. Some high rollers from overseas visit the casino to gamble. That is their enjoyment in life. If they have plenty of money and can afford to do so, that is their right. Everybody has the right to spend their money how they want to. It is their right to come and enjoy themselves. Some visitors gamble a lot of money in the casino. Sometimes they win and sometimes they lose. The Government obviously receives a good amount of tax on all the betting that goes on in the casino. The people of Western Australia benefit from that revenue. Visitors who come to Perth to have a flutter in the Burswood Casino stay at the hotel and also visit other parts of Western Australia to see the wonderful tourism icons in this State. It has some of the most wonderful and diverse tourism icons in the world. They include the Burswood Casino and the Burswood resort in Perth, the wonderful forests and features in the south west, including Albany, and the attractions in the far north, including Broome and the Kimberley. Mr M.J. Birney: And the goldfields. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: The member for Kalgoorlie has reminded me that the goldfields is a wonderful place to visit. I am sure overseas tourists visit that area. Western Australia has such a diverse range of icons and it has the most wonderful reef in the world. Ningaloo Reef is a beautiful reef. It is probably the best reef in the world and I encourage people to see its beauty. I equate Ningaloo Reef with owning the most beautiful diamond ring in the world: it is no good if it is kept in a safe forever and a day; people like to see and enjoy the beauty of it. That is how I compare Ningaloo Reef. People should take the opportunity to enjoy its beauty. Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that I am talking about the Ningaloo Reef, but I am trying to link it to the reasons that people visit Western Australia, why they stay at the Burswood International Resort Casino and why they will spend their money in the casino. The taxpayers benefit from all of that. The casino is one of the most tremendous tourism attractions in Perth and probably in Western Australia. MR M.J. BIRNEY (Kalgoorlie) [10.25 am]: I will summarise some of the issues that were raised during the second reading debate and the consideration in detail stage. There has been some concern that lifting the 10 per cent cap on shareholding may result in the eastern States’ interests taking a major stake in the Burswood Casino in Western Australia. I have no doubt that that could happen. However, I do not think that will necessarily be a bad thing. If, for instance, the owners of the Star City Hotel and Casino or the Crown Casino were to take a reasonably sized interest in the Burswood Casino, it would be in their best interest to promote the Burswood Casino to their national and international customers. It follows that we could get a flow-on effect from the eastern States’ casinos that we would not otherwise receive. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition made a good point that is worth reiterating. He said he holds very grave concerns that as a result of the passage of this legislation, the Burswood Casino might ultimately be delisted. If that happened, it would be a sad day for Western Australia and it would be a sad day for future potential investors in the
[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003] 10001
Burswood Casino who reside in Western Australia. The casino was originally set up with a cap on shareholding to ensure that mums and dads, particularly those in Western Australia, were given an adequate opportunity to invest in our number one tourism icon. That is important. We have reached a stage of maturity at which if the Burswood Casino is to expand, it must have options to raise capital. The primary way to do that is to promote its shares on the market. The 10 per cent cap that is in place restricts the share price. It is my view that the share price will slowly move north when that cap is lifted. If that allows the Burswood Casino to float more shares on the market at an increased price and to then spend the capital it raises on the Burswood Casino and its facilities and functions at Burswood, that is ultimately in the best interests of all Western Australians. That is why the Opposition will support this legislation. However, I hold some concerns that the Burswood Casino could be delisted in the future if somebody is able to buy a big enough stake in it. That will be an issue for the Government of the day to manage. Without wanting to labour the point too much, it is important to put on the record clearly and concisely the involvement of the former Labor senator Graham Richardson in this process. It was revealed during the consideration in detail stage that the former Labor senator has played a very significant part in lifting the 10 per cent cap on the Burswood Casino shareholding. When asked these questions, the Treasurer initially attempted to dance around the subject. He attempted to tiptoe through the tulips and do anything but answer the question. It was only under constant questioning from the Opposition that he gave us a slightly unclear version of the events that took place with regard to Mr Richardson’s meeting with Hon Nick Griffiths, Minister for Racing and Gaming. I asked the Treasurer whether the Government had decided to lift that 10 per cent cap before or after Mr Richardson had met with Hon Nick Griffiths. Of course, the Treasurer refused to answer and said that he did not know because he was not at the meeting. In the next breath, he told us his adviser, Barry Sargeant, who was in this Chamber during consideration in detail, was at that meeting. When I asked the Treasurer to lean over and ask his adviser what was said at the meeting, once again the Treasurer went into a tailspin and did everything but answer the question. It emerged during consideration in detail that Mr Richardson had met with Hon Nick Griffiths and had expressed the view to him that the 10 per cent cap on shareholdings might be removed. We all know that Mr Richardson is a paid employee of Publishing and Broadcasting Ltd, which is one of the parties that may well be interested in gaining an increased stake in the casino. There we have it: a former Labor power broker approached the Western Australian Minister for Racing and Gaming with a specific request to lift the 10 per cent cap on shareholdings in the casino, which was ultimately agreed to by the Western Australian Labor Government. People can make up their own mind whether that was an untoward process. What was interesting and what greatly increased my suspicion was the way the Treasurer went about answering my question. He did everything but answer the question. It was only under duress during consideration in detail that the Treasurer admitted that Graham Richardson had made that approach to Hon Nick Griffiths and the decision to lift the cap was made subsequent to the meeting of Hon Nick Griffiths with Graham Richardson. It is important that the record reflect that version of events. The other point I will reiterate that we spoke about during the second reading debate is the increased number of licences given to the casino to operate electronic gaming machines. Although the environment in Western Australia does not lend itself to poker machines and electronic gaming machines operating in pubs and clubs, as they do in the eastern States - Mr E.S. Ripper: What’s your view on that matter? Do you have a view on that matter? Mr M.J. BIRNEY: The Burswood Casino is a Mecca for gambling. Mr E.S. Ripper: Why will you not take an interjection? Mr J.A. McGinty: He doesn’t want to go on the record on that one. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: I will get to it. Mr J.A. McGinty: He would rather be two-faced I think. Mr E.S. Ripper: You’re having a bit of trouble answering that question. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: The casino is a Mecca for gambling in Western Australia. It is generally recognised that it will and should have electronic gaming machines and that that activity should be confined to the Burswood Casino. I support that view. I hope the Treasurer is happy with that answer. However, the events that have unfolded at the casino in recent times are unfortunate. There has been a move away from the social atmosphere in the casino in favour of electronic gaming machines. I refer to the two bars that overlook the gaming floor at the casino, which no longer exist in their original form, but which existed for quite some time. The first bar is situated on the right-hand side near the main entrance. It was a socially interactive little bar and lent itself to enjoyment by people who do not necessarily go to the casino to gamble but to have a drink and a chat. The other bar is the cabaret bar on the other side of the gaming room floor. It was an excellent facility that managed to attract exceptionally good international and national acts to Perth. That cabaret floor has now disappeared in favour of gaming machines. Perhaps only 10 per cent remains of the bars in their original form. Although I support Burswood in its endeavours to use electronic gaming machines and believe that the general view in the community is that the casino should accommodate them, I do not support increasing the number of licences to the casino for gaming machines at the expense of that element of social interaction. Exactly
10002 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003] that has happened at the Burswood Casino in recent times. I am particularly disappointed about that, as are some of the people who frequent the casino from time to time and who do not necessarily go there to gamble. Having said all that, the Opposition supports the passage of this Bill. It will watch its progress closely and with interest. If at the end of the day it means the Burswood management is able to float more shares onto the market at a higher price and use that capital to improve the already fantastic facilities at the casino, of course that will have the support of the Liberal Party in this State. MR E.S. RIPPER (Belmont - Treasurer) [10.35 am]: I thank the Liberal Opposition for its wholehearted support of this agreement, negotiated between the Government and the Burswood International Resort Casino. The present position of the Liberal Party on this agreement is in contrast with earlier statements made by the Leader of the Opposition. At the time the agreement was announced, it appeared that the Opposition would do everything possible to cast doubt on the Government’s motives and the nature of the agreement that had been released. Clearly, the Opposition has had an opportunity to reflect in a more sober fashion on the nature of the agreement and has seen its merit. I am very pleased it has had that change of heart. Nevertheless, in the debate, the Opposition made a significant attempt to try to taint the agreement by casting aspersions on the Government’s motives for reaching agreement. I point out to the Liberal Opposition that although it thinks it is insulting and attacking the Government with those assertions, it is also insulting the businesspeople with whom the Government has negotiated. The Government negotiated in a very proper fashion with Burswood and it reached an agreement on the merits of the issue. If people seek to attack the Government’s motives for reaching that agreement, as well as attacking the Government, they are attacking the casino and its integrity in the conduct of those negotiations. The Opposition attempted to make much in the consideration in detail stage of a single meeting between Mr Graham Richardson and the Minister for Racing and Gaming. I am surprised the Opposition did that because I understand Mr Richardson is an employee of PBL, which is a major business in this country. A major business in this country seeking a meeting with the State Government on matters of mutual interest can expect to be granted a meeting of that nature. PBL’s position on relevant matters is well known, and it has been publicly canvassed on many occasions. PBL could not have said anything to the Government on this issue that has not been in the public arena. It is a sad situation when the mere fact that an employee of a major business who happens to have been a Labor member of Parliament is used to attempt to taint any negotiations that business might have with the Government. If it is okay for former Liberal members of Parliament to participate in the business world, it should be okay for former Labor members of Parliament to do so. We will always engage in dialogue with major businesses because that is an important aspect of the proper protection and advancement of the State’s interests. I was not present at the meeting about which the Opposition asked questions, but during the course of the debate I had some quick conversations with the man who was present at that meeting, the Director General of the Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor, and as I conducted those conversations with him I was able to learn a little more information about what occurred at the meeting. Nevertheless, that is very much a side issue. The Government did not negotiate with Publishing and Broadcasting Ltd on this matter; it negotiated with Burswood. The Government reached a proper agreement with Burswood on the merits of the issue. One of the important issues for the Government was the need to maintain Burswood’s competitive position in a regional gambling market, which has become much more competitive since Burswood was established. Burswood is a major employer of Western Australians. We took the interests of those Western Australians at Burswood very, very seriously. We wanted to make sure that in our discussions with Burswood we did not hamper Burswood’s ability to compete in an increasingly competitive regional gambling market. That is why we agreed with Burswood to reduce the tax on international gamblers. The reason was to advance the employment and development prospects at Burswood. Finally, Burswood is a major tourist facility in Western Australia, quite apart from its gambling operations. We want Burswood to succeed and prosper in its operations. That is important for the tourist industry in this State and it is also important for the people who work there. We believe that this agreement is a fair agreement that will assist Burswood to prosper and will protect the employment prospects at the casino and return a fair revenue increase to the taxpayers of Western Australia. I am very pleased that the Liberal Opposition, after initially playing quite opportunistic politics with this matter, has seen sense - at least most of them have - and the Liberal Party party room has voted to support this legislation. Question put and passed. Bill read a third time and transmitted to the Council. STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BILL 2003 STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL (CONFERRAL OF JURISDICTION) AMENDMENT AND REPEAL BILL 2003 Second Reading - Cognate Debate Resumed from 12 August. MR J.A. McGINTY (Fremantle - Attorney General) [10.43 am]: I will continue my comments to conclude the second reading debate. One of the issues that was raised by a number of members opposite in their contributions to this debate
[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003] 10003 was the question of judicial leadership. For the benefit of members I will refer to the Barker report of May 2002, the “Western Australian Civil and Administrative Review Tribunal - Taskforce Report on the Establishment of the State Administrative Tribunal”, on this very question. I hope it will serve the purpose of putting to rest some of the concerns that members have expressed. At pages 132 and 133 of the report under the heading “The Importance of Judicial Leadership”, it states - 16. There are several reasons for recommending that the Presidential members be judges. First, the head of the SAT should have the requisite status and respect to deal with the Government, Parliament and other bodies on matters affecting the SAT in a way that ensures the independence of the SAT. 17. Secondly, it is of the utmost importance that persons of high legal calibre and with the skills appropriate to the functions of the SAT, including administrative skills, be attracted to the positions. Permanency of appointment is a critical issue in this regard. 18. Thirdly, the SAT will have a significant jurisdiction in many important fields of administrative decision making in the State and, at times, will have to determine difficult questions of law and fact. The availability of Presidential members of high judicial competence will go a considerable way to reducing the prospects of further appeals on issues of law. 19. Additionally, having a President of Supreme Court status will assist in maintaining respect and harmonious relations between the SAT and the Supreme, District and Magistrates Courts. 20. The experience in both Victoria and New South Wales, as well as that of the AAT, is that judicial leadership ensures public confidence in the integrity, independence and impartiality of such a tribunal. Such appointments demonstrably remove the potential for government influence over the SAT and ensure that the SAT is possessed of the highest levels of administrative and legal expertise. That effectively summarises the reasons for judicial leadership in the State Administrative Tribunal. The point has already been made that the equivalent bodies in Victoria and New South Wales and at a federal level have judicial leadership; in other words, a judge heads up the administrative appeals tribunals in those areas. In addition, the anecdotal evidence from current boards is that the respect attracted by judicial leadership is required to ensure shorter, quicker hearings, with proper procedure appropriate to a tribunal rather than a court. Too often now the parties, through their lawyers, act as though they are in the Supreme Court, which causes unnecessary delay and complexity. Hopefully, that will be a thing of the past once the State Administrative Tribunal is in operation with a clear direction - this is a tribunal designed to operate as such and is not a court. Related to that question is the issue of whether the tribunal will be too legalistic and a haven for lawyers. It is true that the legislation appears legalistic. The purpose of that is to protect people’s rights. We can do that only by having the proper prescription of those rights and the appropriate procedures. It is also designed to ensure the provision of natural justice. If the Bill appears legalistic in that sense, it is for very good purpose. The legislation will not enable the State Administrative Tribunal to become a place in which technical points are taken and it becomes bogged down in legal proceedings. It is designed to ensure quick and efficient resolution of disputes. The other interesting thing is that at the moment a lawyer is nearly always part of the bodies that are to come into SAT. There will in fact be less use of lawyers in SAT, as they will be required only when the complexity or legal nature of the matter requires that that be the case. Commonsense will prevail and lawyers will be used only when necessary. The lawyers chosen will have the necessary skills and a non-legalistic approach, which I believe is required for a tribunal of this nature. The rules of the State Administrative Tribunal will provide the flexibility needed to ensure a non-legalistic atmosphere. I refer briefly to one experience that I have had in the federal Government’s Social Security Appeals Tribunal, which is headed by a judge, and often chaired by a lawyer, but the procedure was so unlike what one would experience in a court. It operates in a non-legalistic atmosphere. The Bill does not contain the practical matters that will set the tone of SAT; that will be done by the nature of the people appointed and also as set out in the rules. Currently, in most circumstances review is primarily done in a court. This requires lawyers and the rules of evidence to apply. The State Administrative Tribunal will be much quicker and more informal than the current cumbersome court-based review system or the non-transparent ministerial review process, which we are substantially moving away from. The other issue raised by many members opposite was the question of delay. Most of the boards and tribunals that will be subsumed into the State Administrative Tribunal operate on a part-time basis, so it is very difficult to list matters with them quickly and even more difficult to list matters on consecutive hearing days in order to properly dispose of them. The State Administrative Tribunal will have an adequate number of hearing rooms - there will be 16 - and enough full-time and sessional members to ensure the early listing of all matters and applications that are made to it, and when a matter requires a number of days to be resolved, it will be listed on consecutive days. Under the State Administrative Tribunal, a matter will have its first hearing within seven to 21 days, depending on the jurisdiction or the notice required to be given to ensure fairness. The rules will provide this requirement. At the first hearing the matter will often be referred to mediation or conciliation and settled if possible. This system will be quick and non-adversarial
10004 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003] and will allow people to feel comfortable without legal representation. The Bill requires that the State Administrative Tribunal must either deliver its decision immediately or, if its decision is reserved, give a written decision and reasons within 90 days. This will be much quicker than the time taken by the courts or the current boards, particularly when a matter is complex. It will also ensure that reasons are given, which is not always a requirement at present. The rules of evidence will not apply in the State Administrative Tribunal. The rules of evidence currently apply for review matters and to some boards. For example, the Nurses Board of Western Australia must apply the rules of evidence in a disciplinary matter. The other issue that has been raised is the abolition of the right to silence. The right to silence applies only in criminal matters and criminal trials. There is no right to silence in an administrative appeals tribunal. What we are talking about here is not a criminal court. I will deal now with the area on which a lot of attention has been focused by existing boards and tribunals; that is, the disciplinary function of the State Administrative Tribunal. Eight enabling Acts and regulations provide for vocational regulatory bodies to have a capacity for summary disposition or conciliation. In other words, about one-third of disciplinary bodies currently have a capacity to deal with disciplinary matters in a summary way. The relevant legislation and regulations are the Electricity (Licensing) Regulations, which make provision for the Electrical Licensing Board; the Human Reproductive Technology Act; the Legal Practice Bill, which is currently before the Parliament; the Nurses Act; the Osteopaths Act; the Podiatrists Registration Act; the Psychologists Registration Act; and the Real Estate and Business Agents Act. They cover the approximately one-third of disciplinary bodies that currently have and will retain a summary disciplinary power. The model that the Government has developed and which it will pursue for the bodies that do not currently have a summary disciplinary function is a two-tiered disciplinary system. It is intended that serious disciplinary matters which could result in the cancellation of a licence or of registration will be dealt with by the State Administrative Tribunal. The intention is that minor disciplinary matters will still be dealt with by the appropriate industry regulatory body. That will be done for practical and commonsense reasons. It is the Government’s policy and intention that industries that do not currently have a summary disciplinary function under their Act will be given that function. This will occur independently of this legislation progressing through the Parliament and following negotiations with the appropriate industry bodies, so that a summary disciplinary function will remain with those bodies into the future on terms satisfactory to them. Those bodies should negotiate or make representations to the relevant ministers to ensure that they are provided with a summary disciplinary function, if that is what they wish. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: Are you suggesting that if some of those disciplinary tribunals whose jurisdictions will now transfer to SAT want changes to be made so that they retain a summary jurisdiction, they should make representations to the relevant minister? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Exactly. The Government would support establishing for their industries, with appropriate adjustments to suit their circumstances, the two-tiered disciplinary function. Serious matters will go to the State Administrative Tribunal and less serious matters will be dealt with by the relevant industry board. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: At the moment the conferral of the jurisdiction will mean that it will all go across to SAT. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I will answer that point in two parts. I will provide an example involving a group with which the member is particularly familiar; that is, lawyers. The Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee deals with minor disciplinary matters affecting lawyers and there is also a Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal. Lawyers already have a two-tiered structure. The tribunal will become part of SAT and the complaints committee will remain in force. That situation is contained in the amendments before the House and will also be covered in a similar provision for doctors. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What will happen if vets want a similar provision? Mr J.A. McGINTY: We will support it. They will need to discuss that issue with the minister responsible for their Act - the Minister for Agriculture - to make sure that the disciplinary provisions are structured to suit their needs. The Government will bring legislation into the House on a case-by-case basis to do that when it is not already provided. As I have indicated, about a third of the boards and bodies that currently have a disciplinary function have a two-tiered system. The top tier, which is the more serious tier, will go into SAT. When only one body deals with discipline for an industry group, the whole lot will go into SAT, with the intention of taking out the minor disciplinary functions later if that is desired; for instance, by vets or any other groupings that will be affected. In one sense it would have been neater to consult and come up with new disciplinary arrangements affecting each industry grouping. All the Government is doing by way of this legislation is to maintain the existing scheme of things; that is, one body to deal with discipline. Instead of being the industry board, it will now be the State Administrative Tribunal. With time and consultation the Government expects that the two-tier structure will become the norm. The reason that the disciplinary function must be separated from the industry board was well highlighted in the finance brokers issue, with both the Gunning and Temby committees saying that the functions of the investigator, prosecutor, judge and jury should be separated. Currently, they are all performed by the one board. Particularly in serious matters,
[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003] 10005 the ultimate disciplinary function should be exercised by an independent body and not by the same body that investigates and prosecutes a matter. In principle, that is correct. The Government would like that independence to be achieved by putting those functions into SAT. In minor disciplinary cases such things as counselling, professional guidance, a rap over the knuckles or peer review might be the appropriate way to deal with an occupational or professional disciplinary issue. The Government wants that to be done at a lower level than the State Administrative Tribunal. It will be up to individual industry groups to do that. The reason the Government has not taken the time to do that is that it will take time to consult with each group and to outline the formulation that the Government wants. That was able to be done for doctors - it is in the amendment before the House - because we had the benefit of the most recent review of the Medical Act, which was completed by Professor Bryant Stokes and which recommended this model in any event. We were able to pick that up. In the case of lawyers and a number of other groups, the two-tiered system is already in place. The Government is happy to support groups that want to retain the summary disciplinary function. However, the substantive disciplinary function must go to SAT for the principal reason that Gunning and Temby spoke about. Mr J.C. Kobelke: With a number of the industry boards within my portfolio of the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection, the recommendation for disciplinary action will still have to come from the board. We are currently working up other legislation that will look at those boards. They will be amended here with respect to their referral to SAT. We are looking at other minor, consequential amendments. When it comes to warning a practitioner, the board would be able to be part of that, with the threat that it would then make the recommendation to SAT for prosecution. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: Therefore, it will not be the commissioner of your agency that takes the complaint to the tribunal; it will still be the board. Mr J.C. Kobelke: The boards that currently deal with disciplinary matters will still have to recommend the disciplinary matter to the State Administrative Tribunal; however, the commissioner does have a role in some areas. If the board rejects the matter but the commissioner still thinks it is a serious matter, he may then have another avenue by which the matter can be dealt with by SAT. Mr J.B. D’Orazio: In the case of a professional body like the Pharmaceutical Council of WA, will there still be a need for suspension powers to stay with that body? One example put to me is what would happen if a pharmacist took drugs illegally? Are immediate suspension powers available under this procedure? Mr J.A. McGINTY: I think the answer is yes because there is an existing power to do that. It is something under the Pharmacy Act that should be looked at in more detail when we get to the consideration in detail stage. The other point in respect of discipline is that there was a view that some of the industry-based boards looked after the needs of industry rather than the needs of consumers because of the nature of the appointments to the board. Peers judging peers and all those associated problems will be a thing of the past in these industry and professional disciplinary matters. As Temby identified, the boards that have been captured by industry will no longer be so close to the industry or profession that consumers do not get a fair hearing and the complaints are not dealt with. The boards will no longer be the puppets of the licensees. SAT will provide an independent, speedy and informal resolution of disciplinary matters that, in many cases, is not available now. The removal of the disciplinary function from the boards will allow a much greater emphasis to be placed on the regulatory functions of licensing and investigation. Resources will be applied properly in those areas to try to ensure that appropriate people are registered in various industries and that complaints are followed up quickly and thoroughly. It will not cost more for the boards or the licensees. Boards should hold formal hearings into matters, which is only fair to the complainant, the licensee and the industry generally. Common law and the rules of administrative law demand it and SAT will ensure that it happens. Boards will no longer have the burden of paying for the cost of the disciplinary hearing; that is, sitting fees, transcripts and the like. Legal costs will continue to be awarded as they are now. All people before disciplinary boards currently have a right of legal representation and nothing will change in this regard except that it will probably no longer be necessary in minor matters, which will be of some assistance to the people involved. Boards will be required to lodge annual reports for tabling in Parliament setting out matters referred to SAT, the types of complaints and any systemic industry problems. In essence, something like the finance brokers scandal will not be allowed to happen again, at least so far as the disciplinary side of that matter is concerned, and the processes of the boards will be transparent. The question was then raised of the need for lawyers. The rules will ensure that people can represent themselves easily and comfortably. At the moment there is a need for a lawyer to be involved in the review of a decision because quite often these matters go before a court rather than before a tribunal, which will be the case with SAT. Clause 39 of the Bill allows for representation and that person does not have to be a lawyer. Equally, the rules might provide - this goes back to the point raised by the member for Kingsley - that in particular matters a union can represent the individual if the individual so wishes. This matter can be covered by the general representation provisions and, if need be, specifically by the rules that are made. Retirement villages are the only jurisdiction in which parties can agree not to have legal representation, which is currently the case. That will change and in future the parties will have a right to
10006 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003] legal representation if they wish and this will achieve greater uniformity in the way in which SAT approaches these matters. Appeals on decisions of government are beyond the reach of most citizens. It is certainly my hope and endeavour in bringing this legislation before the Parliament that these appeals or the right to appeal will be accessible and affordable as they will be dealt with in an informal tribunal and not in a court. There will be no sudden new need for a lawyer. The demand for legal service will decrease rather than increase as a result of the establishment of SAT. Obviously there will be complex cases that involve a lot of money, such as revenue appeals and things of that nature, for which people will want to be legally represented. However, SAT has not been set up as a tribunal in which legal representation will be the norm. The State Administrative Tribunal will have approximately 10 permanent members other than the three judicial heads; that is, the president and the two deputy presidents are the judicial members. The 10 other permanent members will include social workers, or persons experienced in the vulnerable jurisdictions such as guardianship and mental health, and lawyers and town planners. It will probably include a certified practising accountant as well as a person with a background in the community area. In addition, there will be between 200 and 300 sessional members drawing on the wealth of experience and knowledge that will not be lost because of the creation of SAT. Existing board members will be asked to submit expressions of interest for positions that will be advertised. Members will come from all industries and walks of life and will represent the knowledge currently required by the legislation to deal with the matters that will come before the State Administrative Tribunal. Ms S.E. Walker: Is a chief executive officer provided for in the Bill? Mr J.A. McGINTY: I imagine it would be. I do not know who it will be but I imagine we will have one. Ms S.E. Walker: The indication is that there is one in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. However, this Bill does not provide for a chief executive officer. It merely provides for an executive officer in a level 7 position. That may have changed. If the minister does not know, that is fine; I can ask him during the consideration in detail stage. Mr J.A. McGINTY: The Bill will not provide for a level 7 officer. Ms S.E. Walker: It is dealing with the administrative side of things. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Yes. The proposed staffing details do not provide for level 7 positions. There is one level 8 position under corporate support and that person will be generally responsible for the management - Ms S.E. Walker: Is there a CEO? Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, there will not be a CEO. The president is the head of the State Administrative Tribunal. Ms S.E. Walker: Yes, but you were talking about the other positions besides the judicial officers. Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, someone will be responsible for the day-to-day management of things and I imagine that it will be the person designated to a level 8 position. It is difficult to finalise the staffing details because we do not yet know the form the State Administrative Tribunal will take. However, this is an idea or format on which we have based the legislation as it is currently proposed. Ms S.E. Walker: But there is a draft organisational structure and doesn’t it show that the executive officer is a level 7 position? If you do not have that information with you, perhaps - Mr J.A. McGINTY: The advice I have received is that it is not proposed that level 7 positions be established within the - Mrs C.L. Edwardes: The issue is that under the Public Sector Management Act, who will be the responsible person in the structure? Will it be the person in the level 7 position? It will certainly not be the president. Mr J.A. McGINTY: The president is responsible to the minister for the administration of the Act, and that is found under clause 144. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: So he will then have two hats? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Just let me work through this briefly. The president is responsible for organising the business of the tribunal including where and when it will conduct hearings. The relationship between the minister and the president is then spelt out in clause 146, which states - The chief executive officer - That would be of the Department of Justice. It continues - is to make an officer of the Department available to perform, under the control of the President, the functions under this Act of the executive officer of the Tribunal and assist in the administration of this Act and the exercise of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The tribunal will have an executive officer. The administrative hierarchy will comprise the Director General of the Department of Justice, the director of court services and then the executive officer of the State Administrative Tribunal. Clause 146 of the Bill provides for the position of the executive officer.
[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003] 10007
Ms S.E. Walker: That is what I asked at the beginning. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I thought the member asked if there would be a chief executive officer. Ms S.E. Walker: I said that this Bill provides for an executive officer at a level 7 position, whereas the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act provides for a CEO. I asked why this Bill does not also provide for a CEO. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: We can get to that when we deal with the clause in detail. Mr J.A. McGINTY: That is probably the best way to deal with it. The point was made that the membership of the State Administrative Tribunal will range from a person experienced in the fishing or agricultural industry as required by the Fisheries Adjustment Schemes Act; a psychiatrist as required by the Mental Health Act; and painters, hairdressers, plumbers, doctors and architects as required by the disciplinary Acts. The knowledge that has been built up over the years will be harnessed by SAT staff and not lost. I briefly refer to the position with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. There has been some criticism of the SAT-equivalent body in Victoria. It is now commonly accepted by everyone that VCAT was underfunded and used the existing technology of a range of boards. SAT will be adequately funded - I referred to that in my second reading speech - and the technology will be new. We will start afresh with what I hope will be a model tribunal that will influence the direction of courts and other bodies throughout the nation. The best aspects of the current information technology systems will be absorbed into SAT. We will do our best to make sure we do not inherit the problems experienced by VCAT. We closely studied and liaised with VCAT. Its problems have been acknowledged and we have ensured that we will not make the same mistakes. Ms S.E. Walker: How much will you spend on technology for SAT? Mr J.A. McGINTY: I will answer that during consideration in detail. As has been observed, SAT will hear an estimated 10 000 matters a year on a $10 million budget. By contrast, VCAT hears 90 000 matters on a $22 million budget. Eighty-seven per cent of all matters dealt with by VCAT are residential tenancy matters, which will not be included in SAT’s jurisdiction. The blow-out in the number of applications to VCAT was substantially attributable to the inclusion in its jurisdiction of residential tenancy matters. I think we have avoided that problem by not including residential tenancy matters in SAT’s jurisdiction. We hope to avoid the problems experienced by VCAT. I conclude on the other brief matters that were raised. It is intended that SAT will be located at 12 St Georges Terrace. The Town Planning Appeal Tribunal had to move from those premises because it was fragmented between a number of premises. It has located in the new facilities. It is intended that the Guardianship and Administration Board will move to 12 St Georges Terrace in September, and each of the other boards and tribunals will move in prior to the commencement date of SAT. This expenditure needed to be incurred in any event. There has been quite a bit of debate about consultation. It is not my intention to get into that now. If particular issues are raised during consideration in detail, I will be happy to go through the nature of the consultation that occurred. The role of SAT will not cut across or affect the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. They are quite different things. For example, the Ombudsman cannot order a department to do something; SAT will be able to. The Ombudsman investigates; SAT will not. A person can complain to the Ombudsman about any government behaviour or decision; SAT will review matters only if legislation gives it specific power to do so. The offices will have quite separate functions. I return to the first point I made when I began my address in reply. This has been a mammoth undertaking. It has eluded Governments for four decades. The first report recommending the establishment of a SAT was published in 1964 by Justice John Wickham. Every single body that has looked at the structure of government in Western Australia over the past four decades has recommended the establishment of a state administrative tribunal or some equivalent body. The WA Inc royal commission recommended it, and the Law Reform Commission has recommended it on two occasions, most recently in Wayne Martin’s 1999 report on the civil and criminal justice system in Western Australia. Ms S.E. Walker: Is it true that the Gunning inquiry and the Temby royal commission did not make a recommendation for a state administrative tribunal? Mr J.A. McGINTY: They were not asked to. They dealt with problems in the finance broking industry. Ms S.E. Walker: Did those two bodies make any recommendations for a state administrative tribunal? Mr J.A. McGINTY: They were not asked to. They dealt with problems - Ms S.E. Walker: Did you say in your second reading speech that they did? Mr J.A. McGINTY: I do not know. Did I? Ms S.E. Walker: Did you? Mr J.A. McGINTY: The member is a waste of space. This legislation is something that has eluded Governments for a very long time. This will ultimately give us the ability to pull all ministers and departments together to achieve a very fundamental reform of our system of government. The
10008 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003] objective of this legislation is the empowerment of people to enable them to more effectively challenge decisions. It is about government decision making and giving people the power to challenge those decisions in the most modern and effective way that is available to us. I commend the legislation to the House. The ACTING SPEAKER: The question is now that Bill be read a second time. All those of that opinion say aye; to the contrary no. The ayes have it. Mr J.H.D. Day: Divide! Point of Order Mr J.A. McGINTY: A person - there was only one - cannot come in after the vote has been called and then call for a division. Mr J.H.D. DAY: The question was put - Mr J.A. McGinty: None of you voted against it. Mr J.H.D. DAY: I certainly said no. I call for a division. The precedent is that if there is any confusion, the question is put again. Mr J.A. McGinty: There is no confusion. You just failed to vote; you were that enthusiastic in your opposition to the Bill. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr A.J. Dean): I will be particularly generous on this occasion. In future I will not make allowances for members who are asleep at the wheel. I take the Attorney General’s point that I got to the stage of calling the results of the vote. I will be particularly generous in this case. It is my decision, and I will recall the vote. Mr J.H.D. DAY: Thank you. Debate Resumed Question (State Administrative Tribunal Bill 2003) put and a division taken with the following result - Ayes (30) Mr P.W. Andrews Mr J.N. Hyde Mr A.D. McRae Mr E.S. Ripper Mr J.J.M. Bowler Mr J.C. Kobelke Mr N.R. Marlborough Mrs M.H. Roberts Mr A.J. Carpenter Mr R.C. Kucera Mrs C.A. Martin Mr D.A. Templeman Mr J.B. D’Orazio Mr F.M. Logan Mr M.P. Murray Mr P.B. Watson Dr J.M. Edwards Ms A.J. MacTiernan Mr A.P. O’Gorman Mr M.P. Whitely Dr G.I. Gallop Mr J.A. McGinty Mr P.G. Pendal Ms M.M. Quirk (Teller) Mrs D.J. Guise Mr M. McGowan Mr J.R. Quigley Mr S.R. Hill Ms S.M. McHale Ms J.A. Radisich Noes (17) Mr C.J. Barnett Mr J.P.D. Edwards Mr A.D. Marshall Dr J.M. Woollard Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan Mr B.J. Grylls Mr B.K. Masters Mr J.L. Bradshaw (Teller) Mr M.J. Birney Ms K. Hodson-Thomas Mr M.W. Trenorden Mr J.H.D. Day Mr M.G. House Mr T.K. Waldron Mrs C.L. Edwardes Mr R.F. Johnson Ms S.E. Walker
Pair Mr C.M. Brown Mr R.N. Sweetman Independent Pair Dr E. Constable
Question thus passed. Bill (State Administrative Tribunal Bill 2003) read a second time. STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BILL 2003 Consideration in Detail Clause 1: Short title - Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: I do not mean to be pedantic, but the Attorney General used various references in his second reading speech and his response to the second reading debate about people advocating a state administrative tribunal for
[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003] 10009 some 40 years. The 1964 article by Mr John Wickham, “Power without Discipline: The ‘Rule of No-Law’ in Western Australia: 1964”, is very much a purely academic article. The Attorney General’s reference to the alleged recommendation in this article is incorrect. I do not intend to go through the article in any great detail, but I point out that the Attorney General saying that SAT has been advocated for more than 40 years is an extension of what was talked about by Mr Wickham at that point. The article is really about the rule of law, although he referred to many of the tribunals, in particular the town planning scheme that operated at the time. The other reference I make is to the Commission on Government, because the Attorney General has used it to illustrate that many people have been advocating a single administrative tribunal for some time. However, I suggest that many of the references in the reports of the Commission on Government are to a court-based tribunal, not a separate administrative tribunal. By using those references in the broad sense that he has done, as advocating the proposal he puts forward, the Attorney General very much extended what these people have said. The Chief Justice, for instance, was very much in favour of a court-based system. He may very well have changed his mind since then, but in the Commission on Government report his views were very much along the lines of a court-based system. Mr Justice Nicholson was in favour of an administrative review process. He did not support the idea of specialist tribunals, and he favoured a separate administrative court, comprising nominees of the Supreme, District, Magistrates and Family Courts. I submit that the format put forward in this legislation by the Attorney General is not that which has been recommended over the years. The format recommended over the years has varied from a single administrative tribunal to a court-based system. As such, the Attorney General has taken considerable licence in putting forward these very respected people as supporters of his model. Ms S.E. WALKER: I am not a complete waste of space; I am the only person here who can get completely under the Attorney General’s skin. That is a good thing for the Opposition to be able to do - to expose the Attorney General. I asked the Attorney General whether he used in his second reading speech the fact that the Gunning committee and the Temby royal commission made recommendations for a state administrative tribunal. The Attorney General does not know what he said in his second reading speech. He said - The need for a state administrative tribunal was very clear. The first recommendation for a SAT came from Mr John Wickham, later Hon Justice Wickham, in 1964 and was followed by numerous other recommendations . . . The Attorney General goes on to suggest that other distinguished people have made recommendations for a SAT - . . . including the 1982 Law Reform Commission Report, then chaired by Mr David Malcolm; the findings of the WA Inc Royal Commission in 1992; the Commission on Government in 1995; both the Gunning and Temby finance brokers inquiries . . . It is the Attorney General who is a complete waste of space. He does not know what is in his second reading speech and he makes things up as he goes along. The Gunning committee of inquiry into Ministry of Fair Trading boards and committees made 28 recommendations for legislative and administrative changes, but it did not make recommendation for a state administrative tribunal. Similarly, the Temby royal commission did not make a recommendation for a state administrative tribunal. In relation to a reference to Mr Justice Wickham - the member for Kingsley has already spoken about this - the Attorney General used an article from volume seven of the University of Western Australia Law Review 1965-1996. The article he referred to was “Power without Discipline: The ‘Rule of No-Law’ in Western Australia: 1964”. In that article, Mr Wickham, as he then was, referred to a paper entitled “Rule of Law”, which was published in 1955 by the Inns of Court Conservative and Unionist Society, and stated as follows - This proposed the establishment of a new division of the Court called the Administrative Division which would have appellate jurisdiction over administrative decisions generally. Perhaps something like this is what we require. Not perhaps an Administrative Division of the Court but a Supreme Court Judge who devotes his time to administrative appeals. I am reading this because the Attorney General could learn something from it. It continues - He should be able to hear an appeal from a subordinate administrative tribunal on fact, law, and the merits with a further right of appeal to the Full Court on matters of law. There seems no reason against such a jurisdiction being alternative to and not exclusive of such legal procedures as are at present available through the prerogative writs and the developing remedy of declaration. The constituant statute should strike down all privitive clauses in both existing and, so far as possible, future legislation . . . He goes on to say - After all English equity grew up in this way. That passage does not warrant the Attorney General coming into the Legislative Assembly and making the assertion that Mr Wickham was advocating a state administrative tribunal. He was suggesting that the appropriate form should be the Supreme Court. Rather than me being a waste of space, I have demonstrated many times in the Legislative
10010 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003]
Assembly that the Attorney General always gets things wrong when he comes into this Chamber. I put on the record that the second paragraph of his second reading speech in which he referred to comments in an article by Mr John Wickham, who later became Hon Justice Wickham, and the findings of two royal commissions, are completely incorrect. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I call in aid the reports of the Gunning inquiry and Temby royal commission. I refer members to the Barker report, which is the basis upon which this legislation has been prepared, and item 37 on page 35, which states - The Gunning Report recommended that the disciplinary aspect of occupational regulation within the Fair Trading Portfolio should be separated from the licensing and compliance functions. Recommendation 35 of the Gunning Report was the establishment of a new and adequately resourced full-time disciplinary tribunal to exercise the disciplinary functions presently exercised by Consumer Affairs boards and committees. Item 40 of that report reads - These same concerns were also reflected in the final report of the Temby Royal Commission, which raised the question of whether these Consumer Affairs boards and committees should cease to exercise supervisory powers. As we have noted below, (Chapter 4, paragraph 57) an Issues Paper of the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection has proposed new means of regulation in this particular area of government. It is quite clear - Ms S.E. Walker: It did not do what you said it did. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Let us go back to the second reading speech, which reads - One of the Labor Government’s major commitments to the people of Western Australia at the last election was to establish a modern, efficient and accessible system of administrative law decision making across a wide range of areas. The need for a state administrative tribunal was very clear. The first recommendation for a SAT came from Mr John Wickham, later Hon Justice Wickham, in 1964 . . . I suggest that those who dispute that Justice Wickham said that, take up the matter with him, because it was he who drew to my attention at a Law Society function that he was the first person in Western Australia to recommend the establishment of an administrative appeals tribunal. He drew to my attention that he had made that recommendation in 1964. If people think that he did not, perhaps they can take up the matter with him. Frankly, I not interested in getting involved in semantic arguments about whether Justice Wickham’s recommendations in 1964 constituted a recommendation for a SAT. He told me that it did, and I am happy to accept his view of what he recommended in 1964. The second reading speech continues - . . . was followed by numerous other recommendations, including the 1982 Law Reform Commission Report, then chaired by Mr David Malcolm; the findings of the WA Inc Royal Commission in 1992; the Commission on Government in 1995; both the Gunning and Temby finance brokers inquiries; the 1999 Law Reform Commission report “Review of the Criminal and Civil Justice System in Western Australia”; and the 2002 report of the Western Australian Civil and Administrative Review Tribunal - WACART - task force, which was chaired by Hon Justice Michael Barker. I can add others to that list, including the Gotjamanos and Merton report of 1996. There have also been numerous other recommendations for the establishment of a body to deal with the very subject matter that the SAT will deal with. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: As long as you use it in that frame and not necessarily to recommend your particular model. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I never said that. Ms S.E. Walker: Oh yes, but you implied it. The old silver tongue again! Mr J.A. McGINTY: Here we go; something that was expressed a few minutes ago is now implied. The member for Nedlands is good. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: Will the Attorney General provide a list of the groups under this Bill that currently have a grievance committee, or something similar, and the groups that do not have those committees? Mr J.A. McGINTY: If the member had been in the Chamber for the speech I just gave, she would have heard me refer to the bodies exercising disciplinary functions that currently have a vocational regulatory body with a capacity for summary dispositional conciliation. I am more than happy to make available the list of those Acts that make provision for summary disciplinary functions and those that will retain that summary disciplinary function. In addition to the Bill, the amendments on the Notice Paper, which we will deal with later, will implement the recommendations of the review of the Medical Act to provide the two-tiered disciplinary function with respect to doctors. That will be incorporated in the legislation we are debating. If it is possible to get a photocopy of the list, I will be happy to pass it on to the member for Alfred Cove. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: And?
[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003] 10011
Mr J.A. McGINTY: And anyone else who would like it! Clause put and passed. Clause 2: Commencement - Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: The Attorney General has indicated that he wants this up and running by 1 January 2004. He has already indicated that the planning appeals body has moved and that the guardianship body will move in September. What tenders have already been let to establish the accommodation? I am aware of a tender that was awarded on 23 July for $427 645.10. That is an amazing contract price. No rounding up has been done on it! That amount is for audiovisual and computer equipment and the like. Obviously, if the legislation does not pass through both Houses of Parliament to enable SAT to be up and running by 1 January, I will be concerned about the expenses that will have been incurred in this year’s budget that might not have been warranted. How much money has been expended? What is the contract time? What is the Attorney General’s proposal in the event that the legislation does not pass through both Houses of Parliament this year? Mr J.A. McGINTY: I am not in a position to provide the details of the contract. I will send for those contracts to be brought into the House while we are considering this matter so that I can provide information about each of the contracts that have been let. They are for the fit out of 12 St Georges Terrace, the IT and library requirements and all those things. I will provide that information during the course of the debate later today. I have indicated to members that I hoped this legislation would be up and running and the Act would be proclaimed with effect from 1 January. Given that the existing tribunals are in place, the Government has endeavoured to administratively do what it can to centralise them in one location. Obviously, some of the tribunals will be a major part of the total workload of the State Administrative Tribunal, including the Town Planning Appeals Tribunal and the Guardianship and Administration Board. Without wishing to pre-empt the will of Parliament on this matter, the intention was to bring the tribunals together and have them all benefit from operating from the one location with one computer system, and using one set of courtrooms. Those things would generally benefit all the tribunals, even if the legislation were not passed. We hope to do that as a precursor to the Act coming into operation. I hope the legislation will receive the support of the Parliament. However, that is substantially in the hands of our colleagues in the upper House, including the pace at which the Bill will progress through that place and whether it is amended or defeated. Any moneys that have been expended would have been required to have been expended in any event. For instance, the Town Planning Appeals Tribunal was located at different sites throughout the city. Its activities have been amalgamated on one site and it has been provided with hearing rooms and the like. The expenditure that has been incurred was substantially justifiable on what would have been needed whether or not the amalgamation had occurred. I undertake to provide that information. Clause put and passed. Clause 3: Terms used in this Act - Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: I refer the Attorney General to the definition of “applicant”. What does this definition mean? I understand that the definition means that any person under an enabling Act who is required to initiate a matter stays as the initiator of a complaint, or, under clause 44(3), refers a matter to the tribunal. Clause 44(3) is not easy to read or to understand. It states - If, under subsection (1) or (2), the executive officer rejects an application or accepts an application on conditions - that is at the tribunal - (a) the applicant may request the executive officer to refer to the Tribunal for a review of the decision to reject the application . . . (b) the executive officer is to refer the decision or condition to the Tribunal for a review if requested under paragraph (a) to do so. Is the executive officer the exception in the definition? Does the executive officer make the application to the tribunal, or is it the applicant? Why is there a difference? Mr J.A. McGINTY: I am pleased that the member has raised this issue. It is not a straightforward concept, as the member for Kingsley has indicated. Clause 44(3) deals with the situation whereby an individual makes an application to SAT and the executive officer of SAT rejects that application. The executive officer might have believed the matter was outside the jurisdiction of SAT or was not otherwise a competent application. The applicant whose application has been rejected may then request the executive officer to refer a review of the executive officer’s decision to the tribunal. In that sense, the executive officer makes the application but is not the applicant because it is effectively his or her decision that is being reviewed by SAT. It is perhaps an exceptional case situation. It was considered inappropriate to describe the executive officer - who effectively refers a review of the executive officer’s own decisions on behalf of somebody else - as the applicant. That was thought to be a bit misleading. I am not sure whether clause 44(3) has clarified that matter and has given greater clarity to it than would otherwise have been the case.
10012 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003]
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: Will the Attorney General explain the definition of an ordinary member. The Attorney General said in his second reading speech that the tribunal would consist of a judge, a lawyer and an ordinary member. How would those ordinary members be selected? Will professional boards select them or will the Government call for submissions from the community to sit on the tribunal? How will those 200, 300 or 400 people be selected? I assume that “ordinary member” means people from each profession who will sit on the tribunal. For example, would a doctor or a nurse sit on the tribunal when it is dealing with medical issues? How will those ordinary people be selected? Mr J.A. McGINTY: The membership of the State Administrative Tribunal will include the judicial members, who will be former judges of either the Supreme Court or the District Court, and who will be the president and deputy presidents and will be appointed for a term. Senior members might work for the tribunal either full-time or part-time. As I indicated to the House in my response to the second reading debate, they will be appointed to achieve certain levels of expertise in SAT. Lawyers, psychiatrists and other people with different sorts of skills and abilities from various backgrounds will be appointed as senior members. Some 200 or 300 sessional members will sit on particular tribunals to hear particular issues. For example, recently I have been discussing with the President of the Australian Medical Association the process by which doctors will be appointed to sit on SAT disciplinary matters affecting doctors. The same is true of nurses and the like. The President of the AMA is keen to ensure that the medical board and the AMA have some input into those appointments. At the same time, he appreciates that ultimately it is a decision for the Government of the day to make appointments, as is currently the case with appointments to existing boards and tribunals. We have begun the process of preparing a protocol on the appointment of members of SAT. That protocol will deal with consultation, who is to be consulted and the nature of the expertise to be drawn into SAT. We are not in a position to finalise that protocol until there is greater certainty about the passage of this legislation and the nature of what is to be included within the SAT. I also want the person who is to be the president of the State Administrative Tribunal to have a significant input into all decisions made about SAT at this formative stage. A protocol will be drawn up. It is designed to achieve maximum transparency in the appointment process as well as high levels of consultation to ensure that the expertise built up over a long period is retained within SAT. Ms S.E. WALKER: I refer to page 3 of Bill and the definition of the executive officer. I understand that a draft organisational structure has been provided. The Opposition has asked for a copy but cannot seem to get one. That is why I asked earlier about the executive officer. I would like to see the draft organisational structure so that we can compare it with the draft organisational structure of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal in Victoria, for instance. It would be very helpful if we could have a copy of the draft structure while we are debating the Bill in consideration in detail. I think the Attorney General has it on the Table and it would be fabulous if I could see a copy. When I asked this question just now the Attorney General did not seem to know whether an executive officer would be appointed. However, the position is provided for in clause 3. Will the minister confirm that it is a level 7 position and explain why Western Australia’s tribunal will not appoint a chief executive officer on the same basis as that which operates in VCAT? Mr J.A. McGINTY: No; I cannot confirm that it is a level 7 position. I can only repeat that no level 7 positions are proposed for SAT. The organisational structure will obviously depend on the terms of the legislation. So far, only concepts have been dealt with. I certainly have a draft proposed team structure for the way in which matters will be dealt with through SAT, which I am happy to make available, but I do not think it will help greatly. Ms S.E. WALKER: The Attorney does not usually help me greatly! I understand that a draft organisational structure has been circulated to various boards and that the executive officer is shown as a level 7 position. Given that the Attorney General’s adviser is sitting next to him, can he tell me whether a level 7 position has been provided for the executive officer? Mr J.A. McGinty: I understand it is an 8. Ms S.E. WALKER: I am sorry; I did not hear what the Attorney - The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Dean): The member for Nedlands had the call and sat down. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: I would like to hear more from the member for Nedlands. Ms S.E. WALKER: I think the Attorney General responded but I did not hear what he said. Mr J.A. McGinty: Level 8. Ms S.E. WALKER: I refer to the definition of tribunal on page 6. I would like to get this right just for the record. We were given a briefing on this from a very experienced lawyer, Ms Judy Eckert. I was a bit surprised that a comprehensive document was not available - none exists - which could show us how boards will be affected by this Bill and why it was drafted. I realise that this legislation has been drafted hastily. However, I am sure the Attorney General will be able to explain why a comprehensive overview is not available to anyone in the State. I note that the Attorney General is working with a very experienced counsel, who is a bit hamstrung by having to work with him. Surely the Opposition could have been provided with the rationale for all the boards and bodies being encompassed within one tribunal Act.
[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003] 10013
In his second reading speech the Attorney General said that recommendations were included in the 1982 Law Reform Commission report, which he used as a basis for indicating that the Law Reform Commission supported his SAT model before Parliament. Mr J.A. McGinty: That has never been said. Ms S.E. WALKER: Having done some research into this I find it incredible that the Attorney General relied on the 1982 Law Reform Commission report as an authority to justify his model of a tribunal. The Law Reform Commission, under the chairmanship of Justice David Malcolm, went so far as to advance the view in its working paper and survey that the commission regarded the Supreme Court as the appropriate level in a judicial hierarchy to deal with the general body of administrative appeals. The commission’s 1982 report confirmed that view and recommended a court-based system. Just for the record, let us get this straight. In his report of September 1998 to the then Attorney General, Hon Peter Foss, Gotjamanos wrote that he was pleased to present his review of the 32 submissions that were received by the Solicitor General from October 1997 to July 1998. He wrote that in all of the submissions there was overwhelming support for the creation of a single-state administrative appeals body as recommended by the tribunals review. He further wrote that, most importantly, Hon David Malcolm, AC, Chief Justice of Western Australia was totally in favour of such a scheme, and in his submission, the Chief Justice supported the recommendations of the report in principle. The Chief Justice appears to have resiled from the views his honour expressed in correspondence to the Commission on Government. In paragraph 7.1.3 at page 148 of the Commission on Government Report No 4 of July 1996, under the heading “Public Submission”, the commission stated - The Chief Justice of Western Australia, the Hon. David Malcolm, favoured a court based model. In his correspondence to the Commission, he stated: While I still have an open mind on the establishment of a single Administrative Appeals Tribunal along the lines of that established by the Commonwealth and Victoria, I continue to favour an appellant structure which is within the court system as recommended in the original WALRC report of 1982. I will probably refer to other points the Attorney General made in his second reading speech. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: The Attorney General said that the decision to appoint an ordinary member to the tribunal had not been finalised, but through his discussions with the medical profession he thought it might be someone suggested by the Medical Board and the Australian Medical Association. Does the Attorney General mean the AMA’s professional status or its industrial status? Will recommendations be made by the professional bodies representing the different professions or will they be made by unions? Ms S.E. WALKER: I will repeat what I read from the Commission on Government Report No 4 of July 1996 - While I still have an open mind on the establishment of a single Administrative Appeals Tribunal along the lines of that established by the Commonwealth and Victoria, I continue to favour an appellant structure which is within the court system as recommended in the original WALRC report of 1982. Honestly! I realise that the Attorney General did not complete his law degree until recently, but it gets tiring have to stand here and correct his second reading speeches. Mr J.A. McGINTY: In response to the member for Alfred Cove, clause 115 of the legislation deals in a general sense with the appointment process of members of the State Administrative Tribunal. I refer in particular to subclause 6, which reads - Before recommending a person for appointment as a non-judicial member, the Minister is to consult the President and, in the case of a magistrate, the Chief Stipendiary Magistrate, and may also consult any appropriate Minister, person or body. As I have indicated, no protocol has been formulated for the way in which this will be done. It is intended that the process be transparent and that consultation take place with all relevant groups, to make sure we get the best people to sit and determine matters which are of importance to specific individuals, industry groupings and the broader public. I cannot take it much further than that: the Act directs or allows the minister to consult with other appropriate ministers, persons or bodies. That is what we intend to do. The question the member is asking is something that will flow from the emerging protocol. Dr J.M. Woollard: Will that protocol come back to Parliament? Mr J.A. McGINTY: It will certainly be published. We intend to talk to all of the relevant groups about how we intend to make appointments and hopefully garner support from those groups. I think the member has some interest in and concern about nursing. I expect there to be consultation with certain organisations or people about who would go onto SAT in respect of nursing-related matters. Dr J.M. Woollard: The nurses union would be very unhappy if it were the Nurses Board of WA.
10014 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003]
Mr J.A. McGINTY: The protocol has not yet been developed to the stage where I can say that this is the consultation process that will be adopted for any of the interest groups, whether they be retirement villages, doctors or veterinarians. We will need to work out with some precision, in consultation with the relevant industry groupings, what the consultation process will be, with a view to having a well-documented and transparent process. Clause put and passed. Clauses 4 to 9 put and passed. Clause 10: Tribunal to operate throughout the State - Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: My question could probably be regarded as a bit of a dorothy dixer. Clause 10 allows for the tribunal to operate throughout the State. There is some uncertainty among respective bodies, particularly local government, about how that will occur. Will the Attorney General explain that for the record? Mr J.A. McGINTY: The tribunal will obviously be based in Perth. Whether in dealing with particular matters it sits in places other than Perth is something for the tribunal to determine in individual cases, but to ensure that the services of SAT are available throughout the State, it is intended to vest all regional magistrates, and magistrates who will be visiting regional areas, with appointments under SAT so they can exercise those functions. That is set out on page 160 of the Barker report at paragraph 113, which states - The Taskforce recommends that in appropriate cases, existing magistrates who attend on circuits be appointed to serve as members of the SAT. Such appointments would enable the SAT, particularly during its formative stages, to ensure the adequate provision of its services to citizens in outlying and remote parts of Western Australia. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What limited jurisdiction will they have? Mr J.A. McGINTY: I am told that they will be given the status of senior members of SAT and will be able to exercise those functions. The precise working relationship is something that will depend upon protocols that will be developed. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: So members will likely be available to sit with the magistrate, where required, in regional areas? Mr J.A. McGINTY: I think the answer to that is yes. Some matters might be able to be dealt with by a senior member sitting alone. If a particular issue affects a certain industry in a country town, we would hope to get people with local expertise as well as the broader qualifications. The detail of that is still to be worked through, but that is the broad intention. Clause put and passed. Clause 11: President specifies who constitutes the Tribunal - Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: Subclause (2) states that the tribunal is not to be constituted by more than three members. Subclause 4(b), deals with vocational regulatory bodies and sets out that the tribunal is to be constituted by three persons. The President can also constitute the tribunal by four or five members if satisfied that it is appropriate to do so in particular circumstances. Does the Attorney General have any understanding of the sorts of matters that are likely to require the attendance of four or five members constituting the tribunal? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Yes, I do. This point has been concerning me, and I have been involved in discussions with people. In issues involving serious disciplinary matters affecting professions, the idea is to have a tribunal of three, the chair being an independent lawyer, whether a judicial or senior member does not really matter. For instance, referring to a doctor and someone who is a consumer, it has been said that it would place too much pressure on the one doctor sitting on that board, and the idea is that there ought to be someone with whom that professional component could be shared, particularly if it involves professional judgment of a peer. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: Is that what is covered by subclause (4)(b), or have I misinterpreted what vocational regulatory body means? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Subclause (4)(b) deals with disciplinary matters, if I can put it that way. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: Whether it is a serious disciplinary matter or not, it is a three person tribunal, as set out in subclause (4)(b). Mr J.A. McGINTY: No. The tribunal is not to be constituted by more than three members, the exception being the wording used in clause 11(3), which is a bit strange, but nonetheless that is the wording that has been used. It states - Despite subsections (2) and (4)(b), the President can specify that the Tribunal is to be constituted by 4 members or 5 members if . . . it is appropriate to do so in the particular circumstances. Subclause (4)(b) states - The President is to ensure that - (b) when dealing with a decision of a vocational regulatory body or a matter brought before the Tribunal by a vocational regulatory body, the Tribunal is constituted by 3 persons . . .
[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003] 10015
The details are set out. The presumption is three persons. The enabling Act, whether it be the nurses Act or the medical Act, can then make provision for more than three people to be involved. I prefer to say that the tribunal is generally composed of three members, but if the President thinks it appropriate, it can consist of more. It really applies in those areas where, for instance, a very difficult professional issue is involved or it concerns other matters such as state revenue matters which might involve tens of millions of dollars. An accountant, someone versed in a particular industry or a professional peer with a range of expertise might be required in the more complicated matters where the tribunal needs to be constituted by more than three members. I will move an amendment to clause 11 in a moment, but as best I can that is the answer to the question put. Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: I now refer to subclauses (6) and (7). I know the Attorney General has an amendment, but I do not think it relates to these subclauses. Can the Attorney General clarify how the application will work for industry groups and bodies? Subclauses (6) and (7) refer to directions hearings, procedural hearings, compulsory conferences and a mediator. A lot of people believe they can simply make an application and perhaps go straight to a mediator. As I understand the way the Bill is written, in a directions hearing there may be a compulsory conference or mediation, and I understand further clauses deal with that. Will it be possible for an application to go straight to mediation? Can the mediator call a compulsory conference; is it the tribunal only; or does the matter have to go back to court at any time? What I am trying to get to, and what is probably the understanding of the boards and bodies, is how legalistic the State Administrative Tribunal will be in terms of its practice and procedures and in getting to a quick, one-on-one, let’s sort this out around the table solution. Mr J.A. McGINTY: The first hearing before the tribunal might well become a form of mediation itself. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: So you don’t have to go to a directions hearing first? Mr J.A. McGINTY: No. The attempt was made when writing the legislation to provide maximum flexibility, so that hearings could evolve quickly into whatever the parties wanted them to be to resolve the matter before them. We desperately wanted to avoid the formalised structure of the courts, whereby a court orders that mediation take place, the parties go off and mediate, and then go back to court. The procedures are tightly and centrally controlled in the court system. Divisions of that kind will hopefully not be part of the State Administrative Tribunal system. They are not envisaged by the legislation. The use of conciliation and mediation is designed to settle matters, so that finality can be reached. That is the intent of this legislation, rather than providing the formalised structure of the courts that people are perhaps more familiar with. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: Will it be the case that someone will ensure that mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution are attempted before a complaint goes to a full conference and through the legal processes of the State Administrative Tribunal? I am particularly interested in that issue because, as the Attorney General knows, many groups that will fall under the jurisdiction of this tribunal do not have grievance committees and are concerned that they will immediately have to employ a lawyer once something is referred to the tribunal, even before other forms of dispute resolution are considered or an attempt is made to settle before large legal costs are incurred. Mr J.A. McGINTY: A disciplinary matter that comes before SAT will first go to a programming hearing, which will be designed to lay out the procedure to be followed. Everything will then depend upon the nature of the matter before the State Administrative Tribunal. If it is obvious that it is a relatively minor disciplinary matter, it might go straight to mediation to see whether it can be resolved at that level. Everything will depend upon the nature of the subject matter. It is envisaged that the procedures will be sufficiently flexible to adapt according to the subject matter. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: What panel or group will be party to the programming hearing? If a complaint is taken to a programming hearing, will X number of legal professionals be present? Who will conduct the programming hearings? Will the professional need to take a lawyer with him to that programming hearing? Who will make up the programming hearing? Mr J.A. McGINTY: The programming hearing might be composed of a legally qualified member of SAT if it involved a straightforward directions matter. Depending upon the subject matter, if it were thought that input from an industry person, a professional peer or someone of that nature would help in those early discussions, someone of that quality would sit in to assist with the progress of that matter. It is difficult to be more prescriptive than that, other than to say that there will be maximum flexibility in the composition of the tribunal and the powers it will exercise, which will be adapted to the case before it. That is how I would describe the way in which SAT will operate. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: Will any decisions be made at the programming hearings? If not, there will be no need for a professional to take a lawyer with him to such a hearing. Mr J.A. McGinty: That is right. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: Will any fees be payable to community members who attend programming hearings? Mr J.A. McGinty: Fees will be paid to any member of SAT who attends a sitting. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: I am not talking about payments to members of SAT but to the professionals who attend because of a complaint.
10016 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003]
Mr J.A. McGinty: If it were in the nature of a witness fee, no. Such a person would not be a witness at that stage. Others present at that early stage would not be giving evidence. Witness fees would be paid at a later stage. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: I am not just talking about witnesses. The person against whom the complaint has been made would attend that preliminary hearing. Will there be any cost to that person for the preliminary hearing, or will the Government meet the cost of the preliminary hearing and of any legal professionals or independent professionals who are present? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Generally speaking on the question of legal costs, SAT will be a no-cost jurisdiction, other than in disciplinary matters for which the existing provisions will substantially be carried forward. If legal costs are associated with that part of the disciplinary matter, it will be taken into account in the ultimate order that is made. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: There is a fee, though, for an application, except in certain circumstances. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Yes. For instance, there is no fee for disciplinary matters. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: And no fee is payable on mental health or guardianship matters? Mr J.A. McGINTY: That is right. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: Apart from the initial fee, there is no other cost if someone attends the directions hearing in person? Mr J.A. McGINTY: I think that is right. Many different matters will go before SAT. There are no fees in some cases and there are in others. I am trying to adapt my answer to the circumstances outlined by the member for Alfred Cove. I think the answer to that question is no. Ms S.E. WALKER: Has an analysis been done of whether citizens of the State pay any fees to any of the boards and tribunals; and, if so, does the Attorney General have a copy of that analysis that we could look at? Will that system be copied over to the State Administrative Tribunal? The State Administrative Tribunal will be an enormous and complex structure. From what the members for Alfred Cove and Kingsley have said about fees, it seems that at some point in such a structure, and given that the President of SAT will be a judge of the Supreme Court and will want to ensure that all proper procedures, processes and systems are in place, someone will eventually have to pay fees. Has an analysis been done of the point at which people will pay fees? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Some areas that are intended to come within SAT are currently no-fee jurisdictions. Ms S.E. Walker: Which ones? Mr J.A. McGINTY: The Guardianship and Administration Board is a good example, and the Mental Health Review Board is another. A range of jurisdictions do not charge fees. Other quite significant jurisdictions do charge fees. Ms S.E. Walker: Which? Mr J.A. McGINTY: An example is the Town Planning Appeal Tribunal. Essentially, nothing is contained in these proposals that would alter that, although I expect that the question of fees will be reviewed with the intention of ensuring that where fees are inappropriate, it be a no-fee jurisdiction, and where a fee is appropriate, it be charged. I will give an example of a revenue appeal. The most recent revenue dispute involved, I think, $30 million or $40 million of stamp duty due on the transfer of Perth Airport, which happened under controversy about a year ago. That is the sort of matter that could end up before SAT as a revenue appeal. When a major corporation deals with a matter involving tens of millions of dollars, I would have thought that a fee was highly appropriate in those circumstances. The mix is that in those areas where there appropriately is no fee, that will remain the case; in those areas where there is a fee, that will continue to be charged; and in those areas where there should be a fee and currently there is not - if there are any - we will look into that in the future. Ms S.E. WALKER: That causes me some concern. It is all very well to talk about the millions of dollars that corporations and other people will be paying; however, it is different when dealing with the average citizen in this State. Tribunals like this were originally set up to make these processes available to the average citizen in the State so that they did not have to pay legal bills. The Attorney General is saying that he cannot provide a list that shows which tribunals or disciplinary bodies currently charge fees and there is no list available of which ones will charge fees under this legislation. The Attorney General has brought into this Parliament a Bill, but he is in a highly disorganised state! I know that a draft organisation structure has been presented to us that shows the different levels at which people will be employed. He has not brought that into the Parliament. There is no comprehensive document that we can look at that shows which bodies and tribunals etc will come under this Bill and the rationale behind it. I struggle to work out how the Cabinet ever made a decision on this Bill, because it did not have anything before it. All it had was this enormous Bill. There is nothing that I or anybody else in Western Australia can read that says what it is all about. The Attorney General cannot say how much citizens will pay when they go along to this new tribunal. That is a real issue. How will it hit the hip pocket of the average citizen? Mr J.A. McGINTY: I move -
[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003] 10017
Page 10, lines 20 and 21 - To delete “was the decision-maker in relation to that matter.” and substitute the following - was - (a) the decision-maker in relation to that matter; or (b) a member of a body that was the decision-maker in relation to that matter. This amendment clarifies that a decision maker includes a person who is a member of a vocational regulatory body. This will be particularly relevant when the president decides who will constitute the tribunal for a particular matter. It means that a person who sits on a vocational regulatory body cannot sit on a matter on the tribunal when they were involved in the vocational body’s decision to refer the matter to SAT. Amendment put and passed. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: If the Attorney General is unable to give a guarantee that there will be no costs to anyone who attends a hearing, can he specify when he will make such a decision? Mr J.A. McGINTY: The Act will provide that in some cases there will be an application fee, but in disciplinary matters the costs will be awarded if the disciplinary matter is upheld against whomever the action is taken. There is also the capacity for a cost to be awarded when an application is frivolous or vexatious. That is why I am cautious in answering the member’s question, because in some areas costs are involved and in certain disciplinary matters legal costs might be awarded - although, generally speaking, it is a no-cost jurisdiction. The answer to the member’s question is that other than in those sorts of examples - Dr J.M. Woollard: Therefore, at a later date a definition of minor and major grievances will be formed. However, for those groups and professions with minor grievances that will no longer be able to deal with them as a group or body because it is not provided for under their Act, no cost will be incurred when they go to the State Administrative Tribunal because at the moment they are dealt with in-house or within the groups at no cost in many cases. Mr J.A. McGINTY: That is the problem in giving a straight yes or no answer. In those areas where it is not currently the case, I suspect that it will not change. We are now getting into the speculative area of the legislation. In some cases costs are currently provided for minor disciplinary matters, which is the standard practice within existing industry boards and tribunals. I am not capable of providing a yes or no answer to the member’s question. I have tried to indicate the areas that might qualify or influence that outcome. Ms S.E. WALKER: In the second reading speech, the Attorney General said it would be a less formal and less expensive system. How will it be less expensive? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Quite a number of the decisions that will be made in SAT are currently matters that need to go before a court. In the courts, costs are awarded, imposed and incurred, whether it be for the use of legal practitioners or otherwise. In each of those respective areas those costs will no longer be incurred. Ms S.E. WALKER: Which areas? The Attorney General must have looked it. Mr J.A. McGinty: I just told the member; I gave an example - Ms S.E. WALKER: I am not getting any information. I want to know where the savings to the public will be in this set up. We cannot get a list of anything or any structure - Mr R.F. Johnson: Cabinet approved it with a lack of information. Ms S.E. WALKER: How did Cabinet approve it? Mr R.F. Johnson: It shows you what this particular minister has in Cabinet - Ms S.E. WALKER: The power of influence. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr A.P. O’Gorman): Order, members! Member for Hillarys, if you have to ask a question you can seek the call. Ms S.E. WALKER: We are opposing this legislation because we do not know what it is about. We cannot get down to the nitty-gritty of it. When the Attorney General says it is less expensive, we cannot even get an organisational structure; there is none! We cannot get an overview of why this legislation has been brought in. Nothing but a big tome has been prepared. Nothing has been provided that will explain the rationale behind creating this tribunal. It could have been explained by saying that a particular body does not normally pay any fees, and that when it goes through the court process it will not pay any more. That would be a reason, but there is absolutely nothing like that. This legislation should not have been brought in so soon. The Attorney General should not have made the experienced counsel advising him bring in this legislation. He should have given them more time to draft it so that we can comprehend it. I do not know how this got through Cabinet.
10018 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003]
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: I assume this legislation is similar to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act. Many of the definitions are similar, particularly that of a monetary order. I have not come across the relevant section in the VCAT Act, but clause 87 of this Bill refers to the costs of proceedings. Has the Government done an analysis of the corresponding section in the Victorian Act, the cases in which charges have been made against complainants and the costings of the different complaints? Mr J.A. McGINTY: The comparable provision in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act is division 8, Costs, which starts at section 109. It is interesting to note that we substantially followed those provisions, which in our Bill are found in division 5, starting at section 86. The opening provision of division 8 of the Victorian legislation reads - (1) Subject to this Division, each party is to bear their own costs in the proceeding. That is what is in our legislation. Section 109 of the Victorian legislation then outlines a number of exceptions or special provisions. I have not done a detailed study of the two provisions, but the broad concept of the tribunal being a no-cost jurisdiction with the ability to award costs in some cases has been carried forward. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: Has someone in the Attorney General’s department done a case-based analysis - that is, an analysis of the different cases that have gone to the tribunal - of section 109 and determined the minimum and maximum costs to the different professional groups and the range of issues that have been taken to the Victorian tribunal? Mr J.A. McGinty: The answer is no. Clause, as amended, put and passed. Clause 12 put and passed. Clause 13: Source of jurisdiction - Mr J.H.D. DAY: We are now into the part of the Bill that deals with the jurisdiction of the tribunal. I would like to know what impact the State Administrative Tribunal will have on schoolteachers and what coverage they will receive under it. Yesterday the Western Australian College of Teaching Bill 2003 was introduced into this Chamber. I have received - as I think have most members - a letter from the State School Teachers Union of WA in which it expresses concern about a number of aspects of the State Administrative Tribunal Bill 2003 and the impact it perceives SAT will have on schoolteachers. I am not sure whether that will be the case. Will schoolteachers, the registration process that will be put in place for them and their disciplinary procedures be impacted on or covered by the State Administrative Tribunal Bill 2003? Mr J.A. McGINTY: I think I can allay the concerns that have been raised in this regard. I also received, as I think did all members in this House, the letter from the State School Teachers Union of WA regarding concerns about the impact on teachers of the SAT legislation. The Bill introduced by the Minister for Education and Training yesterday spells out that the registration of teachers will be subject to an internal dispute resolution measure and review by the District Court. As the legislation stands, there is no involvement of SAT in that process. Whether that might ultimately be reviewed is something for the future. It is not something that we have in any sense considered. I refer in a broad sense to industrial matters. I know that the registration of teachers may not be an industrial matter; however, if misbehaviour as a teacher is the reason a teacher is denied registration, it might become an industrial matter. We have taken the general view that we will not include within the ambit of SAT industrial or employment-related issues. I concede that the line between employment-related issues and professional issues is quite often very grey. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What about a review of the decision making? Mr J.A. McGINTY: An unfair dismissal is perhaps the analogous case. We do not want SAT to have any involvement with those sorts of matters because they are appropriately dealt with in the industrial relations realm. An existing tribunal network, ranging from the Industrial Relations Commission to a number of other tribunals within particularly the public sector, deals with employment-related matters, and WorkCover deals with workers compensation-related matters. Industrial relations has its own discrete area of operation. We do not intend for employer-employee matters in any sense to come within the SAT jurisdiction. I do not think there is any provision, even indirectly, under which that would be the case. Certainly, the cabinet decision was predicated on the basis that that area would be excluded. The legislation introduced by the Minister for Education and Training makes no reference to SAT. I do not envisage that it will. However, a review may be conducted once SAT is up and running. For example, the Western Australian Local Government Association has been talking to us with a view to bringing the discipline of recalcitrant local government councillors, measured against the objective criteria of the code of conduct, within the jurisdiction of the State Administrative Tribunal. That has been agreed, at least in principle, with the Local Government Association. However, that is an example of misbehaviour by an individual, which is intended to come within SAT. At this stage, I make it clear that it is not intended that teachers come within the ambit of SAT. However, who knows what the future might hold? I hope that as SAT becomes established and grows, people in other fields will see it as a
[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003] 10019 place to which they can easily and inexpensively take their disputes for quick resolution. That is the philosophy that underpins its establishment. Other industry groups have asked whether they can bring their matters before SAT. We are happy to consider that, but at the moment we are limiting SAT’s jurisdiction to what is in the Bill, which does not include teachers. Mr J.H.D. DAY: I thank the minister for the information he has provided. I make the observation that teachers are the only professional group required to be registered in the State that will not be covered by SAT. I do not oppose that. There are probably good reasons for it, and it is in general terms consistent with the Opposition’s argument. However, given that all other professional groups will be covered by SAT, what is the Government’s rationale for it not covering teachers? Mr J.A. McGINTY: That is a valid point. The registration of teachers is new, but it also applies to an area that is fairly heavily industrially regulated. The line between industrial matters and professional matters has prompted this action. We start with the District Court as the review body, and internal matters are dealt with there. It will be up to a future Government to decide whether teachers, once their registration has been up and running for a period, should be treated as other professionals, but it is not currently being contemplated. Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: I will follow on from there, keeping the theme of employees. The Prisons Act, dealing with the discipline of prison officers, allows for appeal to the chief executive officer, and a determination of the appeal by the chief executive officer. I take it then, that even though it is a decision by a public servant - the chief executive officer in this instance - it is not subject to review by SAT. Mr J.A. McGINTY: That is correct, and we are not taking on public sector management matters either. The other point relates to paragraph 178 of the Barker report, which states - The Taskforce has not considered it necessary to deal with a range of appeals concerning police, fire brigade, prison officers and marine matters. Those appeal rights primarily concern industrial and organisational matters that should not be determined by the SAT. The appeals falling in this class are created by the following Acts and regulations: Fire Brigades Regulations 1943 Government Railways Act 1904 (WA) Police Act 1892 (WA) Prisons Act 1981 (WA) Western Australian Marine Act 1982 (WA) This might also partly answer the question posed by the member for Darling Range, about that grey area between what is industrial and what is not. Clause put and passed. Clause 14 put and passed. Clause 15: What comes within original jurisdiction - Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: This clause provides that, if an enabling Act gives the tribunal jurisdiction to deal with something that does not involve a review of a decision, the matter comes within the tribunal’s original jurisdiction. Am I correct in assuming that, under the State Administrative Tribunal (Conferral of Jurisdiction) Amendment and Repeal Bill 2003, if the jurisdiction being conferred is not a review of a decision, then it automatically becomes original jurisdiction, even though it has come through an enabling Act? If it is a public service decision that is not within the State Administrative Tribunal (Conferral of Jurisdiction) Amendment and Repeal Bill 2003, but is one that the Government contemplates making open to review, such as those dealing with reasons for decisions, is that original or review jurisdiction? Does SAT have any decisions? For instance, say a licence has been issued by the Department for Planning and Infrastructure that is not covered under the conferral of jurisdiction, but somebody is very unhappy about the decision made by a public servant. At the moment that person can go to the Ombudsman to get it resolved. Does that person have an ability to come to SAT? Mr J.A. McGINTY: The short answer is no. This legislation is not like the commonwealth administrative appeals legislation, which enables an appeal against any government decision by an aggrieved party. This legislation picks up existing rights enshrined in legislation to challenge a decision, to either a court or another body. This legislation takes existing rights and puts them into a single body. It is not intended to create new rights. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal model is one the Government could have followed, but on this occasion we have taken the first step and conferred jurisdiction over existing rights to SAT, instead of the existing body, whether that be a court, minister or public servant. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: So this clause basically says that the enabling Act either confers original jurisdiction or, where it is part of a review process, it becomes review jurisdiction.
10020 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003]
Mr J.A. McGINTY: That is right, and unless specific jurisdiction is conferred, there is no right to challenge a government decision with which someone is unhappy. Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: We have dealt with the employee-employer organisational matters, but one of the issues we have discussed in this House on a number of occasions is the situation where there is a review right to the chief executive officer. In this instance, I am talking about the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984. Under that Act an improvement or prohibition notice can be issued by inspectors. Section 51 of the Act provides for a review of that notice by the chief executive officer. It has placed the chief executive officer in an uncomfortable position, to all of a sudden put on another hat. We discussed this when dealing with previous legislation that the Government was considering changing. Mr J.A. McGinty: We did change it in one case. The appeal is now to the Parole Board in that case. Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: In this case, it has been left in place. As I understand it, it is not included in the conferral of jurisdiction. It is a very appropriate one to change, because it has always been a very uncomfortable position for the WorkSafe commissioner. This would be an appropriate case to put forward. Why was it not included? Mr J.A. McGINTY: The reason was, again, the very clear view that industrial matters - Mrs C.L. Edwardes: No; this is a review of a prohibition notice on, say, a power cord. Obviously, it is a WorkSafe issue, but it is not an industrial issue, or an employer-employee issue. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Perhaps I can argue by analogy. The other area it was decided to exclude as a matter of policy was environmental appeals. That had to do with the existence of the ministerial appeal process established, as the member would be well aware, under the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The Barker report recommended that appeals under part 4, against pollution control notices, be included, but part 5 appeals, which are ministerial appeals against, for instance, logging of forest, not be included. It was thought that it was inappropriate to have some appeals within the one Act going to SAT and others remaining as internal departmental matters or ministerial appeals. There are some exceptions to this, but environmental appeals under the Environmental Protection Act are not included, and matters under the Occupational Safety and Health Act that are substantially employment related were left out as well, because they are part of the employment, or industrial relations package. There is not necessarily 100 per cent logical consistency in this, given the vast number of appeal rights and original matters that are to be brought within the jurisdiction of SAT. Some other areas that were thought to impede the ready resolution of industrial development matters have also not been included. We have brought into the ambit of SAT as much as we humanly could in an internally consistent way. The issue raised by the member for Kingsley is not one to which I have particularly turned my mind, because I have generally regarded that Act as dealing with employment-related matters, but I suspect that is the rationale. Clause put and passed. Clauses 16 to 20 put and passed. Clause 21: Statement of reasons for decision - Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: I refer to the process involved in the statement of reasons for decisions. It appears that the tribunal may request the decision maker to provide within 28 days the reason for its decision. Will decision makers have to supply reasons for decisions as part of the public service process so that members of the public are aware of why a decision has been made? Debate interrupted, pursuant to standing orders. [Continued on page 10032.] LOGGING IN PERTH HILLS Statement by Member for Swan Hills MS J.A. RADISICH (Swan Hills) [12.51 pm]: Logging in the Perth hills is not a fait accompli. A number of recent media articles have referred to proposals to log timber from the Perth hills. Let me make it clear - proposals by the Forest Products Commission to harvest timber in the Perth hills are not a fait accompli. The Forest Products Commission has its job to do, and I have mine. Based on the current level of information available, I do not support logging in the Helena and Mundaring catchment areas. I am confident that the majority of the Perth hills community does not support logging in the hills, especially in water catchment areas. Salinity and the protection of the biodiversity of flora and fauna are among the most pertinent factors in the argument against logging in the Perth hills. If it costs less to buy jarrah furniture out of newly harvested timber rather than recycled timber, something is wrong with the economics of that equation. I am pleased to have received representations from a range of community groups and individuals on this matter, including Earth, Adopt a Block, the Eastern Hills branch of the Wildflower Society of Western Australia, friends of reserves groups and catchment groups in my electorate. The level of interest and awareness of this issue in Mundaring and the hills is acute. I am proud to be involved with residents who care about the environment in their community. I
[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003] 10021 look forward to undertaking a site visit to the proposed logging locations at Helena 02 and 03 in a few weeks, at which I will be joined by various community members. We need to see for ourselves the value of the environmental attributes at those sites to make an informed decision about whether any logging should occur. ABC BROADCASTING STUDIO, WAGIN Statement by Member for Wagin MR T.K. WALDRON (Wagin) [12.52 pm]: I thank and congratulate the Australian Broadcasting Commission for its excellent and visionary decision to establish and locate an ABC broadcasting studio at Wagin in the heart of the great southern. This modern studio, which is located in a historic old bank building in the town centre, was officially opened recently by the Chairman of the ABC Mr Donald McDonald, who travelled from Sydney for the occasion. Broadcasts from the station will be heard from Albany to the wheatbelt and from Collie in the west to Lake King in the east, and will provide a huge boost for Wagin and the region. It will inform and entertain people across a vast area with local news, issues and programs. The managing director of the ABC, Mr Russell Balding, said that the station facilitates the ABC’s commitment to maintain contact with local communities. I also thank ABC state director Mr Jeff Duncan, the ABC local radio manager Mr Steve Altham, and local Albany presenter and manager Mr John Cecil for their commitment, cooperation and great drive in ensuring that the station came to fruition in the great southern region of Western Australia. I also thank the Shire of Wagin and its people for their great support of the station. It is terrific to see an organisation as large as the ABC investing and showing confidence in rural Australia, at a time when many other major organisations are withdrawing important facilities from country centres. I congratulate the ABC again, and wish it and its full-time local presenters Gemma Rafferty and Caroline Hillman every success for the future. Local programs and broadcasts have been operating for some weeks and have been well received across the region. ROLEYSTONE DISTRICT HIGH SCHOOL Statement by Member for Roleystone MR M.P. WHITELY (Roleystone) [12.53 pm]: Roleystone is a great place in which to live. It is physically beautiful and has a real sense of community. It has fantastic facilities, including the local primary and district high schools, which my two sons attend. In particular, Roleystone District High School, which the Premier visited with me late last year, offers a unique learning environment for approximately 340 year 6 to year 10 students. It is set in jarrah forest using solar passive principles, and was designed by the Roleystone community in the 1980s. The foresight demonstrated by the community continues to benefit my son and other Roleystone District High School students. Unfortunately, some other community facilities have not been as well planned. The centre of Roleystone around Cross Park and the Roleystone shopping centre suffer from poor design. Although there are some good facilities, they are not integrated as well as they should be. As a consequence of poor design, the centre of Roleystone lacks the village centre feel that good design could so easily achieve. The result is that community facilities are underutilised and local businesses suffer. In the past there have been problems with crime and antisocial behaviour, particularly in the car park at the south end of Cross Park. Due to some excellent work by the Armadale police, with the support of the local community, these problems have largely been resolved. However, this good work must be reinforced with good urban design. Fortunately, the planned upgrade of the Roleystone shopping centre presents an opportunity to address some of these issues. It is a great chance to harness the enthusiasm and talents of local business people and Roleystone councillors Deb Hopper and Pat Hart, and to improve the amenity of the Roleystone village centre and make Roleystone an even better place in which to live. PEEL THUNDER FOOTBALL CLUB Statement by Member for Dawesville MR A.D. MARSHALL (Dawesville) [12.55 pm]: The Peel Thunder Football Club has struggled on the field in the WAFL competition this year. The team is yet to win a game. However, there have been many success stories. The announcement by the West Australian Football Commission that at long last Peel Thunder will be granted a five-year lease was a fillip for football. This decision will enable the club to develop strategic plans, give stability to the footballers contemplating joining Peel Thunder, fast-forward new office and gym facilities and offer sponsors long-term involvement in the club. In January a $100 000 deficit was discovered in employees’ superannuation, which had been overlooked. Generous benefactors who believe in the club’s existence raised that amount in a week. In the following week the amount raised surpassed the amount needed. Through sponsorship, fundraising, membership and bar takings, the club will show a record profit this year. The annual club auction raised $40 000. The Ron Barassi night was a sell-out and the male and female 100 clubs have raised $30 000. All that was achieved in a poor playing performance year. Imagine what will happen when five experienced footballers are recruited and the club wins some games. Last year players from Peel Thunder finished first, second and third in the Sandover Medal count. Eighteen-year-old Daniel Wells was drafted to the North Melbourne Football Club to become an AFL star. This year Peel had two lads in
10022 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003] the state 18-year-old national interstate carnival. Farren Ray was selected for the All Australian team and is certain to be in the top five national draft picks this year. Peel Thunder supplied Jarrod Martin to the 16-year-old state team and six players to the 15-year-old Western Australian carnival team. Peel Thunder might appear to be down in 2003, but it is becoming more proficient and professional and is destined to become a powerful club in the WAFL competition. LAKE JOONDALUP BAPTIST COLLEGE SKILL CENTRE Statement by Member for Joondalup MR A.P. O’GORMAN (Joondalup) [12.56 pm]: Last Thursday I had the pleasure of attending the opening of the Lake Joondalup Baptist College skill centre. The centre provides vocational education and training programs and is part of a new $3 million technology and enterprise centre. The skills centre provides training, information and communication technology and is an integral part of the college. It offers a career link structured workplace learning program and provides students with certificates that greatly enhance their opportunities in their future occupations. Rosie Hill, who has participated in a structured workplace learning program, wrote - “Future Visions” was the name my group chose to call our business in the Joondalup Skills Centre. . . . In my 12 years of education - I have never been part of a more effective program. . . . We were given responsibility and developed a solid work ethic. That young lady has been offered a full-time position at Channel Nine as an office administration manager. The skills centre has a teaching area, a front office reception area, a copy room and teaching preparation area. The centre attracts students from a cluster of 12 independent schools in the northern suburbs. Some 78 year 11 and 12 students are participating in the 2003 school year. I congratulate Grant Grosser, the Deputy Principal; Phillippa Da Silva, the technology and enterprise coordinator; Robin Edwards, the skill centre coordinator; Barbera Wadley, the Principal of the Lake Joondalup Baptist College; and the board of management of Lake Joondalup for their foresight in building the skills centre and promoting vocational education and training. MR KEITH LEECE Statement by Member for Murray-Wellington MR J.L. BRADSHAW (Murray-Wellington) [12.58 pm]: I pay tribute to Keith Leece, a former Shire of Harvey chief executive officer, who retired in July after 16 years at the helm. Keith and his wife Karen will be sadly missed. Keith is a person for whom I hold great admiration and esteem for the job he did at the Shire of Harvey. Keith had vision and made his ideas happen. Some of his achievements for the Shire of Harvey include the Harvey town tourist precinct. The Governor Stirling replica cottage is used as a cafe and is surrounded by magnificent gardens. Keith was instrumental in undergrounding the powerlines in the town. He helped beautify the town. He was involved in establishing sport and recreation facilities for Harvey and Australind. He was also involved in the old Benger School project. He was committed to the Yarloop workshops and the joint venture with the former Department of Land Administration for the subdivision in the Harvey Korijekup estate. Keith is a positive person and he backed people with sensible projects to the hilt. He managed to extract a large sum of money from the State Government when the Kemerton industrial area was put in place. He also raised a good deal of money when the Water Corporation built the new Harvey Dam. This money went to facilities and environmental projects for the good of the Harvey community. His final achievement was the Brunswick channel project. Keith has left a large footprint in the Harvey shire and I wish him and Karen all the best in their retirement. Sitting suspended from 1.00 to 2.00 pm QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE TABLING OF LETTER FROM MS JEAN THORNTON TO PREMIER 922. Mrs C.L. EDWARDES to the Premier: I refer to the tabling on the Premier’s behalf in the Legislative Council last night of an undated letter to him from the Department of Health whistleblower, Jean Thornton, which states - Firstly I apologise to you for writing to you at home but the reason for this will become clear as you read on - I don’t want this letter to end up as an official ‘Ministerial’ and go back to the Health Dept for a response! and I ask -
[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003] 10023
(1) Did the Premier notify Ms Thornton that this letter was to be tabled? (2) Is the Premier aware that under section 16 of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2003 a disclosure of public interest information that may identify anyone who has made a public interest disclosure cannot occur without the consent of that person or without reasonable notice being given to that person? (3) Does the Premier concede that the tabling of this correspondence is a further betrayal of a whistleblower who had explicitly written to him in confidence? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: (1) No. (2) Yes. (3) No. Members of Parliament will be aware that there has been some controversy about the Department of Health in recent weeks. It was revealed by the newspaper media in Western Australia that Ms Jean Thornton was the whistleblower. It was also revealed in the media, following their coming into possession of a letter sent by Ms Thornton to me in May, that she had also written to me in 2001. The media commented on that when it said that in fact the whistle had been blown to the Premier early in 2001 on the situation in the Western Australian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation. I believe, quite correctly, that that comment needed to be corrected. In order to correct that I needed to pass that correspondence to the media. It was in the public interest. There is no doubt that the identity of the whistleblower was well known to and discussed by the public. In no way, shape or form have I breached the principles of our disclosure legislation. Mr C.J. Barnett: You have - no doubt. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The Opposition asks me to table something; I table it and then opposition members come into the Parliament and question what I have done. What an absolutely ridiculous approach taken by the Opposition. Let us get to the heart of this issue. The Opposition knows what is in the letter Ms Thornton wrote to me early in 2001 - it contains the revelation that under the Liberals the health system was in crisis. Money was being wasted on consultants and travel. All the issues that the Labor Party was raising in opposition were true. I passed that letter on to the minister and, as we know, he established the Health Administrative Review Committee to examine all the issues in the Department of Health. The Opposition should do a bit of homework before its members come into this Parliament and cast aspersions on my behaviour as the Premier of this State.
TABLING OF LETTER FROM MS JEAN THORNTON TO PREMIER 923. Mrs C.L. EDWARDES to the Premier: I have a supplementary question. Does the Premier realise that this type of disclosure sends the message to other public servants that they cannot trust him with any information whatsoever, even if they mark it private and confidential, send it to his home and ask him specifically not to table it? The SPEAKER: The first part of the question seeks an opinion. Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: Every public servant in this State knows that under a Labor Government they will be listened to and the questions they raise will be properly dealt with. I remind the House that under the Liberal jurisdiction a Department of Main Roads employee was hounded, and a schoolteacher was suspended when this Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Education. The Labor Government’s record is one of supporting the public service. This Government has made sure that when people raise concerns it takes them seriously. That is exactly what we have done in this case. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the member for Nedlands and the member for Dawesville.
SCIENCE INITIATIVES 924. Mr A.P. O’GORMAN to the Premier: Will the Premier advise the House of what new science initiatives are being undertaken in Western Australia? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: I am very pleased that I will be launching National Science Week here in Western Australia tonight. Science Week will run from 16 to 24 August. It is aimed at encouraging awareness of science in the community and, most importantly, encouraging dialogue between our science organisations and the broader society. Last year Science Week was an outstanding success. This year’s events include exhibitions, displays, open days, bush trips, hypotheticals, lectures,
10024 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003] workshops, competitions, quizzes, media shows and science broadcasts. Over the past few months the Government has made a number of outstanding announcements in the science area. Two weeks ago I launched the new Western Australian major research facilities program. This $21 million program is designed to lure major research projects and build a number of high-impact scientific research facilities in Western Australia. The total budget for each of these centres will be a minimum of $60 million, with the State Government providing 20 to 30 per cent of the funding. It will seek support from the business, research and public sectors for the rest. There are six categories for consideration: oil, gas and minerals; health; agriculture and fisheries; information and communications technologies; environment, with an emphasis on water and salinity; and marine. I also announced in recent weeks a major boost to the Scitech Discovery Centre in West Perth. Under the new agreement, Scitech will receive $10.2 million for a capital works upgrade, which includes the establishment of a new state-of-the-art planetarium. This will be in addition to $14.2 million in operational funding over the next five years. Scitech has played an outstanding role in science education. Many youngsters have visited Scitech. It participates in the community not only in the metropolitan area but also throughout Western Australia. Yesterday it celebrated its fifteenth birthday. Three and a half million people have visited the centre since it was opened. It was a great Labor initiative. I take this opportunity in the House today to congratulate Hon Malcolm Bryce, the original supporter of the foundation of Scitech along with some great Western Australian business people, including Mr John Stokes, the initial chairperson of Scitech, who came together to create a wonderful institution. The future of our State will be determined by our creativity. Western Australia is a huge State and it has a tremendous number of resources. However, it suffers from what the great Australian historian Geoffrey Blainey once described as the tyranny of distance. In order to make sure that the resources that we have are utilised for the benefit of the world and to create jobs and opportunities for Western Australians we will need to be creative. We have been creative in the past, but the pace of change has increased, and the need for scientific innovation has become essential and not just an afterthought. In order for us to make sure that we are up there, we need to have a strong emphasis on science. Several members interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I know the Leader of the Opposition is not interested in these major issues that affect jobs and opportunities for Western Australians. However, every member on this side of the House is committed to a future based on creativity and education. Can we say the same thing about the Liberal Party? SMALL BUSINESS, INSURANCE COSTS 925. Mr D.F. BARRON-SULLIVAN to the Minister for Small Business: I refer to insurance costs for small business, which, as the minister should be aware, ranks as one of the most contentious financial problems for small business owners throughout the State. I refer specifically to the growing concern among small business owners about the level of state taxation on insurance premiums, which adds significantly to the overall financial burden. I ask a very simple question: will the minister advise the House where Western Australia is placed relative to the other States and Territories with regard to the level of state taxation as a proportion of business insurance premiums? Mr R.C. KUCERA replied: That kind of question about the levels of state taxation should probably be addressed to the Treasurer. However, I can say that in the past four weeks I have managed to meet with most of the major groups within small business and with many small business operators. I take up the point that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is making. Insurance is a key issue and a key cost for small business. It is not just the issue of taxation. It is the whole issue of insurance generally. For the past two years the Opposition has heard us talk in this House about the cost of medical insurance and medical liability. I have pledged that we will work with small business. The Premier is right. The impost of the goods and services tax is still with us. Very few of the benefits of the GST will flow to this State before 2007-08. The golden cup that these people on the other side, along with their friends in Canberra, promised has now turned into a - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Merredin and the Leader of the National Party to order for the first time. Mr R.C. KUCERA: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will bring it to a close. The golden cup that the Opposition, along with its friends in Canberra, promised us with the GST has turned into yet another poisoned chalice that we have been handed. It is as simple as that. I have said to small business that I am happy to work with it, because we will support the small end of town. We do not worry just about our big mates on St Georges Terrace. We will support small business. I want to thank the member for Ballajura, because this week he went to the south west and had some very productive meetings with small business people in that area about taxation issues generally and, more importantly, insurance liability. The south west is currently represented by the Deputy Premier - the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I should say; the pretend Deputy Premier - but I do not think those people have even heard from their local member. We will work with small business and give small business a decent deal.
[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003] 10025
SMALL BUSINESS, INSURANCE COSTS 926. Mr D.F. BARRON-SULLIVAN to the Minister for Small Business: I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware of the comprehensive report by Trowbridge Deloitte entitled “Effect of State Taxes on Insurance for Small Business”, which found that in addition to the introduction of Labor’s new fire services levy Perth now has the highest rate of tax on business insurance premiums anywhere in the nation and amongst the highest in the world? Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Mr Speaker, the standard procedure under the standing orders is that a supplementary question should relate directly and concisely to an issue that follows on. The member is now seeking to raise a lot of additional information. I do not believe it is a supplementary question. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: The Leader of the House is just trying to protect the Minister for Small Business. Clearly the supplementary question goes directly to the main part of the previous question about small business taxation, and I ask you to rule as such, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Order! It is quite plain that a supplementary question must be related directly to the question that was asked. The question is in compliance with that part of the ruling. However, the length of the question was excessive. It should be a short supplementary question, not another lengthy question. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr R.C. KUCERA replied: I am aware of the Trowbridge report. I would expect the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to at least afford me the courtesy - Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Why did you not explain that in your answer? Mr R.C. KUCERA: I answer questions in the way I choose. With the kind of detail that is being asked for by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, he could at least do me the common courtesy of putting the question on notice. SOUTHERN RAIL LINK, COST SAVINGS 927. Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure: I listened intently to the debate on ABC Radio last week between the minister and the member for Carine, in which the member for Carine claimed that the fast direct railway will have to cost more than the Kenwick deviation because we will be building a tunnel under the city and new structures on the Mount Henry and Narrows Bridges. Will the minister please advise the House, and more particularly the member for Carine, how she will be able to achieve the cost savings to fund these works? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: Mr Speaker - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Before the minister had uttered a few words a crescendo of noise came from the back, particularly from the member for South Perth, who knows a lot better than to do that. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I am glad that, like the population of Western Australia, the Opposition gets very excited about our rail project, because it is a fabulous project. I thank the member for Mandurah for the question, because like him I did feel sorry for the member for Carine. She obviously was in a state of high puzzlement and confusion, even though we have taken the opportunity time and again to explain to the member for Carine, the Leader of the Opposition and all the other members just exactly how we will be able to do this. I will go through it again, because it is important that the Opposition understands and our good friends in the fourth estate also understand just how this project can be delivered. Of course as we have said we will be cutting 11 kilometres off the rail journey and 12 minutes off the time. That means that we will be able to do the same job and move the same number of people with fewer railcars - instead of 117 railcars we will need only 93. That is a saving of $80 million. That is the first saving. Secondly, as part of the Opposition’s public transport package for this area, it was going to build stage 2 of the Kwinana Freeway bus project. We have always said that our project will incorporate that in a rail program. That is another $70 million that the Opposition would have had to spend that we will not have to spend. Thirdly, the Opposition was going to build two lines around the Rockingham area; one deviating around Rockingham - the Opposition loves deviation - and the other looping in a tunnel - it does not like tunnels - to send every second train into Rockingham city. This Government has decided that it will have only one line into Rockingham and it will go right into the heart of its residential area. That is a saving of another $70 million. Fourthly, we will build neither the railway stations between Glen Iris and Thornlie nor the tracks. Because we are not trying to bodgie up two railway lines by converting them into one, we have been able to cut back certain works between
10026 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003]
Perth and Kenwick. That is a saving of $170 million. If all these figures are added, it amounts to almost $400 million. That is how we are able to do this with an increase of only $15.5 million. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: You are moving people from bus to rail. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: What is really surprising is that when the Opposition was going to build a railway line, all new patrons were going to use it. However, when we build a railway line, suddenly the only people who will use it are the people who formerly travelled by bus. That is absolute nonsense. I thank the member for Carine; she has given us a question for next week. Every day, as part of our education program, we will address these issues. Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition called on me to table the costings. We have provided the costings and have tabled them time and again. I can presume only that they have gone into the Barnett black hole. I am now holding up the total costings produced by the previous Government for its rail project; these are the total costings that were published. We have published more than twice that information. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I point out that members opposite spent eight years in government and not one centimetre of rail was constructed. We have already built the rail line to Clarkson. [See papers Nos 1378 and 1379.] NATIVE TITLE, BURRUP PENINSULA 928. Mr C.J. BARNETT to the Treasurer: I refer the Treasurer to his settlement in January of a native title claim by three Aboriginal claimant groups over the Burrup Peninsula at a cost of $15.6 million to taxpayers, and also to the finding of the Federal Court less than six months after the agreement was made that native title did not exist over the Burrup Peninsula in respect of those claimants. (1) How does the Treasurer justify settling this claim prior to the Federal Court’s determination of native title over the Burrup Peninsula, particularly as the case was proceeding? (2) Why did the Government - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! It is hard enough to hear answers in this place with the level of noise made by members; now it is making it impossible to hear the questions. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I will continue - (2) Why did the Government fail to insist that the money would be paid to the claimants only when native title was established? (3) Does the Treasurer agree that he has now set a costly precedent for the Government, which will enable groups with similar tenuous claims to push claims for payment? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) First, this Government settled those native title issues to pave the way for $5 billion worth of investment in gas processing projects on the Burrup Peninsula. Had we followed the stupid course of action outlined by the Leader of the Opposition, those proponents would still be waiting for access to that land. The suggestion from the Opposition is to further wreck the development proposals for the Burrup Peninsula. The Leader of the Opposition simply cannot get behind this very important set of developments for the future of this State. We have a magnificent opportunity in this State to create a world-class gas processing province on the Burrup Peninsula. What do we get from the Opposition? We get wrecking and suggestions that the projects should not be on the Burrup Peninsula. Now we have heard the suggestion that we should not have settled the native title issues. If we had not gone through that process, we would not have the Burrup fertiliser project now being constructed. If we had not made that settlement, we would not be increasingly confident about the Methanex Australia Pty Ltd announcement and we certainly would not have any prospects for the other developments proposed in the area. The first point I make to the Leader of the Opposition is that those proponents would not have had access to the land, and why not? They would not have had access to the land because the native title case has not yet been settled. The Federal Court has made a finding on the principles but is still seeking submissions from the parties about how those principles might apply to particular pieces of land. If the native title parties are not happy with the Federal Court decision, they can appeal to the full Federal Court; and, if they are not happy with the full Federal Court decision, they can appeal to the High Court. That is the Leader of the Opposition’s approach. Nine years after the claim was first lodged, we still do not have a final court decision on the
[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003] 10027
Miriuwung-Gajerrong claim. If we followed the Leader of the Opposition’s course of action, we would still be waiting in 2010 for the courts to give us a decision that would enable access to that land for those proponents. Another point also needs to be made. I apologise, Mr Speaker, for answering this question at some length, but I need to put the Opposition straight on this question. The agreement is a comprehensive one, which covers not only the Burrup estate, but also the Maitland estate and residential and industrial land around Karratha. The Federal Court has found that native title exists on the Maitland estate and on the residential and industrial land around Karratha. We have settled those claims as well. Finally, we were acting pursuant to John Howard’s Native Title Act. John Howard’s Native Title Act gave procedural rights to the native title parties in this case, even though a Federal Court decision had not been made on their native title rights. We were acting according to the law. Had we gained access to that land without going through those procedures, the titles we granted would potentially have been invalid, just like some of the titles granted by the coalition. There are mines and projects on titles that are potentially invalid because the previous Government ignored John Howard’s Native Title Act and did not go through the processes. We did everything necessary to promote the development of the State. We reached an agreement with the native title parties and we have given some of the poorest people in the Pilbara, who have been frozen out of economic development in that region for generations, a stake in the economic development of the region. I am proud of the settlement that we reached on the Burrup Peninsula, because it represents justice for some of the poorest people in this State and it promotes the development of the State - something that the Leader of the Opposition wants to wreck and would be happy to sabotage.
NATIVE TITLE, BURRUP PENINSULA 929. Mr C.J. BARNETT to the Treasurer: As a supplementary question, does the Treasurer concede that he has been negligent with $15 million worth of taxpayers’ money - an amount sufficient to build three new primary schools in Western Australia? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: Let us not forget that the Opposition promoted native title legislation that was found by the High Court, on a 7-0 basis, to be racist. I do not consider the most comprehensive development-related native title settlement reached by any Government in this country to be negligent. We know how to promote development in this State. We know how to get investment in this State. We certainly will not participate in the Leader of the Opposition’s sabotage of the economic development of this State. The SPEAKER: I call to order the member for Kalgoorlie for the first time.
EDUCATION AND TRAINING, ROCKINGHAM 930. Mr N.R. MARLBOROUGH to the Minister for Education and Training: What is the State Government doing to deliver quality education and training to young people in the Peel region, particularly Rockingham? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: The Government undertook an interesting local education plan in the Peel-Rockingham area. I am very grateful to the members for Rockingham and Peel for being active in bringing together people in the area and for putting forward outstanding initiatives for education in that area. To be quite truthful, the Rockingham-Kwinana area education infrastructure has been sadly neglected over a long period. At the request of the member for Peel, I visited Kwinana Senior High School. That visit started the whole process. The area has a chronic need for superior physical and human education infrastructure. We are in the process of putting both elements into place. A very exciting project is about to come into effect in Kwinana. I take the opportunity to advise the House of a $17 million middle school to be built at Secret Harbour south of Rockingham in time for the start of the 2006 school year. Construction will begin as soon as possible. This is a very important development for a rapid growth area. It is testament to the drive of the residents in that area who have been advocating for a longer-term vision for education. We are also about to provide overdue relief to the overcrowded Warnbro Community High School, which will receive $4 million worth of permanent additions by late 2004. This is part of the capital works program for government schools in Western Australia that the Government is in the process of implementing. Embedded in the previous question was an attempt by the former Minister for Education to give some sort of lesson in financial management to the current Treasurer. I have told this House before about the amateurish, reckless financial management with which the former Minister for Education dealt with the Department of Education. Surely in the history of Western Australia there has never been a more incompetent financial manager of any major portfolio. I have told the House before that the member for Cottesloe -
10028 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003]
Mr C.J. Barnett: Do you mean the Leader of the Opposition? Mr A.J. CARPENTER: He overspent the budget in one year by $100 million. It is almost inconceivable; only the fact that it is true makes it believable. In a period of about four years the aggregate overspend of his budget was almost $300 million. There has never been a more reckless, incompetent financial manager of the education portfolio in Western Australia. I take the opportunity to point out that at the moment in Western Australia we are in the process of delivering outstanding changes for the forward movement of education and, at the same time, managing our budget during a period when we are subject to some restriction by the Commonwealth. Because of the financial management skills of this Government and the current Treasurer, Western Australia currently has the lowest unemployment figures in Australia for 14 years. It is almost impossible to believe the audacity of this person in trying to lecture the current Treasurer on financial management. Two days ago the member for Alfred Cove raised a question about Melville Primary School. As members will know, I am intimately involved with the school through my children. The member raised the prospect of the Commonwealth Government providing additional finances - Dr J.M. Woollard: Under the capital works program. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: It is to assist in the redevelopment of Melville Primary School, so that it will be able to meet the ambitions of a group of parents who do not want any of the current site to be sold. I have had my office contact Hon Dr Brendan Nelson’s office to make sure that I understand exactly what is on offer. He is saying that we should feel free to allocate to Melville Primary School some of the $23 million that the Commonwealth has allocated to capital works in government schools. No additional money is on offer. To fulfil the ambition that the member is espousing, we would have to take money from another project. The sad reality is that 10 years ago, out of a total capital works budget of $69 million for government schools in Western Australia, the Commonwealth Government - I think in the form of the Hawke and Keating Governments - contributed $25.5 million. That has been reduced to $23 million in dollar terms, but in real terms the Commonwealth Government has halved the amount of money that it provides to government schools in Western Australia for capital works. It is a national scandal. I will finish on this note: three days ago I was at a meeting at which I listened to the best political analyst in Australia. Point of Order Mr R.F. JOHNSON: This is supposed to be question time. The answer the minister is now giving bears no relationship whatsoever to the question that the member for Peel asked. The question related to a school at Secret Harbour. All we have had is a diatribe and an attack on the previous Government and the Leader of the Opposition, and an answer to questions from the member for Alfred Cove. The SPEAKER: The question is now finished because of its length. Before I give the call to the next member, I would appreciate it if whoever was responsible for allowing the person with a mobile phone into my gallery, in future ensured that people who enter my gallery do not have their mobile phones switched on. Questions without Notice Resumed
LABOR ELECTION POLICY 931. Mr M.W. TRENORDEN to the Minister for Energy: I refer to the Labor election policy entitled “A fair go for regional WA” in which it states that Labor’s commitment is to provide affordable and reasonable access to public services and infrastructure that is comparable with the metropolitan area and encourages economic growth and social viability. (1) Please explain why the price of power connection on the Bowey property in Kulin under the coalition Government was $4 241 and under this Government the same connection is $8 356 - virtually a 100 per cent increase in a three-year period? I have a copy of the correspondence that was sent to the minister. (2) Please explain how this doubling of costs fits with the Labor Government’s regional policy of promoting economic growth and social viability. Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) I will not be in a position to reply to the detail of the question on a particular Kulin property and its electrical connection. If the Leader of the National Party genuinely wanted an answer to that question at question time, he would have given notice of the question and I would have had the information available for him. There has been no change in the connection policies of Western Power since this Government came to power. There may, however, have been a change in the circumstances relating to that property. This Government inherited a set of laws and policies on electrical connections that has created an issue. A law introduced by the Leader of
[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003] 10029
the National Party’s coalition colleague, the current Leader of the Opposition, states that Western Power must behave in a commercial way. That law, if interpreted as one would expect it to be interpreted, means that Western Power is legally prevented from extending its network in any way that would cause it to make a continuing loss. That law left to us by the Leader of the Opposition needs attention, and it will receive attention in the electricity reform process. We have a problem with the extension network on the fringes of the south west interconnected system. Currently, the development of a set of guidelines is in process as no guidelines were left by the coalition on the matter. This Government will develop a proper and fair set of guidelines governing when and under what circumstances and conditions the electricity network will be extended. Try as members opposite might to beat up a campaign about regional services, this Government has a very strong commitment to the regions that is backed up by budget allocations and government decisions made every day. PRISONERS, GOLF LESSONS 932. Ms M.M. QUIRK to the Minister for Justice: Can the minister inform the House of steps taken following recent reports of prisoners receiving golf lessons at taxpayers’ expense? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: I thank the member for Girrawheen for her question. This Government was elected with a commitment to being tough on crime and criminals. There is an expectation in the community that taxes will not be used to treat prisoners to a day’s outing at a golf course. As soon as I became aware of this situation, I advised the Department of Justice that it would cease providing golf lessons for prisoners. Although I have no issue with prisoners engaging in exercise as part of their rehabilitation program, I cannot support offenders being given opportunities unavailable to many other members of the community. Put simply, many law-abiding citizens have neither the time nor the money to take golf lessons. I have asked the Department of Justice to provide me with a full report on this issue and any other recreational opportunities to which prisoners have access. DR VAN DER MYE, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF WESTERN POWER 933. Mr J.H.D. DAY to the Minister for Energy: I refer the minister to the forced resignation of David Eiszele and the appointment of Dr Stephen van der Mye as Managing Director of Western Power in April 2003. (1) Can the minister confirm that Dr van der Mye currently maintains a home in Melbourne? (2) Can the minister also confirm that Dr van der Mye regularly leaves his office as early as Wednesday to go to Melbourne, returning to work the following week? (3) Can the minister also confirm that Dr van der Mye uses a limousine service paid for by Western Australian taxpayers to travel from his office to the airport? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) Can the shadow Minister for Energy confirm that the Opposition has made a strategic decision to go all out with personal attacks on public servants? That has been the sort of approach seen. Frankly, in his current mode of operation, I expect such behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition, but not of the member for Darling Range - he is better than that. The Leader of the Opposition, unfortunately, has got to him. I am very pleased with the way in which Dr Stephen van der Mye is administering Western Power. He has come in at a very challenging time. Western Power will go through one of the most far-reaching reform processes currently on foot in this State. Mr van der Mye, who was the head of the National Electricity Marketing Management Company Limited - NEMMCO - operation in the national electricity market, and is very well qualified for his current role, has a challenging set of tasks before him. If the member for Darling Range gives me his question containing his scurrilous allegations, I will nevertheless put the questions to Dr van der Mye for his response. This side of the House judges people on how they perform their work. I will not say to people that they should not live in a certain domestic situation. I am happy to judge a person on how he or she performs a role. Dr van der Mye has been performing his role as Managing Director of Western Power in a very good manner indeed. He has certainly been performing a lot better than the shadow Minister for Education and Energy, from whom we hear virtually nothing. He has certainly been performing a lot better than the grumpy and scurrilous Leader of the Opposition. DR VAN DER MYE, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF WESTERN POWER 934. Mr J.H.D. DAY to the Minister for Energy: I have a supplementary question. In view of the importance of the position, and given the discontent that exists within Western Power, does the minister consider it appropriate that on a weekend when there was a potential for Western
10030 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003]
Australia to suffer rolling brownouts and blackouts, the Managing Director of Western Power was driven to the airport by a taxpayer-funded limousine service to spend the weekend in Melbourne? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: It would be very interesting to see when various people from the Opposition are in town or not in town, and the times they may conceivably not be present to pay attention to issues that might confront them. I judge people as I find them. I judge people on their performance and on their merit. I have found Dr Stephen van der Mye’s performance in his role to be good. The member for Darling Range has made some unfortunate personal allegations. I think it is fair enough to have a go at politicians as we are in the parliamentary and political process. I expect to come in here and be attacked. I put up my hand to be in politics. I do not mind. However, I do mind when, under the cover of parliamentary privilege, highly personal and negative remarks are made about public servants doing their work.
MARTU PEOPLE, RUDALL RIVER NATIONAL PARK 935. Mrs C.A. MARTIN to the Deputy Premier: Will the Deputy Premier please advise what steps the Government has taken to respond to the aspirations of the Martu people for recognition of their traditional attachment to the land covered by the Rudall River National Park? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: The August 2002 High Court decision in the Miriuwung-Gajerrong native title application, or the Ward case, delivered a very cruel blow to the aspirations of Aboriginal people in general when it found the creation of a national park had the effect of extinguishing native title. That was a surprising aspect of the decision. It meant that the Martu native title application in September 2002 did not include the Rudall River National Park - known to the Martu as Karlamilyi - which had formed part of the claim area for many years. The park is 260 kilometres from Newman. It is the largest in Western Australia, links the Great Sandy Desert and the Little Sandy Desert and encompasses the Parngurr and Punmu Aboriginal communities. I know it is probably hoping a bit much from members of the Opposition in their current mode, but I ask them, along with all other members, to consider the position of the Martu people, who saw their traditional lands turned into a 1.2 million-hectare national park at the stroke of a pen on 22 April 1977. I ask members to think about that: the Martu people had their traditional lands suddenly turned into a national park without any consultation and at the stroke of a pen. Since then they have sought to have their native title rights recognised in the park, only to have the High Court decision sweep away any decision of native title on the park. Mr B.K. Masters: What about the traditional owners? Mr E.S. RIPPER: They are the traditional owners. Sir Charles Court’s decision to create the park extinguished native title. Members should think about that. The traditional owners with an interest in land suddenly had their land taken away from them at the stroke of a pen with no consultation and no compensation. Dr G.I. Gallop: Good old terra nullius from Vasse; that is what you are. Mr E.S. RIPPER: He is nullius in many other ways as well, Premier. At the Federal Court determination of the Martu native title application at Cotton Creek in September last year, the Martu people said that the High Court decision had effectively cut the heart out of their claim. At that time I told them that the Western Australian Government recognised that their rights as traditional owners did not stop at the boundaries of the park; that would simply defy logic. Last Sunday I attended a meeting on the bed of the Rudall River at Kulgan Kulgan to further outline the Government’s position to the Martu people. I confirmed that it was the State Government’s intention to enter into early negotiations with the Martu people for joint management of the park in accordance with the Government’s policy paper recently published by the Department of Conservation and Land Management. I also indicated that the Government agreed with the principle that some form of permanent title to the park should be transferred to the Martu people so that it could be held in perpetuity for future generations, in much the same way as Uluru is indigenous-owned but accessible to the public. Because the park is an A-class reserve, these arrangements will require legislative change. The Government’s offer is contingent on the area being leased back to CALM for conservation purposes and the indemnification of the State against any compensation liability arising from the creation of the park by the Government of Sir Charles Court in 1977; that is, two years after the passage of the commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act. That is the reason the compensation question was raised. Mr Speaker, I hope the resolution of this matter will go some way towards easing the deep sense of injustice felt by the Martu people for the past three decades. We have some way to go on these negotiations, but I believe this statement is evidence of the Gallop Government’s determination to put things right for indigenous people.
[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003] 10031
MIDLAND POLICE STATION, ACCESS 936. Mr M.J. BIRNEY to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services: I refer the minister to her claims on the Paul Murray radio show on 24 July 2003 that officers at the Midland Police Station were available to the public 24 hours a day, despite the station advertising that its doors would be closed from 8.00 pm each weeknight. The minister said that people would have to press a buzzer at the front door. (1) Will the minister confirm that at the time she made those comments no such buzzer existed? (2) Will the minister also confirm that the buzzer she referred to on 24 July was, in fact, fitted in a mad panic the next day when her comments about the imaginary buzzer were brought to the attention of the Midland police? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(2) The member for Kalgoorlie has raised two issues. The first is a totally erroneous story that in some sense the Midland Police Station has been downgraded, when it has not. I asked Deputy Commissioner Brennan, who I saw at a function that morning, what the situation was at all 24-hour stations, including Midland, Mirrabooka, Joondalup, Fremantle and the like, and he assured me that there was either a buzzer or a phone at all those stations. At the time I made those comments on Paul Murray’s radio show, it was on the basis of advice I had received from the Police Service. Mr M.J. Birney: It’s your electorate; didn’t you go and have a look? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member for Kalgoorlie may not be aware that there was a dysfunctional buzzer at the Midland Police Station. There had been a change some time ago and the station had been operating in a different way. I said that was unacceptable and Deputy Commissioner Brennan made sure that the buzzer was fixed the following day. He had personally given me an assurance that all 24-hour stations either had a buzzer or a telephone and that if the telephone was not answered at a 24-hour station, it would be answered at VKI.
MIDLAND POLICE STATION, ACCESS 937. Mr M.J. BIRNEY to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services: I have a supplementary question. Will the minister also confirm that when she went to the Midland Police Station late at night to test the newly and hastily fitted buzzer, no-one answered? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: I made no such visit late at night. MEMBER FOR INNALOO Personal Explanation - Evidence given at the Police Royal Commission MR J.R. QUIGLEY (Innaloo) [2.56 pm] - by leave: I rise to refute some outrageous, scurrilous and false allegations made against me this morning by a witness, one Lynette Crimmins. Crimmins, having told the Royal Commission Into Whether There Has Been Any Corrupt or Criminal Conduct by Western Australian Police Officers that she had been a prostitute, gave evidence this morning that I had visited a brothel with a woman who was a senior solicitor at the Crown Law department. She said that I had taken to the brothel not only the woman, but also a quantity of alcohol. She went on to suggest to the royal commission that I had had sex with that woman, the senior solicitor from the Crown Law department, on the premises of the brothel and suggested that I may have had sex with other women on the premises of the brothel at that time. I wish to utterly refute all those allegations, save and except for the fact that I did attend a brothel with a solicitor some years ago. I wish to briefly explain to the Chamber the circumstances of that visit. I was at the time engaged as a defence barrister acting for a policeman on the Argyle Diamonds case. I was in the process of examining Mrs Crimmins in a preliminary hearing. As a result of a subpoena I had served on the Police Service, I came into possession of a document that suggested Mrs Crimmins had been barred from working in the brothel in which she had been previously employed because she was a drug addict, a liar and a thief. I could not put those allegations to her in cross- examination without having some corroboration of them, because I felt it would be unprofessional to put such allegations to a woman without having some corroboration of them. Accordingly, I rang the brothel and made an appointment to interview the madam. I took with me a senior solicitor, and I contacted her today to see whether I could mention her name in the course of the explanation. She is not the solicitor who was mentioned in evidence this morning; however, it was Ms Belinda Lonsdale, who has not been in my employ for many a long year and who is now a senior and well-respected independent criminal law barrister practising at Albert Wolff Chambers in Perth. I attended with Ms Lonsdale; no alcohol was taken to the premises; nothing untoward happened in the manner as suggested by Crimmins in evidence; and I interviewed the brothel madam who was able to confirm that she had banned Crimmins from the premises for her chronic drug taking and her lying and thieving at the premises. That occurred on a Friday evening. After the following weekend, I cross-examined Crimmins on the material I had obtained from the
10032 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003] brothel madam and Crimmins conceded that she was at the time a chronic drug addict, a psychiatric patient and probably had lied and thieved. I therefore wish to refute the allegations made against me in their entirety, save and except that I visited those premises purely in the course of my professional capacity as a defence barrister. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, I reassure all members of this Chamber; my beautiful fiancee, Michelle Stronach, who is supporting me today and is present in the Speaker’s gallery; my beautiful daughters Maggie May and Isabella who are at school today; my former wife Mary-Ellen; and all the women of Western Australia - Several members interjected. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: No, this is a very important matter to me. I reassure those people that I would never defile or exploit any woman by visiting a brothel in the manner described so despicably by Crimmins.
STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BILL 2003 Consideration in Detail Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting. Clause 21: Statement of reasons for decision - Debate was interrupted after the clause had been partly considered. Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: Prior to 90-second statements and the lunch suspension, we were dealing with clause 21 and the statement of reasons for decision. The question I raised with the Attorney was, what will be the process? As I understand clause 21, the tribunal can give a decision maker 28 days in which to provide to the person concerned, who would obviously be the applicant, a written statement containing the details of the reasons for the decision. The question I asked the Attorney was, will a process be put in place to short-circuit this to a great extent, and probably reduce the number of applications to the tribunal? In the public sector, that would mean that those people whose decisions are reviewed by the State Administrative Tribunal would automatically, as part of their work, provide written reasons when they make a decision. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Clause 21 is a major step forward for Western Australia in that in many cases, for the first time, a person who is the subject of a decision by government, a board or a tribunal will have the right to be provided with written reasons for the decision. It works in this way: under subclause (1), a person who wishes to challenge a decision may request a written statement of reasons for the decision. Under subclause (4), the decision maker who receives that request is to comply with the request in any case within the period of 28 days after the request is made. Therefore, there is that right. The question the member for Kingsley asked goes one step beyond that; that is, she asked whether anything is being put in place to short-circuit that process and to effectively require decision makers, when a decision is reviewable, to put their reasons in writing. I hope that we evolve to that point. I see this as a first step. If people know that the decision they make is reviewable, I would expect them to think through the reasons and to commit those reasons to writing in advance rather than after the event. At this stage we have not taken it beyond the right to request and receive reasons for the decision that is made. However, I hope that it will start to affect the culture of the public service and will evolve over time. Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: It may well be that the Attorney would like to bring clauses 21 and 22 to the attention of the Commissioner for Public Sector Standards. As such, she can issue a notice; or it could even be done through the Premier under an administrative instruction, so that reasons for decisions could be provided. It does not have to be done in legislation; it can be made part of the administrative process. A letter from the Attorney to the Premier requesting him to issue an administrative instruction, or to the Commissioner for Public Sector Standards bringing it to her attention, would short-circuit the process. Mr J.A. McGinty: Yes, I agree with that. Clause put and passed. Clauses 22 to 33 put and passed. Clause 34: Directions - Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: This clause refers to a speedy and fair conduct of the proceeding. However, subclause (2) deviates from what might be a speedy and fair conduct of the proceeding. It states - The tribunal’s power to give directions is exercisable by - (a) a legally qualified member; or (b) the presiding member if the Tribunal as constituted for a hearing does not consist of or include a legally qualified member.
[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003] 10033
If a matter is being heard and a direction needs to be given, but no legally qualified person is sitting on the tribunal, what will happen? I would have thought that this would delay the process and therefore make one of the complaints about this process being legalistic more valid. Mr J.A. McGINTY: The presiding member is the person who is presiding in a particular matter; it does not refer to the president of the tribunal. I believe that is the answer to the question. Clause put and passed. Clauses 35 and 36 put and passed. Clause 37: Intervening in proceeding - Mr J.A. McGINTY: I move - Page 26, lines 7 and 8 - To delete “Consumer Affairs as defined in section 5(1) of the Fair Trading Act 1987” and substitute the following - Fair Trading referred to in section 15 of the Consumer Affairs Act 1971 This change is to reflect the current legislative nomenclature for the Commissioner for Fair Trading. Amendment put and passed. Clause, as amended, put and passed. Clause 38 put and passed. Clause 39: Representation - Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: I raised the matter of representation in the second reading debate, and the Attorney responded. Representation will be by a person on his or her own behalf, or a party can be represented by another person who is a legal practitioner. There are a few limitations on that. For example, a party cannot be represented by a person other than a legal practitioner unless the party is a body corporate and the person is a director, or unless the party is a public sector body etc. Clause 39(1)(e) states that a party cannot be represented by a person other than a legal practitioner unless the regulations or the rules authorise it. I take it that the Attorney General was suggesting that when unions or other organisations wish to represent an applicant, the rules or the regulations could authorise that. The Australian Medical Association may want to represent doctors, for instance, and similarly, other members of professional bodies may wish to be represented by an association or an organisation. An individual may want to be represented by a union representative in a case that has nothing to do with an employer-employee relationship. Paragraph (e) does not provide certainty for those organisations. Given SAT will have a very strong disciplinary type function not along the lines of employer-employee disputes, it is important that the Attorney General consider an amendment to broaden the provision to include representation of persons appearing before the tribunal by their union or other associated body with more specific wording in the substantive part of clause 39, rather than leave it to the regulatory powers. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I agree with the sentiments raised by the member for Kingsley. We prefer not to be totally prescriptive about who can appear as representatives. One could think of a raft of bodies that have a representative function on behalf of members, such as a veterinary association, a racing association or trade unions. Rather than specify each of them and run the risk of excluding some, the idea that underpins clause 39 is set out in subclause (1)(a), which reads - the party is a body corporate and the person is a director, secretary, or other officer of the body corporate; That would immediately apply to strata titles matters and things of that nature. If a representative body is available, a member should be able to be represented by an officer of that body. That is the concept that underpins that clause. Paragraphs (d) and (e) make provision for somebody to appear on behalf of a body that represents a group of people. Paragraph (d) requires the tribunal to agree to that person representing the party, and (e) provides that the regulations or rules might authorise it in certain cases. We have not expressly listed them because of the point I made; namely, that some bodies might be left out and the difficulty of fully articulating whether they be trade unions on the one hand or professional associations on the other. A host of bodies might or might not fit within that provision. It is the policy intention of this clause to enable people to be represented by lay advocates on behalf of the organisation to which they belong. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: Why not include a very simple phrase in clause 39? If it can be written in simple terms in the regulations, it should be included simply in clause 39. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I do not disagree with the point the member is making. We thought it was covered by paragraphs (d) and (e) combined. It would enhance the nature of the legislation if it were an express provision. Representation is not excluded by (d) and (e) combined; we thought it was included. It is a matter of how far we are prepared to go to prescribe those situations. The intention is to allow the rules and regulations to pick up that concept.
10034 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003]
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: Under small claims, residential tenancies and other sections of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal legislation a person can be represented by a professional advocate. Why has this Government decided not to use that terminology, which leaves the situation open rather than specific as it is in this Bill? The need to seek approval from the tribunal and be assessed on individual cases will be more difficult. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have referred quickly to section 61 of the Victorian legislation to which the member for Alfred Cove referred. The provision in this Bill has been based significantly on the Victorian provisions. However, as a general practice in Western Australia, outside the legal profession, there is no concept of professional advocates. Some exist in the industrial relations arena. However, it is not a widespread practice. It seems as though it might be in Victoria; I am not sure. The potential to employ non-legal professional advocates appearing outside the industrial relations area is fairly limited. The Victorian legislation does not make provision for trade unions or the concept we were talking about with the member for Kingsley, of people who are officers of a representative body or a body that represents the professional or industrial interests of a group of people. That is not referred to in the Victorian legislation from which we have derived the concepts involved in this Bill. As I indicated, the concept of a significant body of people working as professional advocates is not our way of operating outside the industrial relations area. In relation to representation, as shown in clause 39(3) - A person who has been struck off the roll of practitioners of the Supreme Court cannot represent a party. Often in lay tribunals and occasionally in the industrial relations arena - Mrs C.L. Edwardes: And workers compensation. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Exactly. Often people who are struck off for dishonesty and incompetence appear in the lesser tribunals, as they perceive them, in which legal qualifications are not a prerequisite. There was initially some resistance to the concept of preventing struck-off legal practitioners from appearing. It seems to me to be a basic question of principle: if we want this tribunal to have integrity, struck-off lawyers should not be allowed to appear in it as lay advocates. I think this is a fairly important issue and one that I hope will flow into the workers compensation and industrial relations areas as a prohibition. The argument against that is that we would be punishing someone twice for being an incompetent or dishonest lawyer. I am a strong advocate of this provision being imported. If someone is struck off for any of those reasons we do not want them to have the conduct of someone else’s affairs in their hands as an advocate before a court or a tribunal. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: I am not concerned with subclause (3) as much as I am with general representation. If the words “professional advocate” were included that would allow unions to represent their members and members of the community, from whatever area, to select the person they feel is most appropriate to represent them at the tribunal. Clause put and passed. Clauses 40 to 42 put and passed. Clause 43: Fee for commencing proceeding - Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: To follow on from the member for Nedlands’ comment about fees, can the Attorney General confirm what process will be used by the tribunal to establish fees? I understood from what the Attorney General said earlier that it is proposed that all of the fees that are already in place for review decisions or for decisions by the original jurisdiction will remain, but no fees will be charged by the tribunal in those areas in which fees are currently not charged. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I can reconfirm that in areas such as mental health review and guardianship and administration, which relate to vulnerable people and in which no fee is currently applicable, there is no intention to impose a fee. In other areas we may want to standardise the fees for administrative purposes; for example, there may be two comparable tribunals and a dollar or two difference in the fees that are charged. It is likely that at some time in the future there will be a review of the fees charged. However, I would strongly resist the imposition of fees in the areas to which I have just referred and like areas. Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: Obviously when the tribunal is first set up there will not be a review of fees in order to standardise them, because that will mean that a lot of work will need to be done between now and the end of December. Other than the vulnerable areas of guardianship and administration and mental health review does the Attorney General propose to introduce a fee in any of the other areas in which currently no fee is provided for? Mr J.A. McGINTY: I cannot answer that question with an unequivocal yes or no. There may be anomalies within the system that will need to be ironed out. I have not received a proposal on this question. I cannot take it much further than that. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: Who would do that sort of work for you? Mr J.A. McGINTY: I presume it would come through the Department of Justice rather than the Department of Treasury and Finance, in the same way that, as the member may recall, in the closing days of her Government the power to set court fees was changed from a court rule to a departmental regulation. As a consequence Supreme and
[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003] 10035
District Court fees were adjusted significantly. The proposal is that the fees will be prescribed in the rules, and that will be done by the president of the tribunal. Initially the fees will be what they are now. I am not in a position to say there will not be an adjustment in the future. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: Treasury should have a full list of all of the fees that are applicable under the respective portfolios. That information might be a bit difficult to obtain. However, all of the agencies to which the referred legislation will apply should be able to give a list of their fees. It probably would not be that difficult to do a quick analysis of the fees. The information is readily available and it should be able to be done fairly quickly. Mr J.A. McGINTY: That is possibly the case. I can take it no further than to say I have no proposition before me at the moment to deal with this matter. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: Do you have any idea when this may occur? Mr J.A. McGINTY: No. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: In the Victorian legislation waiver of fees comes under section 132. This legislation is a modification of the Victorian legislation, yet the Government appears to be rushing it through without doing any homework that is applicable to Western Australia. Although I misheard the Attorney General’s comment the other day I did look through Hansard and I saw the comment that the Government has a lot more legislation to rush through. Mr J.A. McGinty: I would not have said anything like that! Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: I will find the quote for the Attorney General. The Attorney General promised us a lot more. Mr J.A. McGinty: But not to rush it through. We all need a lot of time for debate and consideration on these matters. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: It has been almost six years yet no work has been done in Western Australia on what this may cost. Mr J.A. McGINTY: If the suggestion in what I have just heard is that costings have not been done I would be very surprised, because I have already reported to the Parliament on what the costings of the tribunal will be. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: In that case would the Attorney General be happy to table the preliminary costings that have been done by the Government? Mr J.A. McGINTY: They are in the second reading speech. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: The full costings. Ms S.E. WALKER: I thought the Attorney General was about to give the member for Alfred Cove some costings so that we would all know what is going on. I want to raise a question about fees for the work that will be done by the Mental Health Review Board. I am concerned that the Attorney General has said that people who hope to access SAT about Mental Health Review Board matters will not be required to pay a fee. Why did the Attorney General not accept the Barker report recommendation that the board be collocated and aligned with SAT - a proposal that would contemplate that the board would continue to exist but under the auspices of SAT - and how will the Attorney General get away with not charging people a fee for accessing the board? As I understand the proposed organisational chart for SAT, which has been given out to various people, to try to get a matter heard by the board will be an extremely complex and difficult procedure. How will a person be able to access the board and how will an application be processed? Mr J.A. McGINTY: This clause is about fees. I appreciate that the member for Nedlands is asking about how the registry will process an application in respect of a mental health matter. The person will lodge the application in the registry, and the registrar will refer it to the relevant grouping, which will then convene a hearing. Ms S.E. WALKER: I understand that currently the board uses a sophisticated case tracking system - CTS. Will the tribunal take control of that system or will the board retain that system, with a separate system being set up under the State Administrative Tribunal? Mr J.A. McGinty: This clause deals with fees. Ms S.E. WALKER: What does this have to do with fees? Currently, if there is an application before the board, it has a sophisticated case tracking system. The board has that system in place to ensure that it meets its statutory and other obligations. I understand that it is obliged to undertake a large proportion of the matters it undertakes. A draft organisational structure for the Mental Health Review Board has been released. Is it true that instead of the board having just two full-time equivalents to follow the process, it will now have a very dysfunctional model? Under that dysfunctional model, an application will pass through, first, the case management area, which is the Guardianship and Administration Board and the Mental Health Review Board area, then go to scheduling and then to the decision makers, before the decision is tracked back through the system. From what I can glean from the proposed team structure, the system will change from the current model, which is a very succinct, coordinated and prompt system, to one that is very cumbersome and fragmented. Given this situation, has an analysis been done of how long a review will take the Mental Health Review Board and the time it will take once the review tracks through this very complex and unwieldy proposed team structure?
10036 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003]
Mr J.A. McGINTY: I am happy to answer the question posed by the member, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the clause before the House. We will be here until midnight or tomorrow morning, Mr Acting Speaker, if you allow debate to proceed on matters not currently before the House. To answer the member’s question, currently a provision in the Mental Health Act requires applications to be dealt with within eight weeks. That will continue. The procedures will be exactly the same. The tracking system and data will be moved from the existing provisions that apply to the Mental Health Review Board to the new system under the State Administrative Tribunal to ensure that best practice applies. Ms S.E. WALKER: I apologise. I was relating my question back to fees. Given that there will be a complex team structure, there must inevitably and ultimately be a bigger cost. We are changing from a system with two full-time employees to this structure, under which the application must go into a registry, bypass one team and then another and then be scheduled and so on. My question did relate to fees. I will be very surprised if a person does not have to pay fees for this process. I am also concerned because I understand there was absolutely no consultation with the Mental Health Review Board prior to the drafting of this legislation, which is very disturbing. The Mental Health Review Board deals with very serious issues in which people’s rights are forfeited. It makes very important decisions. I find it very disturbing that the Mental Health Review Board appears to have established a very succinct system, but it will be subsumed under this big structure, allegedly without imposing any fees and certainly without consultation. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr J.P.D. Edwards): I take the point the Attorney General made earlier. However, I have been listening to and trying to follow the line of argument of the member for Nedlands. She has kept her remarks relevant to fees. I understand that we could be here all afternoon, but obviously it is a matter of the member finding the question that will elicit the answer she wants. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Currently, no fees apply to applications before the Mental Health Review Board or the Guardianship Administration Board, and nor will they. Other provisions that might flow from that have nothing to do with fees. Clause put and passed. Clauses 44 to 53 put and passed. Clause 54: Mediation - Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: Earlier I asked the Attorney General a question about mediation and he gave me a satisfactory answer that mediation can occur once an application is made. If a directions hearing or a compulsory conference has been held, the tribunal may at any later stage of the proceeding refer all or any part of the matter for mediation. Given the fact that this clause specifically deals with mediation, can the Attorney General confirm that mediation can occur at an earlier point if there is the ability and willingness to do so? Mr J.A. McGINTY: A directions hearing can meld immediately into mediation, but nothing occurs before the directions hearing. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That was not exactly what you said earlier. Mr J.A. McGINTY: If that is the case, I apologise. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You must have a directions hearing and then you can go to mediation? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Yes, after the directions hearing. One could evolve straight into the other. The directions hearing is required because people need to know the subject matter and the peculiarities of the matter being dealt with. A matter cannot go to mediation until people know what it is, so the first hearing will be the directions hearing. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: Is the directions hearing not part of the proceedings? Mr J.A. McGinty: Yes, it is. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: The Victorian legislation provides that if a member of the tribunal is a mediator in a proceeding, he or she cannot constitute the tribunal for the purpose of hearing the proceeding. Why are we not allowing mediation to occur before the directions hearing before the tribunal? Mr J.A. McGINTY: The directions hearing or a compulsory conference, as prescribed in clause 54, identifies the real issues in dispute and the subject matter of the difference. It is just an essential requirement of natural justice. Clause 54(10) requires that if the mediator is a tribunal member, the member cannot take any further part in dealing with the proceeding after the mediation unless all parties agree. The intention is that people can be got together at fairly short notice for a directions hearing or a compulsory conference depending on the subject matter and that things will flow out of that once issues are identified. For those matters that are susceptible to mediation, I expect that will flow. It is a flexible procedure designed to be adapted to meet particular circumstances. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: In Victoria prior to a directions hearing a member of the tribunal can act as a mediator. The Attorney General is saying that cannot happen here. The Attorney General is saying that if, following the directions
[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003] 10037 hearing, someone acts as a mediator, under subclause (10) the matter cannot proceed unless all parties agree. That is a very different position from that in Victoria. It seems that the alternative disputes resolution allows for an alternative process to occur before the matter becomes adversarial. Why has the Attorney General not followed the model that has been adopted in Victoria to allow mediation before an adversarial approach is taken? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Some 87 per cent of the matters before the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal are residential tenancy matters dealing with conditions of leases, which are in the vast bulk of cases immediately amenable to informal mediation proceedings by the staff. That is not the nature of SAT. Clause put and passed. Clauses 55 to 58 put and passed. Clause 59 put and negatived. New clause 59 - Mr J.A. McGINTY: I move - Page 37 - To insert the following new clause - 59. Deciding questions of law (1) In this section - “question of law” means a question of law arising in a proceeding for decision by the Tribunal and includes a question of mixed law and fact. (2) Subject to subsection (10), a question of law is decided by the Tribunal according to the opinion of the presiding member if that member is a legally qualified member. (3) If the presiding member is not a legally qualified member but there is at least one sitting member who is a legally qualified member, a question of law is decided by the Tribunal according to the opinion of that legally qualified member, or according to the unanimous opinion of those legally qualified members if there are 2 or more of them. (4) The presiding member may choose to refer a question of law to the President whether or not the question has been decided under subsection (2) or (3). (5) If subsection (3) applies to a question of law, the presiding member is to refer the question to the President if - (a) the presiding member is requested to do so by a sitting member who is a legally qualified member (whether or not the question has been decided under subsection (3)); or (b) for any reason the question has not been decided under subsection (3). (6) Subsection (2) no longer applies to a question of law if the question is referred to the President under subsection (4). (7) Subsection (3) no longer applies to a question of law if the question is referred to the President under subsection (4) or (5). (8) If no sitting member is a legally qualified member, the presiding member is to refer a question of law to the President. (9) Subsection (10) applies to the resolution of a question of law if the presiding member is the President or the question is referred to the President under subsection (4), (5) or (8). (10) If this subsection applies to a question of law - (a) the question is decided by the Tribunal according to the opinion of the President or, if the President gives the question to another legally qualified member of the Tribunal for resolution, according to the opinion of that other member; or (b) the President may refer the question to the Supreme Court for decision by the Supreme Court as long as it is not a question of mixed law and fact. This new provision replaces the previous draft on how the tribunal will deal with questions of law. The previous draft did not work particularly well, especially in a case in which the tribunal is constituted by one person. The new version is clearer, easier to read and more comprehensive.
10038 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003]
Ms S.E. WALKER: Has an assessment been made of when this provision is likely to be used? Has an analysis been made of how many boards or tribunals will use a provision like this? Mr J.A. McGINTY: I am told that significant discussions between officers were held when the Town Planning and Development Act was looked at to align it with the provisions here. The Town Planning and Development Act deals with many, what might be termed, low-level legal matters. This new framework was designed to fit in with the Town Planning and Development Act provisions. Ms S.E. WALKER: Is it envisaged that in light of setting up the tribunal, a lot more questions of law and delays may be encountered? Mr J.A. McGINTY: I am assured not. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: On occasions when the tribunal sits, will the presiding member be someone from a government department? Subclause (3) refers to a presiding member not being a legally qualified member. That person would presumably be the chairperson, would he? Mr J.A. McGinty: Yes. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: Would it be someone from a government department when dealing with a particular issue? Mr J.A. McGinty: Never. People from government departments are prohibited from constituting the tribunal because a conflict of interest would inevitably arise. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: Will the tribunal be electing the presiding member at each meeting of the tribunal? Mr J.A. McGinty: The president will determine who is the presiding officer. For some matters it will be the lawyer or judicial member and in other matters it may be someone with expertise in a particular area; for example, if it is a town planning matter it might be a town planner. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: Will it be decided case by case? Mr J.A. McGinty: Yes. [Quorum formed.] Ms S.E. WALKER: It is lovely to see some members of the Government present for what must be the biggest Bill that has ever been introduced into the House. Has any consideration been given to the fact that lawyers before the tribunal could use new clause 59 to stall matters? The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr J.P.D. Edwards): I am aware that a quorum has just been formed and that people are still in the Chamber. However, if members wish to remain in the Chamber, would they please sit down? If they wish to have conversations, would they please do so outside? It is difficult for me to hear and it is difficult for Hansard. Ms S.E. WALKER: Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker; you are a gentleman. It is possible, through a series of boards and tribunals, for someone who wants to delay a matter to present an obscure question of law to a tribunal member who is not a lawyer or the Supreme Court judge. A matter could be delayed while it is sent to the Supreme Court. New clause 59(10)(b) could be applied. Has any consideration been given to the fact that these provisions may cause long delays? Currently, a point of law cannot arise. The Attorney General is opening a Pandora’s box. Mr J.A. McGINTY: These provisions will make expeditious determinations possible on questions of law. It will be rare to have a reference from the tribunal. The tribunal will have the power to punish through a series of costs any lawyer who abuses the process by seeking to take, as the member has described them, artificial or remote questions of law. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: The Victorian legislation states in section 107 that if more than one legally qualified member is present, the senior member makes the decision. If there is not a unanimous opinion, nothing in new clause 59(3) states that the senior person will make the decision. Will it automatically go to the president, who will be pulled in to review the facts? Will it then be the president’s decision? What will happen? Mr J.A. McGINTY: The answer is no. Section 107 of the Victorian Act requires that a question of law arising in a proceeding must be decided by a judicial member or a member who is a legal practitioner. In order to have expeditious determination of matters, the Western Australian Bill does not contain a provision of that nature. New clause 59(2) reads - . . . a question of law is decided by the Tribunal according to the opinion of the presiding member if that member is a legally qualified member. New clause 59(3) reads - If the presiding member is not a legally qualified member but there is at least one sitting member who is a legally qualified member, a question of law is decided by the Tribunal according to the opinion of that legally
[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003] 10039
qualified member, or according to the unanimous opinion of those legally qualified members if there are 2 or more of them. New subclause (8) reads - If no sitting member is a legally qualified member, the presiding member is to refer a question of law to the President. Subclause (10) of new clause 59 reads - If this subsection applies to a question of law - (a) the question is decided by the Tribunal according to the opinion of the President or, if the President gives the question to another legally qualified member of the Tribunal for resolution, according to the opinion of that other member; or (b) the President may refer the question to the Supreme Court for decision by the Supreme Court as long as it is not a question of mixed law and fact. That spells out the hierarchy. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: If the presiding member is an independent professional, and two independent members make up the tribunal, or if the two legal members are not in agreement - that is, it is not a unanimous decision - what happens? Mr J.A. McGinty: It will go to the president. Ms S.E. WALKER: The president may be sitting on some other matter and cannot just be called in. I think the member for Alfred Cove referred to the time frame involved. It may be that the president is sitting in a hearing on another issue. Under the proposed system, the president might be called in on any one of 142 matters on a point of law. Am I right in assuming that the president will not sit in the wings waiting to be called in? Too many things will be taking place. I foreshadow that people will start asking questions about the Act and all types of issues will arise. If the point of law is not answered straight away, delays will occur in the system. New clause put and passed. Clauses 60 to 64 put and passed. Clause 65: Special referees - Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: This provision deals with cases in which the tribunal may refer any question arising in a proceeding to a special referee for that referee to decide the question or to give an opinion. One can envisage that occurring in many circumstances. Technical expertise may be needed, or a new matter could be presented before a tribunal which may lead to an order for a party to contribute to or pay for the tribunal’s cost of obtaining the services of a special referee. If one of the 200 or 300 tribunal members had such expertise, no cost would be attached. I take it that a special referee would be required in very special circumstances. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I give two examples. A complex medical matter could be considered with a medical practitioner sitting on the panel, but it is considering an obscure area of medicine with few experts in Australia. It might be a particular speciality for which the advice of an expert is required. It may be a town planning matter with highly unusual engineering elements. I give those two examples in which the expertise may not exist on the tribunal. It would be rare. The experience with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal is that it is rare, and I understand that the comparable provision in New South Wales is rarely, if ever, used. Ms S.E. WALKER: I have referred to the Mental Health Review Board before in this place. A constituent of mine has dealings with this board, and I am concerned about this provision because that board has a level of expertise. Can the Attorney General tell me, firstly, who comprises the current Mental Health Review Board, and, secondly, how will their level of expertise be used under this Bill - that is, will it be called upon? If not, does the Attorney General see special referees being used for the purposes of carrying out the review board functions? Mr J.A. McGINTY: I am not in a position to recite the names of the 28 people on the Mental Health Review Board. However, I can tell the member that 16 members are doctors, the president is a lawyer and it contains a number of community representatives. Given the nature of the work of the Mental Health Review Board, I doubt whether clause 65 concerning special referees will apply. Ms S.E. WALKER: Will the Attorney General use the current 28 people? Will that expertise on the review board be used? Mr J.A. McGinty: That is the sort of expertise to be used. Ms S.E. WALKER: Has the Attorney General told them that their expertise will be used? Mr J.A. McGinty: Individually?
10040 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003]
Ms S.E. WALKER: Yes, obviously they have built up an expertise. Mr J.A. McGinty: No. Ms S.E. WALKER: Will the Attorney General forget about that level of expertise? Mr J.A. McGinty: No, we will make new appointments to coincide with the State Administrative Tribunal. Clause put and passed. Clauses 66 and 67 put and passed. Clause 68: Privilege against self-incrimination - Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: I raised a question about this clause in the second reading debate, to which the Attorney General responded. He indicated that the only privilege against self-incrimination is in criminal matters, not civil matters. Will the Attorney General confirm that the rights against self-incrimination under all the Acts that confer jurisdiction on the tribunal, and that are currently dealt with in the Supreme and District Courts, will not be removed as a result of this clause? Mr J.A. McGINTY: I think the answer to the question is yes. I will get clarification on that because a simple answer on some of the obscure provisions in a technical sense may be misleading. This is a standard provision that appears in a lot of Western Australian Acts relating to disciplinary bodies. I am told that this clause was taken from those Acts, although there might be some Acts in which this provision does not currently appear. However, I understand that this general provision applies to these matters. I responded in the way I did to the member’s question because I thought it was raised in the context of a right to silence. I indicated that the right to silence arises only in a criminal context. The privilege against self-incrimination, to the best of my knowledge, is different from that criminal context. To the best of my knowledge, it is a standard provision that applies, generally speaking. There may be some exceptions in which it does not apply, such as in disciplinary bodies; however, I am unaware of any areas in which it does not apply. Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: When we get to the third reading - which will not occur today - will the Attorney General identify where in the 200 Acts it applies or does not apply, whichever is the easier, so that people who currently have a review before the court will understand that this is a new provision that will apply to them? The provision will not be included in all of the Acts to be amended because they do not all have provision for a review. Mr J.A. McGinty: It is relevant only to disciplinary matters. I do not think it will be relevant to most other matters. Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: It may or may not. Not all of the Acts that confer jurisdiction on the tribunal have a right of review to the courts. Some Acts include a review process and some Acts do not. Mr J.A. McGinty: Yes. I will undertake to address that matter in the third reading debate. Clause put and passed. Clause 69: Other claims of privilege - Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: This clause deals with claims of privilege, except for subclause (2), which in its drafting appears to be out of context. Unless there is something in the clause that I am not reading, it should be dealt with separately under the clause on the production of documents rather than as another claim of privilege. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Parliamentary counsel advised that it should be provided for in that way. I am not sure why. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: Let us put it under clause 69. Clause put and passed. Clauses 70 to 83 put and passed. Clause 84: Enforcement of monetary order - Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: Clauses 84 and 85 deal with the enforcement of orders. One complaint that I receive from people consistently, and have received for years, is that when people are granted an order by a tribunal or court, they must take the order away with them and try to enforce it. In this clause they can be granted a monetary order or an order to rectify something, but they must personally enforce that order. Is there not a simpler system for carrying out an order within a number of days and, if it is not carried out, for the court rather than the individual to take action? I receive many complaints from people who get a copy of the order, for which they pay a fee, and they must then approach a court of competent jurisdiction to recover whatever is ordered to be reinstated, for which they pay another fee. People just give up because it costs them money every time they do something to get what they are due. Not only have those people been before a tribunal to get what they are due and received an order stating what they are due, but also, when the order is refused, they must pay a fee to serve the order to get what they are due. A much simpler, less complex system could have been incorporated in clauses 84 and 85 by giving the power to enforce the order to the tribunal, which would be something novel to the public.
[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003] 10041
Mr J.A. McGINTY: I agree that the member for Kingsley has identified the problem of enforcement. In a sense, this is a direct consequence of SAT not being a court. If it were a court, enforcement would be much more straightforward. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: You could give it the powers. Mr J.A. McGINTY: We could, but we would then invest it with the powers of a judicial body - a court. We have done our best to maintain that separation. It was essential to ensure that it was not a court and therefore did not have those trappings, apart from judicial leadership. That was the philosophical basis from which the clause came. Also, a view was expressed in the Department of Justice that SAT should not become a debt collection agency when facilities currently exist for that through the courts. The idea of having simplification in that area is admirable. Hopefully, when we get the next wave of reform after this reform, we can examine the civil recovery procedures in the Magistrate’s Court package of Bills and they will be simpler than the current fairly archaic procedures. Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: I await that with some interest, because if that system can be improved, the Attorney General will have the undying thanks of many people for whom it has been a problem for many years. I return to the Gotjamanos report. One recommendation that the report addressed was the very point referred to by the Attorney General; that is, the administrative tribunal is not a judicial body. Therefore, which body will carry out the enforcement of an order? The report canvassed the notion that it could be the Ombudsman. I quote from the executive summary - A significant matter considered by the review was the relationship between the proposed State AAT and the Ombudsman. The Review has proposed that there be a role established for the Ombudsman to investigate situations where a decision or order of the AAT, with respect to an application for review or appeal, is not acted upon . . . Obviously, in those instances it was the government department and/or agency that was being addressed. After quoting Professor Disney, who made a number of recommendations, Judge Gotjamanos stated - If the Ombudsman’s role was to be expanded in the manner as suggested by the Review then there would be many practical advantages and benefits to persons who have obtained a decision or order in their favour from the administrative appeals tribunal. Some of these advantages and benefits we suggest are: • an independent, quick and relatively informal means of follow-up is available to an aggrieved person; • a person who has already gone through the appeal process is not put to further inconvenience and expense by having to pursue the matter in another jurisdiction; • the matter can be pursued at no cost to the person affected. I implore the Attorney to consider this. This area causes enormous discomfort and cost, and involves a great deal of time. The fact is that people who have an order from a tribunal must go to the Local Court to get it enforced. They must pay for the order itself, and also pay a filing fee. They must then serve the order. More than $100 goes out of their pocket just to get the order enforced, apart from the fact that they would have made many phone calls about when things would be done etc. What if a government department or agency is involved? That is an appalling situation. If a government department or agency or a local government is not complying with the order, there should be some cost to it. This area is in serious need of review. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I could not agree more with the sentiments that have been expressed by the member for Kingsley. I hope that when the magistrates’ package comes forward, it will provide at least part of the answer to that problem. I also draw members’ attention to clause 94, which refers to a person who fails to comply with a decision of the tribunal. This legislation provides a penalty of $10 000 for that offence. That applies to decisions of the tribunal, but it does not apply to a monetary order, which is picked up under the clause with which we are dealing. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: Clause 85 deals with the enforcement of a decision other than a monetary order. If that is not complied with, there is a $10 000 penalty. Mr J.A. McGINTY: That is right. It is designed to deal with that part of it at least. However, I could not disagree with the broader sentiments the member has expressed. I receive those complaints regularly. Ms S.E. WALKER: It seems that the failure to comply would be pointless if a person did not have any money anyway; that is, if it were a small matter. I wonder how it will ever be enforced. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Decisions of the tribunal can relate to a raft of matters. For example, someone may fail to produce a document that he is directed to produce, or it may relate to any other decision of the tribunal. With 142 conferral Acts, one can imagine the extensive range of jurisdiction that is contained in this legislation and the great variety of circumstances in which decisions will relate to matters that will be caught by clause 94. Clause put and passed. Clauses 85 to 91 put and passed.
10042 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003]
Clause 92: Entry and inspection - Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: This clause provides that if the presiding member of the tribunal - it is not the president - considers it desirable, the tribunal may enter and inspect any place, either in the presence of or without the parties. Subclause (2) states - If land or a building is occupied by a person who is not a party, a power of entry . . . cannot be exercised unless - (a) the occupier has consented to the entry; It goes on. A third party is involved in the proceeding whereby the tribunal has powers of entry and inspection. I know that the Fish Resources Management Act and the Fishing and Related Industries Compensation (Marine Reserves) Act are a couple of the Acts that confer jurisdiction on the tribunal. They have always been identified as containing strong powers of entry and inspection. However, a number of other Acts that confer jurisdiction on the tribunal do not contain such powers. As I indicated in the second reading debate, we are not talking about bikies or people who essentially are being investigated for corruption. It is not the appropriate jurisdiction. I wonder why the Attorney considered it necessary to include the power of entry and inspection provided under clause 92. Mr J.A. McGINTY: The power of entry and inspection is taken from section 129 of the Victorian legislation and appears in substantially similar terms, except that we have extended it to vehicles and vessels. They are not included in the Victorian provisions. There is provision for motor vehicle dealers and certain fisheries matters to come within the jurisdiction of the State Administrative Tribunal. I presume they do not come within the jurisdiction of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Essentially, that is where it has come from. Perhaps the best example I can give is the need from time to time in a strata titles matter to view the subject matter of the dispute first-hand to have a clear mental picture of the nature of the dispute and a better understanding of the subject matter of the dispute. This is simply a provision to enable the tribunal, if the tribunal considers it desirable for the purposes of the proceeding, to go and have a look. Ms S.E. WALKER: Under the Mental Health Act 1996, is there provision for entry and inspection of people’s personal medical records etc? Mr J.A. McGinty: No. Ms S.E. WALKER: The tribunal will have that power now. It will be able to go to any doctor’s surgery anywhere and have the right of entry. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: With or without the parties. Mr J.A. McGinty: Yes, subject to the provisions of subclause (2). Ms S.E. WALKER: Is that also the case under the Medical Act 1894? Is that a provision currently? Mr J.A. McGinty: I am sorry, was the member’s question about the Medical Act? Ms S.E. WALKER: I am looking through the Bill to see which places officers of the tribunal will be able to enter under clause 92. What will happen when matters under the Psychologists Registration Act 1976 go before the tribunal? Can anybody go into a psychologist’s or psychiatrist’s office and look at records now? It seems to me that clause 92 is all about inspecting people’s personal, private records, including medical, psychological and psychiatric records. If that is the case, does the Attorney General think that this clause goes too far? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Each of the Acts that contain disciplinary conditions, for example, section 16 and in particular section 16B of the Veterinary Surgeons Act, provide the power to require and obtain information. Section 16B states - . . . (1) For the purposes of carrying out any investigation or inquiry in the course of carrying out his duties under this Act, the Registrar or an inspector may - (a) require any person - (i) to give him such information as he requires; and (ii) to answer any question put to him, in relation to any matter the subject of such investigation or inquiry; (b) require any person to produce any document relating to any such investigation or inquiry; (c) enter at all reasonable times and search any premises and inspect any documents that he finds thereon; and (d) make a copy . . . That type of power is a standard provision in relation to those disciplinary bodies. I refer the member to the Real Estate and Business Agents Act, which has more relevance, and has powers in almost directly comparable terms. Under
[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003] 10043 section 15 of that Act titled “investigative powers of Registrar and inspectors” the registrar and inspectors have all the powers I read out under the Veterinary Surgeons Act to do those things. Section 15 of the Real Estate and Business Agents Act states that for the purposes of carrying out any investigation or inquiry in the course of carrying out his duties under this Act, the Registrar or an inspector may - I will paraphrase the Act - require any person to give information, to answer questions, produce any document, enter at all reasonable times and search any premises and inspect any documents he finds thereon and make a copy etc. It is a fairly standard provision. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: We accept that in some of those Acts. Ms S.E. Walker: We are talking about people’s personal, sensitive information. Mr J.A. McGINTY: That is why I referred to the Real Estate and Business Agents Act Ms S.E. WALKER: We are talking about people’s most personal and sensitive documents. Under this Bill, people will be put in the position whereby members on the Mental Health Review Board, for example, will have a special database full of people’s very sensitive and personal information. The Government will not appoint people with expertise to the board. The Bill will allow any staff member of the tribunal to have the authority to go into a psychiatrist’s office, a doctor’s office, a psychologist’s office or any specialist’s office and access people’s personal, private details. This Bill goes too far. The Attorney General has not considered people’s privacy. He is not good on privacy. We know that from the Victims of Crime Amendment Bill. Even if it were in the legislation to amend the Mental Health Review Board, this Bill will allow people to access everybody’s personal psychiatric, psychological, medical and taxation histories. The Attorney General referred to the Real Estate and Business Agents Supervisory Board. Members of the tribunal will have access to everyone’s business dealings with the real estate board. The Bill will allow non-specialised people to be appointed to the tribunal, which is bad enough. The staff of the tribunal will be able to access people’s personal, private details. There is nothing wrong with the staff of the tribunal, but it will be open slather under this clause to access people’s personal, private information. I urge the Attorney General to have a good look at this clause and either eliminate it or tighten it. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: There is a similar clause in Victorian legislation. Under the Victorian legislation, an inspector can enter and inspect any land or building and is limited to inspecting only land or buildings; it does not go as far as allowing the inspectors to inspect records. It appears under this clause in the SAT Bill that an inspector can inspect any records within a building. Is it the Attorney General’s intention for the inspectors of the tribunal to have the authority to look at all the records in a building? Mr J.A. McGINTY: As the member for Alfred Cove has indicated, this provision comes from the Victorian legislation to a certain degree. Because of the jurisdiction of the Victorian body, the Victorian Act is somewhat more limited in what can be viewed and inspected. With regard to sensitive matters such as the provisions of the Mental Health Act or the Guardianship and Administration Act, there will be a confidentiality order associated with anything done under the provisions of those Acts. It seems appropriate to make provision for a tribunal to be well informed when making decisions on a wide range of matters. The extent to which the tribunal would wish to view any place, building, vehicle, vessel, or other thing, would be very much controlled by the subject matter of the dispute that is before the tribunal. One can readily envisage the necessity to inspect a property if it were a planning matter. That is in the current provisions of the Town Planning and Development Act. I cannot think of circumstances whereby it would be necessary or desirable to do so in relation to personal, private matters. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: If the complaint taken to the tribunal was work-related - say, a needle-stick injury in a hospital - would that not mean the tribunal had the right to enter the hospital, look at all the patients’ records, approach the patient or whoever was affected, talk to the staff member and examine any records at the general practice? Mr J.A. McGinty: SAT will not deal with needle-stick injuries. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: That was an example. Mr J.A. McGinty: The problem with giving examples of things that are not within the jurisdiction is that they can be misleading. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: What about another work-related injury? Mr J.A. McGinty: I cannot think of how it would come within the jurisdiction of SAT. All workers compensation injures are excluded. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: In which case, are there no powers within this Bill to examine patients’ medical records? Mrs C.L. Edwardes: Yes. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: Is that a yes or no from the Attorney General? Mr J.A. McGinty: Yes. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: There are powers for the tribunal to look at persons’ private medical records? Ms S.E. WALKER: If I am interpreting this clause as it reads, it is an outrageous infringement on the rights of people under the Mental Health Act. I am surprised that the Attorney General has come into this Chamber and does not know
10044 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003] what rights this Bill will take away from people under the Mental Health Act. It is a relevant question. When I asked him the question, he could not put his finger on it. Part 7 of the Mental Health Act contains detailed provisions for the protection of patients’ rights and their medical histories. What concerns me is that under this monolithic piece of legislation, entry and inspection by a staff member of the tribunal will be permitted. The Attorney General might say that a member of the tribunal must follow this legislation. The staff member will not have to follow it. I will be happy to be shown the clause in this Bill that will allow the Acts that will be subsumed within this to dominate. I will be the first person to go on the radio after Parliament finishes or to release a press statement telling people about the dangers of this Bill to not only themselves, but also their friends and family members with medical issues. Under the Medical Act, the Psychologists Registration Act and, I presume, other Acts, people’s private information is protected. I urge the Attorney General to have a really good look, between now and when we debate this Bill again, at the way this Bill affects people’s privacy rights. Mr J.A. McGinty: The member for Nedlands asked under which clause the primary Act overrode the SAT Act. Clause 5 achieves exactly the end that she is complaining about. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: I would like to hear the member for Nedlands continue with her line of questioning. Ms S.E. WALKER: Will the Attorney General tell me where it is in the Bill? Mr J.A. McGinty: Clause 5 of the SAT Bill. Ms S.E. WALKER: Thank you. Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: This is one of the issues that arises when we are trying to standardise and combine a lot of Acts. We are trying to link mental health, medical, psychiatrists’ registration and equal opportunity legislation etc. Some sections in the present Acts will be transferred, some will not be in an Act that will be within the tribunal’s powers and functions. The Opposition is saying that is not appropriate. Under this Bill, people’s privacy can be breached. Unless the Attorney General can tell us that the relevant provision is in each of those 142 Acts - it is not - people who currently are not subject to the entry and inspection power will be affected. Given that privacy issues and the like are involved, the powers in this Bill are over the top. It will give people the power to go into any place whatsoever, whether it be workplaces, hospitals, surgeries or homes, and inspect with or without the parties present. Vulnerable people will be affected; therefore, in the areas of privacy and confidentiality, the Bill’s powers should be limited. The Attorney General said people entering places would be bound by a confidentiality clause. However, should those people have the right to enter a doctor’s surgery or a psychiatrist’s surgery and inspect patients’ records? I do not believe so, particularly given that the presiding members of the tribunal will not be the only people who have that power. They can organise a staff member to enter and inspect. I accept that staff members are subject to all sorts of confidentiality, but should they have the powers provided in this Bill? Consent by the party involved is not required. The party does not have to be present when someone enters. I do not see why the powers cannot be limited in those instances. Mr J.A. McGINTY: The purpose of referring to clause 5 of this Bill is to point out that the scheme of the State Administrative Tribunal arrangement is to leave intact everything that applies to the existing boards and tribunals and in each of the conferral Acts. Clause 5 provides that - If there is any inconsistency between this Act and an enabling Act, the enabling Act prevails. I take that to mean that any rights of entry and inspection are to be read subject to rights of privacy, confidentiality arrangements and protections built into those other Acts. It should be borne in mind that the right of entry and inspection is a procedural provision to enable the tribunal, if it thinks it desirable for the purpose of proceedings, to enter and inspect. It is comparable to the Victorian provision on which our legislation is based. I am not aware of any issues being raised in Victoria. I think members opposite are trying to make more of this than appears. Ms S.E. WALKER: The Attorney General is wrong. I am not sure whether the department has looked at the Psychologists Registration Act 1976. The Attorney General has not done so. I do not see anything in this Act that prevents persons on the board taking or looking at any of the documents in the office. That function will now be undertaken by a tribunal member. The tribunal member may be a non-legal person. The person making the complaint may also be a non-legal person. The non-legal tribunal member may say that under this Bill he has the right to send Jim Smith, a clerk, to a person’s rooms and take all of that person’s documents. Clause 5 will not protect people’s rights. That is a fundamental flaw in the Bill. The Attorney General thinks we are trying to make something out of this. We are not. It is there in black and white. The Attorney General has told us that the expertise of the Mental Health Review Board will not necessarily be taken over to the tribunal. A non-legal person on the tribunal may be dealing with an issue under the Mental Health Act. How will he know how to read legislation? He will not know. This is a very dangerous piece of legislation. I do not care what the Victorian legislation says. We do not know whether, when the Victorian Bill was prepared, it was highly organised or was all over the shop like this Bill. Nothing has been prepared to show us what work has been done on this Bill. I bet that if I were to ask the Attorney General
[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003] 10045 whether he has consulted the experts on the Mental Health Review Board on how the Mental Health Act will coexist with the SAT Bill, the answer would be no. The Attorney General has not had the decency to speak about the Bill to the stakeholders in any of the boards that are currently set up. He has not had the decency on behalf of the citizens of Western Australia to make sure that their rights will be protected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: The problem with the point raised by the member for Nedlands is that the very powers she complains of in relation to psychologists are already contained in section 42(8) of the Psychologists Registration Act, which provides that the board may inspect documents or other exhibits before it and may retain them for a reasonable period. A range of powers already exist in that Act. If it makes it worse to retain an existing power, that highlights the futility of the exercise the member is engaged in. Ms S.E. WALKER: We know it will make it worse, because the tribunal is to be given the power of the board. Section 43(8) of the Psychologists Registration Act refers to the board. The Bill provides that a staff member can become the board for the purpose of carrying out some of its responsibilities, otherwise what the Attorney General has said does not make sense. We should not be here today doing this. This should all have been done beforehand. I bet the Attorney General did not have a meeting with the psychologists registration body either to ask it how this Bill will affect it. Mr J.A. McGinty: We have had two meetings. Ms S.E. WALKER: Is that since the Bill has been prepared? Did the Attorney General discuss with the Mental Health Review Board the privacy rights of individuals in this State? Mr J.A. McGinty: You started out by saying you bet we had not had any meetings. We have had two meetings. Ms S.E. WALKER: I know the Attorney General has a silver tongue, but the truth is that the Attorney General did not have a comprehensive meeting with the Mental Health Review Board and other people in this State on the preparation of this Bill. Mr J.A. McGinty: You said no meetings. Ms S.E. WALKER: I said no meetings on the preparation of the Bill. The Attorney General went to them afterwards and said, “Here is the Bill.” That was his community consultation. That is why he will have a major problem with this Bill. The Attorney General will now be giving people open slather to send staff to access a person’s private medical records. Mr J.A. McGinty: That is not true and you know it. Ms S.E. WALKER: It is true. Clause put and passed. Clauses 93 to 98 put and passed. Clause 99: Contempt - Mr J.A. McGINTY: I move - Page 57, line 9 - To delete “civil proceedings” and substitute “a proceeding”. The purpose of this amendment is as follows: the removal of the word civil when referring to contempt is in line with the imminent recommendations of the WA Law Reform Commission, and this has been amended in consultation with the commissioners. Amendment put and passed. Clause, as amended, put and passed. Clause 100 put and passed. Clause 101: Arrest - Ms S.E. WALKER: Is there any provision in the Bill for keeping a person in custody; and, if so, where is it? Mr J.A. McGINTY: The provision is contained in subclause (2), which provides for the issue of a warrant. The warrant would be executed by the police, who would apprehend the person named in the warrant and bring that person before the tribunal. The tribunal would have the power for that purpose to detain the person named in the warrant in custody until released by order of the tribunal or on review by order of the Supreme Court. The person would be detained by the police in the manner in which the police detain any other citizen subject to an arrest warrant. Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: Again, like other parts of the SAT Bill, this clause is a little excessive. I refer to the recent case of John Kizon and the federal body and the fact that he was overseas at a particular time. A summons may very well have been issued on him. He was aware of it; yet - I do not wish to comment on the decision that was made - he was able to recover costs against the Government for that action. In these types of circumstances, the powers have been given to the tribunal. I note that clause 5 provides that the enabling Act will prevail if there is any inconsistency. How
10046 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003] far will that go? At what point will that provision need to be changed? What does inconsistency mean? Does it apply to substantive issues, such as arrest powers and entering and inspection powers? How will that provision apply to an inconsistency in the standardisation of fees? To some extent I am not convinced that the enabling Act will apply when there is an inconsistency. These are new powers and functions. I have not had a chance to go over some law books that are available in the Parliament. Has the Attorney General received any legal advice on how clause 5 will be interpreted in light of the Opposition’s concerns about what we see as excessive powers for those bodies that do not currently have such powers? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Clause 5 is intended to ensure that when interpreting the interaction of the two Acts - I can readily envisage a number of occasions on which that will be necessary - the primary Act will be the substantive Act, not the State Administrative Tribunal Act, as it will be; it will be the enabling Act. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: No. I am not convinced that that will be the case when dealing with the powers and functions of the tribunal. You are not dealing with the substance of the enabling Act. Mr J.A. McGINTY: The intention of the policy is to ensure that the substantive Act will prevail. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: By the substantive Act, do you mean the enabling Act? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Yes. To the extent that there is any inconsistency, it will fall into the same category as issues provided for under section 109 of the Australian Constitution. To the extent that there is any inconsistency, the enabling Act will prevail. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: However, that is only when it addresses or does not address an issue. In this instance, you are talking about the fact that the enabling Act does not address a power of arrest; therefore, you are saying that the enabling Act will apply. I don’t think you’re right in that interpretation. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I also take the view that it deals with not only a situation in which one Act is silent and the other speaks on a matter, but also a situation in which the interaction of the provisions of the two Acts gives rise to an inconsistency. In those circumstances, the enabling Act will prevail. It might well be that if the privacy or confidentiality provisions that need to be interpreted together in the enabling Act are inconsistent with certain powers in the SAT legislation, the other provisions of the SAT legislation must be read to give effect to the provisions in the conferral legislation. That is what I understand this provision to mean. Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: I can only hope that the Attorney General is right in his interpretation. Mr J.A. McGinty: It is certainly the intention. Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: It may well be the intention. We know that the courts usually read Hansard to find out what the intention was, but sometimes they do not. Mr J.A. McGinty: I had an example of that just last week. The intention of a certain Bill to repeal another Act was manifestly clear and stated to be the case. We spent two days before the High Court arguing about what was intended and what its legal effect was. Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: My opinion of the Attorney General’s interpretation is totally different from what he believes his interpretation to be. Mr J.A. McGinty: The difference is that it was my Bill. Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: That is a point to be made. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: The point that the member for Nedlands has made is that a judicial officer need not be involved, but even if a judicial officer is involved, there will always be differences of opinion in interpretation. We are saying that it is not sufficiently clear. At this point, when dealing with the powers and functions of the tribunal, not with the substance of the enabling Act, it may well be interpreted that the powers and functions of the tribunal will apply first and foremost. We believe that in some instances it is definitely over the top and is far more than many people deserve. For instance, the mental health and guardianship boards have been mentioned. What about the equal opportunity board? The people who are dealt with by those boards have already been regarded as victims, and may be further victimised under the powers that will be exercised by this tribunal. I strongly suggest that these powers be watered down so that they are limited and far more restrictive, particularly when dealing with vulnerable people. We are not dealing with people who catch 20 crayfish when they are allowed only five. We are dealing with people who are, in certain circumstances, vulnerable and we do not want to further victimise them. Ms S.E. WALKER: In which of the 142 Acts that will be amended by this Bill does this provision already appear? Mr J.A. McGINTY: It does not currently appear in the various enabling Acts. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: In any of them? Mr J.A. McGINTY: I cannot think of one in which it appears.
[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003] 10047
Ms S.E. Walker: What is the point? Mr J.A. McGINTY: I will tell members the point. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: Particularly clause 5 applies. Ms S.E. Walker: That is my point exactly. Mr J.A. McGINTY: The reason that these matters will now be dealt with by SAT is that the proceedings of a number of the boards that have had to deal with these matters can be frustrated by the failure of a person to attend. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: Will it apply or not? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Will the power to summon someone to appear apply? Yes. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: No - the power to arrest. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Only if the person has been summoned to appear. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: If it is not in any of the 142 Acts - Mr J.A. McGINTY: Yes, it will, subject to any qualification that is placed on that. I cannot think of one. Yes, there will be the power to arrest. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: No. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Sorry, I do not understand the question. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: Is it in any of the 142 Acts? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Not to the best of my knowledge. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: Then, under clause 5, what is the value of it? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Sorry, I do not understand the question. Ms S.E. Walker: You said that if the Bill is inconsistent with the enabling Act, the enabling Act will prevail. Mr J.A. McGINTY: It is an additional power; there is no inconsistency there. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: We rest our case. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I am not sure what the member’s case was. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: The case is that exceptional powers, which are not in current legislation and which give jurisdiction, have been put into this legislation. If clause 5 applies, why is the arrest provision in the Bill if it is not in any of the 142 Acts, because, if your interpretation is correct, it can never be used? Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, not at all. There must be an inconsistency. The fact that one Act is silent and the other prevails does not give rise to an inconsistency; it gives rise to different provisions. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is exactly what we are saying. If the entry and inspection power is not currently in an enabling Act, and it is silent on the fact, this Bill will apply. Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, the member must have misunderstood what I said before. There must be an inconsistency. That inconsistency can be a direct repugnancy or it can be the operation of the two clauses; that is, both clauses cannot be satisfied and one needs to be read in the light of the other. In relation to the power to arrest, the provision has been taken from the Victorian provision and is supported by the experience in our own boards and tribunals, whereby someone can thumb his nose at the law by refusing to respond to a summons. We are making provision for an arrest power. I cannot think of how that could be inconsistent with the provisions of any of the basic Acts, unless provisions in those Acts refer to the way in which people are to be treated before those tribunals, which would then be an inconsistency. However, I cannot think of an example. Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: I go back to the entry and inspection power. If it is silent in an enabling Act - Mr J.A. McGinty: That is not an inconsistency in my view. Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: Those enabling Acts do not contain the power of arrest but it is in this Bill. Why is that not an inconsistency? Mr J.A. McGINTY: They are different provisions but it does not mean they are inconsistent. When the two pieces of legislation are read together, one says that there is the power to arrest someone who does not comply with a summons. The only inconsistency could arise if some of the enabling Acts contained a provision which said that if someone does not turn up, he or she is to be given a slap over the wrist or is not to be arrested. That would be an inconsistency. Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: An entry and inspection power is contained in the Bill but may not be in an enabling Act. Therefore, the only inconsistency that would apply is if it were said that people could enter but they must do so with permission and, therefore, one provision would apply and another would not. Where an Act is silent, the Attorney
10048 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003]
General is saying that it is not an inconsistency and the entry and inspection powers would apply. Therefore, entry and inspection powers now apply under the Mental Health Act, the Guardianship and Administration Act, the Equal Opportunity Act and all those other Acts to which the power currently does not apply. Mr J.A. McGinty: That is right. Ms S.E. WALKER: None of the 142 Acts contains arrest provisions, according to the Attorney General, but now people will be arrested. What happened? If someone forgets to turn up for a Mental Health Review Board hearing, as people do, he or she will now be arrested. This is a very dangerous piece of legislation. I have said this before to the Attorney General when dealing with other Bills. He has pooh-poohed it, but next time we have dealt with the legislation it has been amended. It is outrageous that there can now be a provision that allows a staff member of a tribunal to access someone’s psychological, psychiatric, medical, State Revenue Office or any other records. People without any legal experience have gone along to a tribunal and have managed to have a matter resolved. There will now be several problems. A person might go along to a tribunal and be dealt with by people who have no expertise. We do not know, because the people who do have expertise will not necessarily be drafted onto a tribunal. People with no experience will be able to make arrests and direct staff to access people’s personal, private and confidential information. The Attorney General needs to have a really good look at this legislation. Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: I reiterate that we have now reached a position in which the only inconsistency will be when an enabling Act would apply and two provisions can be read as applying to the same matter. If it is a new provision under the Bill, such as the entry, inspection and arrest power, it will apply when other legislation is silent. That is what we have been saying. It is excessive when compared with all the pieces of legislation that we are dealing with. Clause put and passed. Clause 102 to 144 put and passed. Clause 145: President to advise Minister - Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: What is the need for this clause and why is it included? I want to get to the president’s role and that of the chief executive officer by virtue of the chief executive officer having powers under the Public Sector Management Act. Who will approach the Attorney General for the budget? Who will approach him to say that super- duper equipment is needed to enable the tribunal to function in an efficient way? Who will the Attorney General approach when he wants to ask how the listings are going and what the delay process is? What is the relationship between the Attorney General and the president? Who does the Attorney General approach to learn about the ordinary running of the administration? Mr J.A. McGINTY: The position is no different from when the member was the Attorney General of this State. One would generally discuss with the head of the jurisdiction matters relating to budget resourcing and structural changes in courts. One would not approach the executive officer, because the executive officer’s responsibility would be for the day-to-day administration of the court. I am sure that things have not changed that dramatically. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: The president could approach the Attorney General and say that the tribunal needs an extra 20 staff, but if the Attorney General wished to ask questions appropriately of an individual staff member under the Public Sector Management Act, he would have to approach the chief executive officer, would he? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Yes, that would be the line of responsibility. I suspect that in a budgetary sense it would be most likely the CEO of the Department of Justice and the president - although specifically with SAT, as the member would have found during her time as Attorney General when dealing with the various heads of jurisdictions, the president will be a head of a jurisdiction. Clause put and passed. Clause 146: Executive officer and other staff of Tribunal - Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal has a chief executive officer appointed under its Act. The Attorney General is providing for the Director General of the Department of Justice to operate essentially in the same way. Public servants may be in charge of each of the courts. However, at the end of the day they report up the line through the director general to the Attorney General. The same sort of situation is provided for in the tribunal as it presently operates under the Supreme Court. Mr J.A. McGinty: Yes, that is right. Clause put and passed. Clause 147 put and passed. Clause 148: Annual reports of the Tribunal - Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: I had a very short briefing. I was under the impression that I would have another briefing before the Attorney General came to the Table, so I would have an opportunity to meet with the parliamentary draftsperson. During the briefing I was told that the boards and bodies which currently have grievance or complaints
[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003] 10049 committees were following the passage of this Bill and would be required to put forward a list of grievances or complaints which would be tabled in Parliament. Mr J.A. McGinty: What complaints? Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: These are general complaints. One of the concerns is that, for example, general complaints might go to the Nurses Board of Western Australia but matters such as deregistration and serious offences might go to the tribunal. Who will make decisions on those offences? As a result of the costs involved, many offences that professional groups would like to see go to the tribunal will stay with the professional boards. I was told at the briefing that information on the complaints and grievances considered by groups such as the Medical Board and Nurses Board will be tabled in Parliament. SAT will consider those tabled reports, and if matters being dealt with by grievance or complaints committees should be directed to the tribunal, the State Administrative Tribunal will have words and ensure that appropriate complaints are directed to SAT. I am not sure whether this fits under the annual reports provisions of the Bill. I am very concerned that I have not had time to ensure there is equality with the handling of grievances and complaints among various groups. What will happen to groups operating with such complaint bodies at the moment? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Each of the many Acts that deal with disciplinary matters to which the member refers will have a provision included that is complementary to the provision we are now discussing concerning the annual report of SAT. As the member rightly identified, clause 148 will require the president to submit to the minister an annual report to include details on the number, nature and outcome of matters that come before the tribunal. Obviously, SAT will report only on matters before SAT. Each of the bodies that retain a disciplinary function will have a similar provision inserted in the legislation. Proposed section 18A of the Psychologists Registration Act - clause 1013 of the State Administrative Tribunal (Conferral of Jurisdiction) Amendment and Repeal Bill - refers to the annual report. The new provision to be inserted is similar to the provision established for SAT. Proposed section 18A of the Psychologists Registration Act reads - The Board’s annual report is to include details of - (a) the number, nature and outcome, of - (i) investigations and inquiries undertaken by, or at the direction of, the Board; and (ii) matters that have that have been brought before the State Administrative Tribunal by the Board; (b) the number and nature of matters referred to in paragraph (a) that are still outstanding; (c) any trends or special problems that may have emerged; (d) forecasts of the workload of the Board in the year after the year to which the report relates; and (e) any proposals for improving the operation of the Board. This will ensure that tribunals at both levels - those exercising the summary disciplinary jurisdiction and that exercising SAT’s substantial jurisdiction - will be required to report to Parliament in each year with statistical information about what has taken place. There will be an overlap. The boards are required to report the number of matters they have been referred to SAT, and SAT must report on the number of matters received. A reconciliation of the two will occur. The scheme will ensure that Parliament is advised of matters that come before SAT. It applies to the disciplinary area as well as those before SAT. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: I am pleased to hear that those instances will be reported to Parliament. I assume that groups in the list provided today by the Attorney General will be required to provide an analysis of the complaints that come before them. Mr J.A. McGinty: Yes. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: It still means that there will not be equality with the professional groups. Some professional bodies are currently undertaking to look into minor grievances, but that role is not written into their legislation. That applies with the veterinary surgeons and, no doubt, many others. If the Bill had stayed on the Table for another week, I would have had the opportunity to see whether a clause could have been drafted to allow those groups a certain timeframe to continue in that role while their Acts were updated. I am a little disappointed the Attorney General is pushing the Bill through so quickly today. If something can be drafted in the meantime, will the Attorney General consider bringing this Bill back to reconsider such a clause at a later stage of the Bill’s progress? Mr J.A. McGINTY: I think I covered that matter in my second reading speech and my reply to the second reading debate. Clause put and passed. Clauses 149 to 171 put and passed. Title put and passed.
10050 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003]
MANAGING DIRECTOR OF WESTERN POWER Statement by Minister for Energy MR E.S. RIPPER (Belmont - Minister for Energy) [5.18 pm] - by leave: I have this afternoon spoken to the Chairman of Western Power, Mr Malcolm Macpherson, and the Managing Director of Western Power, Dr Stephen van der Mye, concerning allegations made by the Opposition about the travel arrangements of the managing director. The Opposition alleged that Dr van der Mye had maintained his principal place of residence in Melbourne, and implied that he had flown to Melbourne every weekend since his appointment spending “as much time in Melbourne as he does in Perth”. It was further alleged that Dr van der Mye used taxpayer-funded “limousines” to commute to and from the airport. I am advised that - (1) Dr van der Mye took up his appointment on 28 April 2003. It extends until December 2004, and therefore is relatively short term to manage the transition of Western Power into four separate public corporations. (2) Dr van der Mye lives in Perth but has travelled to Melbourne at weekends to see his family, including school- aged children. (3) Dr and Mrs van der Mye are currently considering longer-term living arrangements in the best interests of all family members. (4) Dr van der Mye has travelled to Melbourne on 10 occasions since he took up his appointment around 15 weeks ago. (5) Typically, Dr van der Mye departs Perth on a Friday, but on occasions he has left early to attend board meetings of other companies of which he is a director, as agreed by the Western Power board on his appointment. (6) Importantly, Dr van der Mye travels to Melbourne at his private expense. On only one occasion, when Dr van der Mye was required to attend an Electricity Supply Association of Australia Limited Board meeting, was the expense met by Western Power. (7) Dr van der Mye uses private charter hire cars for travel to and from the airport, again at his private expense. In the opinion of the chairman and me, Dr van der Mye is fully and properly discharging his duties as managing director. In the light of these facts, the Opposition’s personal attack on Dr van der Mye is completely unwarranted. Dr van der Mye deserves a full and unreserved apology. House adjourned at 5.20 pm ______
[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003] 10051
QUESTIONS ON NOTICE
Questions and answers are as supplied to Hansard.
SCHOOL CROSSING ATTENDANTS, TRAVEL ALLOWANCE 1514. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services I refer to recent changes in the employment conditions governing school crossing attendants, and the abolition of the travelling allowance (if the distance travelled to and from is less than 10 kilometres from their home) which replaced a travel allowance for any distance travelled, that was always paid to relief traffic wardens, who are required to travel to a number of different locations, often at short notice, to fill a temporary vacancy at a crossing and ask will the Minister advise - (a) how many relief traffic wardens are employed by the Department of Transport; (b) for the financial years 2000/2001 and 2001/2002, what was the total number of hours relief traffic wardens were employed; (c) for the financial year 2000/2001 and 2001/2002, what was the total amount paid to relief traffic wardens, and at what rate of pay; (d) for the financial year 2000/2001 and 2001/2002, what was the total amount of travel allowance paid to relief traffic wardens, and for what number of kilometres travelled; (e) following the restriction of the travelling allowance, what is the projected savings to the Department of Transport for the financial years of 2002/2003 and 2003/3004; (f) why were the conditions of the travelling allowance restricted in this way; (g) the details of the consultation process carried out before this decision was made, and provide a list of the make up of any and all consultation bodies; (h) were any members of this consultation group properly authorised to act as industrial representatives of the relief traffic wardens; (i) if there was no properly authorised representative in the consultation process to speak on behalf of the relief traffic wardens, will the Minister explain why a decision to change the traffic allowance entitlement was made without this input; (j) if the Minister will table a copy of the minutes of these meetings, its recommendations, and the manner in which it ensured the consultation process was inclusive of the views of relief traffic wardens; and (k) if the Minister has received any requests from relief traffic wardens that this decision to change the travelling allowance conditions be reviewed, and is the Minister willing to do so? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: The Western Australia Police Service (WAPS) advise that the Department of Transport do not employ Traffic Wardens. All Wardens are employed by WAPS. WAPS further advise: (a) WAPS currently employ 54 Metropolitan and 43 Country Relief Traffic Wardens. (b) The previous payroll system did not record the type of warden (relief or assigned) and extensive research would be required to identify which wardens were relief wardens. The Traffic Warden State Management Unit or the Police Service would have to divert resources from more important and pressing duties to analyse and present this information and as such the information requested is unable to be provided. (c) The current rate of pay is $14.16 per hour. For the reasons stated in (b) the information requested is unable to be provided. (d) The total amount of motor vehicle allowance paid to Relief Traffic Wardens, 2000/2001 = $190,810.57 and 2001/2002 = $162,094.62. For the reasons stated in (b) the information requested is unable to be provided. (e) There are no projected savings to the Police Service. (f) The travelling allowance was in fact expanded to include all Traffic Wardens who travelled more than five kilometres from their place of residence to their allocated crossing. Adjustments were made to
10052 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003]
the Motor Vehicle Allowance (MVA) Claim System so that all Traffic Wardens would be employed under an equitable system. (g)-(i) A review panel, comprising two Traffic Wardens nominated by the staff of the Traffic Warden State Management Unit (TWSMU), two Traffic Wardens nominated by the Traffic Wardens’ Social Club, a representative from the WA Police Industrial Relations Branch, the Administration and Training Officer of the TWSMU, and the Manager TWSMU, met to consider changes in the contracts to be offered to Traffic Wardens for 2003. The only body which has approached management on behalf of Traffic Wardens to discuss their employment issues has been the Traffic Wardens’ Social Club. Relief Traffic Wardens were represented by one of the Traffic Wardens who had been employed to undertake that role. The Police Service considered this reasonable given that Relief Traffic Wardens comprise approximately 10% of all Wardens employed by the WA Police Service. (j) The Police Service’s minutes of the Meeting held 12 December 2002 are attached. [See paper No 1377.] (k) Three letters were received. The Traffic Warden State Management Unit conducted a further review in April 2003 and recommended that no further changes be made. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, CREDITORS 1522. Hon. C.L. Edwardes to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services For each Department and Agency within the Minister’s portfolio, will the Minister provide from each agency or department financial system - (a) the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 30 days, as at 30 June 2001; (b) the amount and number of creditors outstanding for greater than 30 days and less than or equal to 60 days, as at 30 June 2001; (c) the amount and number of creditors outstanding for greater than 60 days and less than or equal to 90 days, as at 30 June 2001; (d) the amount and number of creditors outstanding for greater than 90 days and less than or equal to 120 days, as at 30 June 2001; (e) the amount and number of creditors outstanding for greater than 120 days, as at 30 June 2001; (f) the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 30 days, as at 30 June 2002; (g) the amount and number of creditors outstanding for greater than 30 days and less than or equal to 60 days, as at 30 June 2002; (h) the amount and number of creditors outstanding for greater than 60 days and less than or equal to 90 days, as at 30 June 2002; (i) the amount and number of creditors outstanding for greater than 90 days and less than or equal to 120 days, as at 30 June 2002; and (j) the amount and number of creditors outstanding for greater than 120 days, as at 30 June 2002? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: Fire and Emergency Services Authority The Fire and Emergency Services Authority advise: Amount Number of Creditors (a) $906,366 251 (b) $243,706 43 (c) $30,690 15 (d) Nil (e) Nil (f) $822,710 198 (g) $128,698 31 (h) $1,959 10 (i) $477 7 (j) $2,029 18 Western Australia Police Service The WA Police Service advise:
[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003] 10053
Amount Number of Creditors (a) $2,669,116 2155 (b) $49,194 59 (c) $6,937 23 (d) $4,642 12 (e) $305,826 14 (f) $7,362,870 2094 (g) $27,847 80 (h) $29,674 35 (i) $6,965 16 (j) $6,190 24 In addition to the above there are also accounts in the clearing account that have not yet been approved for payment (the goods have been received, but the invoice has not been processed within the accounts payable system). It is not possible to classify these amounts into periods of 30 days, 60 days and similar. The total amount at 30 June 2001 was $895,480, and 30 June 2002 $1,010,711. GORDON INQUIRY, IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS 1723. Mr T.K. Waldron to the Premier I refer to the Government’s Response to the Gordon Inquiry and ask, in relation to the Government’s short-term commitments as detailed on page v - (a) in relation to the commitment to employ 10 additional Child Protection Workers will the Premier advise - (i) how many Child Protection Workers are currently employed in Regional Western Australia; (ii) where are each of these Child Protection Workers currently located; (iii) how many of the 10 additional Child Protection Workers have been appointed in Regional Western Australia; and (iv) where have each of these additional Workers been appointed; (b) in relation to the commitment to employ 8 specialist Domestic Violence Police Officers in country police districts will the Premier advise - (i) how many specialist Domestic Violence Police Officers are currently employed in Regional Western Australia; (ii) where are each of these specialist Domestic Violence Police Officers currently located; (iii) how many of the 8 additional specialist Domestic Violence Police Officers have been appointed in Regional Western Australia; and (iv) where have each of these additional Officers been appointed; and (c) in relation to the commitment to expand the Strong Families case management program to 4 new locations and maintain the Indigenous Family Program, will the Premier advise; (i) what Strong Families case management programs currently operate in regional Western Australia; (ii) where are they located; (iii) will any of the 4 new locations be in regional Western Australia; (iv) if so, where; (v) does the Indigenous Family Program operate from any regional area; and (vi) if so, where and what number of staff are involved? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: (a) Under the Government’s Response to the Gordon Inquiry, Putting People First, the Government committed to the appointment of a total of 25 new Child Protection Workers. (i)-(ii) There are currently ten Child Protection Workers located throughout Regional Western Australia, specifically in Albany, Broome, Bunbury, Geraldton, Hedland, Kalgoorlie, Karratha, Newman, Northam and Mandurah. (iii)-(iv) Of the 25 new Child Protection Workers, 10 will be based in the metropolitan area and 15 throughout Regional Western Australia. Recruitment for the positions is currently being undertaken and appointments should be made in August 2003.
10054 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 14 August 2003]
(b) The Government also committed to the appointment of 8 new Domestic Violence Liaison Officers in the WA Police Service. (i)-(ii) There are currently six Domestic Violence Liaison Officers, all allocated to the Metropolitan police districts. These Officers are currently located at the Domestic Violence Resource Centre and the Central Metropolitan, Cannington, Quarry St Fremantle, Joondalup, Midland and Mirrabooka Police Stations. (iii)-(iv) All 8 new Domestic Violence Liaison Officers will be deployed in Regional Western Australia in Albany, Broome, Bunbury, Geraldton, Kalgoorlie, Karratha, Mandurah and Northam. (c) Putting People First also committed to expand the Strong Families case management program and maintain the Indigenous Family Program. (i)-(ii) The Strong Families case management program has been operating in two locations in Western Australia since November 2000: Midland and Albany. (iii) Ten additional Strong Families Coordinators are to be appointed, and of these six will be in Regional locations. (iv) Thus far, it has been determined that coordinators will be located in Bunbury, Broome, Hedland, Kalgoorlie and Northam. The Mid-west location is yet to be confirmed and consultation with the Indigenous community to determine this location is ongoing. (v)-(vi) The Indigenous Family Program operates only in the metropolitan area and it is not planned to expand it to regional areas. ______