Parliamentary Debates (HANSARD)
THIRTY-EIGHTH PARLIAMENT FIRST SESSION 2009
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations
(With Supplementary Information)
Thursday, 18 June 2009
Legislative Council
Thursday, 18 June 2009
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS The meeting commenced at 9.00 am. Divisions 33 and 34: Transport, $96 161 000; Commissioner of Main Roads, $916 401 000 — Hon Giz Watson, Chair. Hon Simon O’Brien, Minister for Transport. Mr E. Lumsden, Director General, Department for Planning and Infrastructure. Mr M. Henneveld, Commissioner of Main Roads. Mr A. Bryant, General Manager, Licensing, Department for Planning and Infrastructure. Mr M. D’souza, Executive Director, Strategic Corporate Support, Department for Planning and Infrastructure. Mr A. Jamieson, Assistant Director, General Operations, Department for Planning and Infrastructure. Mr B. Roberts, Acting Executive Director, Transport Industry, Department for Planning and Infrastructure. Mr R. Phillips, Manager, Budget and Program Management, Main Roads. Mr J. Marmion, Executive Director, Regional Services, Main Roads. Mr L. Coci, Director, Major Projects, Main Roads. Mr D. Snook, Executive Director, Road Network Services, Main Roads. The CHAIR: On behalf of the Legislative Council Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations, I welcome you to today’s hearing. Before we begin, I must ask you to take either the oath or affirmation. [Witnesses took the oath or affirmation.] The CHAIR: This hearing is being held in public although there is discretion available to the committee to hear evidence in private either of its own motion or at witness request. If for some reason you wish to make a confidential statement during today’s proceedings, you should request that the evidence be taken in closed session before answering the question. Government agencies and departments have an important role and duty in assisting Parliament to scrutinise the budget papers on behalf of the people of Western Australia. The committee values that assistance. For the information of members, these proceedings will be reported by Hansard. The daily Hansard will be available tomorrow morning, and will be circulated as per normal house sitting days. It will be given 1.5 line spacing to make it easier for members to make corrections in the daily and for those pages of the daily Hansard to be returned to the Hansard office. The cut-off date for corrections will be indicated on the bottom of each page. Members are asked to sit towards the front of the chamber on the non-government benches where practicable so that witnesses will not have to turn their head to the back of the chamber when answering questions. It will greatly assist Hansard if when referring to the Budget Statements volumes or the consolidated account estimates, members give the page number, item, program, amount, and so on in preface to their questions. If supplementary information is to be provided, I ask your cooperation in ensuring that it is delivered to the committee’s clerk within five working days of receipt of the questions. An example of the required Hansard style for the documents has been provided to your advisers. For the benefit of members and Hansard, I ask the minister to introduce his advisers to the committee, and for each adviser to please state their full name, contact address and the capacity in which they appear before the committee. [Witnesses Introduced.] The CHAIR: At this time, I would ask each of the witnesses whether they have read, understood and completed the “Information for Witnesses” form. The Witnesses: Yes. The CHAIR: Do all the witnesses fully understand the meaning and effect of the provisions of that document?
E650 [ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
The Witnesses: Yes. The CHAIR: I ask members to indicate whether they have any questions they would like to put. I give the call to Hon Ken Travers. [9.10 am] Hon KEN TRAVERS: Would the Chair like us to go through the questions about the Department of Transport first, or is the Chair happy for us to ask questions of either agency at the same time? The CHAIR: It would be my thinking that it would be easier for the minister and the advisers to deal with if we started with transport first. If we could start with transport and allow a little flexibility; if there are lots of questions for transport, we can extend the division a bit. I would ask that members focus on division 33, the Department of Transport, to start with. Hon KEN TRAVERS: My first question is about page 407 of the Budget Statements, and whether or not the department still expects the figure of $69 000 937 for estimated actual expenditure to be achieved; or, if not, whether it expects it to be over or under that figure? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I will ask Mr D’souza to answer that question, please. Mr M. D’souza: Yes, the department does anticipate being on budget at the end of June 2009. Hon KEN TRAVERS: My next question is: are all of the increased fees and charges that the department intends to levy in the 2009-10 budget included in the appendix to budget paper No 3, which details fees and charges? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Look, they certainly would be. I will confirm, by reference again to Mr D’souza, that there are not any exceptions. Mr M. D’souza: Yes, all the increases in the fees and charges for 2009-10 are included in the appendix. Hon KEN TRAVERS: If that is the case, will the minister or one of the departmental staff provide a list of the amount of revenue and where exactly that revenue will be spent for each of the fees and charges that are intended to be increased? I am happy for this to be taken as supplementary information. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: The member is asking for a very large amount of information. I am wondering if he might be able to narrow the scope of the question so that we can deal with it to his satisfaction and possibly deal with it now, because we do have information available. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I am happy to go into a bit more detail about certain areas, but I indicated that I was happy for the question to be taken on notice. I do not think it is unreasonable for an Estimates Committee to ask for an explanation of what are the increases, how much money is expected to be raised from each of those increases, and where the department intends to spend each of those increased fees and charges. The CHAIR: Minister, perhaps I might indicate that that answer could be given as a question on notice or by supplying supplementary information. I will just give it a number. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: If I may, I will try to respond to the question now. I notice that the member is about to embark on some questions of a specific nature about the disposal of funds that are raised through fees and charges, but I point out that in many cases the funds that are raised through departmental charges go into the budget for an area of activity that can be quite broad. Therefore, it is not always possible to earmark a dollar raised this year with an exact dollar somewhere else in the expenditure side; there is not necessarily a direct correlation when a pool of money comes into a reserve pool, which is then disbursed. What, in effect, the member is asking for is what is already in the budget, and it depends what specifics he wants to get down to as to whether or not that information is currently available. When there is an allocation to an operational area, for example, until the money is finally spent in that area, it is not necessarily possible to show that there is a direct relationship from one particular charge to one particular item of expenditure. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I find that a particularly interesting answer in light of recommendations by the Auditor General and others over the years, and the requirement of the Constitution Acts Amendment Act 1899 that fees and charges not be taxes, minister. I would have thought that the minister would have at least a break-up of how much of the fees and charges have been raised, and what proportion of the fees and charges will be going to what purposes and what functions within the agency. I understand that it might be quite detailed information, and I am happy to make it a question on notice, but I would have thought that at the very least the minister would have that information. The CHAIR: I think the best way to proceed with this question is to give it a supplementary status and ask the minister to respond. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: We can certainly respond by way of supplementary information. [Supplementary Information No A1.]
[ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E651
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: We have got the information for specifics with us, but I do not know how, without detaining the committee beyond the time frame available and shutting out all the other members who want to ask questions, I can possibly embark on answering what is required right now. Hon KEN TRAVERS: That is why I am asking the minister to provide it as supplementary information. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Hon Ken Travers could have placed it on notice, and we would have provided it for him. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I can also ask for it now and ask for it as supplementary information, minister. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: And we will be delighted to provide that to the committee. [9.20 am] Hon KEN TRAVERS: Can the minister outline where the additional revenue to be raised from the Perth parking management levy will be spent? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: The Department of Transport will be responsible for a number of items of legislation, including the relevant act. Therefore, the department will be responsible for the administration of the trust fund that is set up under that act and into which the levy that the member referred to will be placed. The expenditure of those funds has yet to be determined. The Public Transport Authority has been asked to prepare some information for consideration by the government. At this stage, the money that is budgeted to be raised has not been raised. The simple answer to the member’s question is that it has not been allocated for expenditure. Hon KEN TRAVERS: On what basis was the increase determined? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: The increase was determined at the level of a cabinet subcommittee. The formula, as I understand, was the consumer price index plus one dollar per day per bay. The member would be well aware that we face difficult economic circumstances, and it was determined at that level that funds would be raised through a number of measures, including this one. When those funds accrue to the trust fund they are placed by cabinet into my ministerial responsibility for administration, and that is where I come into it. I will discharge that responsibility in accordance with the law and to the best of my ability. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I am concerned by that answer, because the purposes for which these funds can be used are very specific under the act. Included in the act is a requirement for the minister to consult with the City of Perth on the expenditure of those funds. I am still at a loss to understand how the government can raise funds that can only be used for specific purposes if the minister has no idea what purposes he wishes to spend them on. That, to me, makes it a tax and not a fee. I refer the minister to section 23(3) of the Perth Parking Management Act 1999, and ask whether what he is doing is in accordance with that section. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I think I have already addressed this question, in that this decision was made at the level of a subcommittee of cabinet, in accordance with the requirements of the budget, and then it was placed in my hands, ultimately, for administration, and that is something that I will do to the best of my ability and in accordance with the law, including the provision the honourable member mentioned in his question. However in this case, it is a top-down, rather than a bottom-up, submission from me. Perhaps that would explain the surprise the member expressed in his question. As I have also indicated, I am seeking advice about the best ways in which I can go to cabinet with proposals for ways in which these funds may be applied. Those proposals are all required to be, under the act that the member referred to, related to easing traffic congestion questions, generally, in the Perth parking management area, which is also defined under the act. That will be done in consultation with the City of Perth, as is required by the law and by the Perth parking policy made under the act. It will be targeted for the purposes described in the act. That is what I am required to do. By way of initial indication of the sorts of things I am asking the PTA to provide me with, they include requirements for paying off debt associated with previous central area transit bus upgrades, future CAT bus requirements, and a review of future CAT bus operations. For example, since 7 December 2007, a couple of new underground railway stations have come on line, yet the CAT bus routes have not been reviewed. It is probably time we revisited that. We probably need more CAT bus capacity, and there is of course a requirement for the renewal of the fleet. In addition, other mechanisms can be employed. Although it does not come under this division, I am also responsible for the Public Transport Authority, which operates a free transit zone within the Perth parking management area. That is something I would like to see expanded and made more accessible to more people. Those are just some of the ways in which disbursement of these funds will occur in due course. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I am not sure that just because it is done by a subcommittee of cabinet removes the requirement to comply with the act, but we will move on. Is the funding for the Fremantle optimum port study and the south west roads strategic study included in service 1 of the department’s budget? If it is, can the minister indicate how much money is allocated for each of those studies and when he expects those studies to be completed? I think I have the correct terms for the studies. If I am wrong, I am sure the minister will know which ones I mean.
E652 [ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I thank the member for the question. In the case of the port study, I understand that costs are being shared between the Department of Planning and Fremantle Ports. The second study mentioned by the member is being done by the Department of Planning, so for the purposes of estimates inquiry, although I retain an interest in the outcomes of those studies, questions probably should be directed to the Minister of Planning. Hon KEN TRAVERS: When the minister says “shared”, is any funding from the Department of Transport going into that study? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: No. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Does the Department of Transport have an interest in knowing when those studies will be completed, and does it know when they will be completed? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Of course we have an interest in the outcome of those studies. In relation to the former study, I have a direct ministerial involvement with the future of Fremantle Ports, and I look forward to an interim report coming from that group within the next few months. In relation to the second study, which is being run by the Department of Planning, I direct the member to the Minister for Planning. [9.30 am] The CHAIR: I give the next call to Hon Alison Xamon. Hon ALISON XAMON: I refer to page 415 of the Budget Statements. How much of each of the figures listed in the “Perth Bicycle Network/Country Pathways” line item, from the 2007-08 actual through to the 2012-13 forward estimate, relate just to the Perth bicycle network? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I will ask Mr Roberts to field that question. Mr B. Roberts: I think this was a question asked on notice listed for the Perth bicycle network and country pathways. For the Perth bicycle network proportion, was the member referring to from 2007-08 forward? Hon ALISON XAMON: Yes. Mr B. Roberts: In 2007-08, the actual expenditure on the Perth bicycle network was $1.411 million; in 2008-09, the estimate is $1.925 million; for 2009-10, the estimate is $1.737 million; and from 2010 through to 2013, the estimate is $1.910 million. That is the separation out of the Perth bicycle network from country pathways. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: As Mr Roberts indicated, we might also have received notice of a question on a related matter and a written answer has been provided to the committee staff. No doubt it will find its way to the member. The CHAIR: Unfortunately, because we received the answer so close to the beginning of this session, we could not provide it to the member. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I thought that is what was done in past years, Madam Chair. I apologise. The answer was available earlier. I thought we were meant to provide the answers at the start of the session. I am very old- fashioned. The CHAIR: That is not a problem. Thank you. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Madam Chair, I have a question in four parts and, with your indulgence, I wonder whether for the benefit of Hansard I can put the question in its entirety and then come back and address the specifics. I refer to page 407 of the Budget Statements and the line item under “Economic Auditor” referring to the parking levy and the increases associated with it. My question is — (1) Is it true that as of 1 July 2009 the levy for short-stay bays will increase from $183 to $555 per bay per annum, representing a 200 per cent increase? (2) Is it true that as of 1 July 2009 the levy for long-stay bays will increase from $212 to $586 per bay per annum, being an increase of more than 175 per cent. (3) Is it true that as of 1 July 2009 the levy for motorcycle bays will jump from $91.50 to a massive $460.50 per bay per annum, an increase of more than 400 per cent? (4) Given the opposition to the minister’s action by the City of Perth, Wilson Parking, the Property Council of Australia and the people of this state, why did he impose such a burden? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Did the member indicate that she then wanted to ask each part of the question separately? The CHAIR: That is what I understood the member to say. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: The first part of the question is: is it true that as of 1 July 2009 the levy for short-stay bays will increase from $183 to $555 per bay per annum, representing a 200 per cent increase?
[ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E653
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: There may be some fine change to the figures before they are ultimately gazetted and realised. In general terms, the answer to the member’s question is yes. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: The second part of my question is: is it true that as of 1 July 2009 the levy for long-stay bays will increase from $212 to $586 per bay per annum, being an increase of more than 175 per cent. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: With the same qualification about marginal changes, the answer is yes. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: The third part of my question is: is it true that as of 1 July 2009 the levy for motorcycle bays will jump from $91.50 to a massive $460.50 per bay per annum, an increase of more than 400 per cent? It is in the same vein. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Yes, in the same vein. The proposition that has been enunciated by the honourable member is what has been put forward. Since this matter was brought to me, as a result of the budget being brought down, I have commenced a dialogue with the Treasurer to vary this amount. So, no, it is not finalised that that will be the outcome for motorcycles. I do have another proposition that I have put to the Treasurer, which I think is more in keeping with the spirit of the Perth parking levy and is fairer. Although the prospect that the member’s question raises is in prospect, it is one that I have sought to vary. The final outcome might be quite different. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: I seek clarification on that from the minister: in the event that the minister is not able to vary the parking fee, is it true that, given the current rates as they stand, the motorcycle bays will jump from $91.50 to $460.50 per bay per annum, representing an increase of more than 400 per cent? In the event that the minister cannot change it, is that true? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I thought I had conceded that. It is also highly pertinent to say that now it has come within my ministerial purview, I am seeking to address that before 1 July. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: It is clear that the minister had no say in the taxes imposed on the people of this state. Is the minister advising the committee that he had no idea what these charges or increases would be? Is he saying that this was imposed on him by the Treasurer and he had no idea? When the minister found out the quantum of these increases, it was at that point that he wanted to go back and readdress the quantums with the Treasurer and/or the Premier. Is that what the minister is saying? [9.40 am] Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I do not know if that is a question or an attempt to tell a life story. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Is that what the minister is saying? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: It is the committee’s time if the member wants to use it up. What I will say is this—I think I have already touched on it before: it was a government decision driven by budget imperatives, that was conceived at that level and that was adopted by government. As part of that government I accept full responsibility, so any responsibility for the decision rests with me for the purposes of this hearing, but also it rests with me equally, as it does with any other member of cabinet. It is our collective decision. If the honourable member wishes to reflect the objections, concerns or disagreement of any of the groups that would take issue with this increase, she is quite right to raise it with me publicly in this forum and others. I have to accept, and I do accept, responsibility for that. The nature of her question, though, was about the exact quantum of increase in relation to several categories. We pause now on the third category, which relates to motorcycle parking bays. I am reviewing the impacts that would have. For the reasons that I have already given, I have commenced a dialogue with the Treasurer because I think that is an item that probably needs to be revisited. I have already explained why. It would have been easy enough for me just to have said yes, that is what is proposed, but I am giving the member some more information to indicate there may be some minor changes to it. In short, I accept full responsibility for this, as a member of the government, and so that is where the buck stops. It has nothing to do with whether or not someone else is doing something else. Being responsible for the administration of the receipt of these funds, I have offered some views to the Treasurer on how it might be finetuned to the benefit of the policy and all concerned. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Did the Treasurer discuss in any detail with the minister the quantum increases in Perth parking levies prior to the formulation of this budget and prior to these figures being put into the budget? Did the minister agree that they should be put in? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I think I have been pretty frank in my answers, but we are now straying into the realms of cabinet deliberations. That is an area at which I am not at liberty to disclose information. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: What about outside cabinet? The CHAIR: I think we are slightly straying from the detail of the budget.
E654 [ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
Hon KEN TRAVERS: I think we have established there is a $65 million revenue stream that has been added into the budget with no expenditure included in the budget and no explanation of why the government included it. I do not think we need to do anymore. The CHAIR: Does Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich have another question? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Yes. I want to refer to the government’s aspiration of a $7.6 billion saving over the forward estimates. The minister would know that from being in cabinet. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: The member will tell me, I am sure. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: It is on page 13 of the budget overview. I just want to ask the minister, in respect of his agency’s contribution to finding that $7.6 billion over the next five years across the forward estimates, is his agency redirecting any capital works expenditure? Could he provide details, including the value? Also, is the agency selling any surplus government land; and, if so, can the minister provide us with a list of the land earmarked for sale? Further, is the agency proposing to privatise any of its functions or contract out any of its services; and, if so, which ones? Is the agency intending to reduce staff numbers over the next four years, and by how much? We will come back to those questions, but I just want to put them on notice because I do not want to lose sight of the question. Is the agency aware of the government’s new responsible public sector wages policy? The minister might like to tell us what the new responsible public sector wages policy is of his government. Maybe we could go to the first question. The CHAIR: Would the member like to restate the first question? I think we had better take it one bite at a time. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: There were about 30 questions there. Which one does the member want me to answer? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: He is a very capable minister. The CHAIR: Members! Hon KEN TRAVERS: It is a shame that Hansard does not pick up sarcasm, is it not? The CHAIR: Let us have one clear question from Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich. I am also aware that other members have indicated that they have questions to ask. I might just limit it at this point to one and then move to another member. If we have time I will come back. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Thank you, Madam Chair. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: The member is asking where the three per cent savings are coming from. Is that what she wants to know? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: No, not the three per cent; over and above the three per cent, the department’s contribution to the $7.6 billion worth of savings that the government needs to find; that is, not just the three per cent savings. Let me ask the minister—I am no rocket scientist—is the agency redirecting any capital works expenditure; and, if so, can the minister provide details, including the value of that expenditure? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: We will answer that specific question first. I am glad the member’s reading has advanced in 24 hours all the way from “Inside Cover” to page 13 of the budget overview. It is significant. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Do not worry; I will go backwards and forwards. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I am sure she will, and I will see her there. Mr D’souza will be able to answer the question. Mr M. D’souza: In relation to the member’s question on savings from this department for the next few years, on page 407 she will see the first part of the three per cent efficiency dividend, which sums up to annual savings of $5.6 million in 2009-10, $5.63 million in 2010-11, $5.786 million in 2011-12 and $5.746 million in 2012-13. In addition to that there is the cessation of the liquefied petroleum gas subsidy scheme, which is approximately $12.2 million per annum. There are efficiencies to be gained from the licensing business unit, which in 2009-10 are $1.875 million. Hon KEN TRAVERS: This is not the question the member asked. This is listing the three per cent. The CHAIR: Perhaps I might allow Mr D’souza to answer the question, and then we will see. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: If I may assist the Chair, Mr D’souza is bang on in answering the question. The honourable member asked for the totality of the savings efficiency dividends, cuts or whatever we want to characterise them as. That starts on page 407 with the three per cent efficiency dividend, but then it goes on to other matters. Mr D’souza was already on to those other matters. If we allow him to finish, we will be better informed. The CHAIR: That is my suggestion. Thank you Mr D’souza.
[ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E655
Mr M. D’souza: Thank you, Madam Chair; thank you, member; thank you, minister. The licensing business unit efficiency gains are $1.875 million, $3.25 million, $6 million and $6 million. The increases in the Perth parking levy are $16.4 million. Additional revenue is $500 000 each year, where the business is supposed to recoup in terms of additional revenue to the business. That is some of the economic evidence. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: What I am asking for, though, with all due respect, is any redirection of any capital works expenditure in the agency to assist with the finding of the savings. That is not covered in the budget. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Could the member elucidate a little bit more? We are keen to assist, but I am not sure what she is getting at? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: We do know that the three per cent efficiency dividend will deliver to the government $1.3 billion over the forward estimates as part of that $7.6 billion saving that needs to be found. However, there is $3 billion in redirected capital works expenditure and every agency has been asked, including this agency, to contribute to that. What is this agency’s contribution and what specific projects will be involved in terms of their being redirected to assist in finding those savings? [9.50 am] Mr M. D’souza: In division 33, which is the Department of Transport, the capital budget is quite limited. The member will see on page 413 that the total capital budget for division 33 is $7 319 000, of which $6 387 000 is for the licensing business. If the member wants, I could give her the breakdown of that. Most of it is capital in progress and capital funds already committed. In the next out years, the member can see a limited average of about $4 million for the next two years, and the last out year, 2012-13, is only $2.6 million. Most of this is capital works in progress, so the department has no other avenues for reallocation from capital. Hon NICK GOIRAN: In my enthusiasm to ask a question, I now realise it is a question for Main Roads. The CHAIR: We will not have to wait long. Hon JOCK FERGUSON: I refer the minister to page 415 of the Budget Statements, specifically to controlled grants for the taxi user subsidy scheme, which is the second-bottom line item on the budget paper. In 2007-08, the actual spend was the $8.765 million, and in 2008-09 the expected expenditure is $7.089 million. Can the minister explain why he expects this amount to be $6.888 million in the 2009-10 financial year? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I thank the member for highlighting that, because it is an issue that I am interested in as well because I am also Minister for Disability Services and I have a longstanding interest in the taxi user subsidy scheme. There is nothing sinister in this as though we are reducing our priority for this. The dynamics can best be explained at officer level. I will ask Mr D’souza to comment. Mr M. D’souza: I understand that the member’s question relates to spending in 2009-10 for the taxi user subsidy scheme being below the estimate. There are certain elements within the taxi user subsidy scheme that have been put up to cabinet to be spent from the taxi user subsidy scheme. Until that is endorsed, which we are expecting soon, hopefully, it does not come into the budget papers as an expenditure to be increased in terms of the taxi user subsidy scheme. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I thank the member for his interest in that matter, and I will continue to keep him as well as the house informed on developments. The passenger services business unit is working on a range of developments in relation to taxis. For example, in relation to this scheme, to perhaps move to a more modern way of accessing the scheme and getting away from the old-fashioned different coloured voucher scheme, which is subject to all sorts of problems with audit trails and the like and perhaps getting on to electronic credit card facilities for people who are eligible for the subsidy and keeping a better record—an audit trail of use. That is just one of the possible changes that are in the wings. I hope to be able to talk more about that to the member in due course. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I wanted to refer to a couple of items in the budget, starting with page 407 under the listing “Economic Audit” of an additional $500 000 a year in advertising revenue. I also understand that the Department of Planning is expected to raise money through advertising. The Minister for Planning advised me that I needed to ask these questions of the Minister for Transport as it was not part of the budget of the Minister for Planning. This is also referred to in budget paper No 3 at page 74 indicating that the government intends to raise in this year $2.5 million rising to $10 million in the out years from the two departments for increased advertising activity. Could the minister explain to the house what increased advertising activity he intends to engage in to raise this additional funding? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Given the nature of the question and how it is cross-portfolio — Hon KEN TRAVERS: The Minister for Planning does not think it is cross-portfolio; he thinks it is your job.
E656 [ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I want to make sure that nothing falls through the cracks in providing information to the committee. I ask Mr D’souza to endeavour to address the member’s question. If the member is not satisfied, he is welcome to seek supplementary information. Mr M. D’souza: As you know, when the Department for Planning and Infrastructure budget papers were prepared as per the original cabinet submission, the coastal facilities division of the Department for Planning and Infrastructure was established in the Department of Planning’s budget papers, which is division 50. Subsequent to that, we have had working groups and a steering committee that endorsed that the coastal facilities branch or division should represent the Department of Transport and not the Department of Planning and has endorsed it to be transferred across to the Minister for Transport via a section 25 transfer. After June we will complete that. To come back to the member’s first question as to the dollars in terms of advertisement revenue, page 407 of division 33 states $500 000 each. That is basically to be raised from the licensing business unit through being able to put in some brochures when sending renewals for drivers’ licences and vehicle registration. That is the $500 000 additional revenue the licensing business unit has to raise. Hon KEN TRAVERS: So that is by putting brochures in motor vehicle registrations—brochures from whom? Mr M. D’souza: We are looking at what avenues the government can use to raise additional revenue, because we have the mailing list and the department sends out driver’s licence renewals and motor vehicle renewals— therefore, to analyse and see whether some advertising material could be sent through that method to raise some additional revenue. Currently the licensing business unit is looking at various options and the possibility of raising additional revenues through that source. Hon KEN TRAVERS: On what basis did you arrive at the $500 000 figure? Mr M. D’souza: It was originally estimated based on approximately 18c a transaction—for a leaflet which goes into an envelope. It was a very rough estimate and, being the first time, we have not tested the market to see the opportunities we have. Also it was a very basic, conservative figure of $500 000 because the long-term goal is eventually to reduce the paperwork and have more web and IVR transactions. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Where is the other $2 million coming from? Mr M. D’souza: Page 633 of division 50, which is part of the Department of Planning—minister, if you do not mind, I will answer the question? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Go ahead. Mr M. D’souza: There is $2 million for 2009-10; $4.5 million for the subsequent year; and $9.5 million each year for the years 2011-12 and 2012-13. The objective is that that $2 million will be raised through billboards and advertisements at boat harbours such as Hillarys Boat Harbour and Fremantle Fishing Boat Harbour. The member raised the question that that amount appears to be quite high. The department is currently analysing what are the various options and what is the best way of achieving those targets. [10.00 am] Hon KEN TRAVERS: On what basis did the department arrive at that figure of $2 million and, in the out years, the figure of $9.5 million, and where does it expect to raise that money from? Mr M. D’souza: These are only estimates from the economic audit committee. We do not have any detailed work as yet in terms of which billboard in which area and how much is going to be generated. Hon KEN TRAVERS: There must have been some basis for determining the amount—the quantum. The department cannot just have picked a figure out of the sky. It must have been based on something. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I do not think it is up to the officer to answer this question, so I will field it if I may. The requirement of the department is to identify ways of raising advertising revenue, using opportunities provided by location, or other opportunities available to the department, such as the mail-outs that were mentioned and so on. In relation to the forward years that the member mentioned, yes, it is true—some of those details are yet to be finally settled; and by the time those years come around, they will be settled. For the 2009- 10 year, answers have been given. I answered a question—I think from the member’s colleague Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich—just the other day about the number of billboards that are on Public Transport Authority property. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: It was not from me. Hon KEN TRAVERS: It was from me. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: It is an ongoing exercise, which departmental officers are pursuing in accordance with the government’s request? Hon KEN TRAVERS: I understand that, minister, but there is a figure in the out years of $9.5 million. For the purpose of balancing the budget in the out years, the department expects to get $9.5 million in revenue streams. I
[ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E657 want to know on what basis that figure of $9.5 million was established. It must have been based on something. The department cannot have just picked out the figure of $9.5 million and said that is what it will get in revenue. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I understand what the member is getting at. We are here to answer in detail the member’s inquiries about the 2009-10 financial year budget. Hon KEN TRAVERS: The minister is here to answer questions about the budget. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Please do not lecture me, member. I am halfway through an answer, and I am speaking, I think in a courteous way, to the Chair. What I am saying, Madam Chair, is that we are here to answer in detail questions about the 2009-10 financial year, which is the subject, as I understand it, of the member’s inquiry today. However, the other out year figures do appear also in the budget, so it is a legitimate question. We are not in a position to answer that question in the detail that the member requires today, but we will take it as supplementary information and provide the member with an answer. [Supplementary Information No A2.] Hon KEN TRAVERS: I want to be clear about this. Does the minister expect the money that is listed on page 634—the $2 million this year, rising to $9.5 million in the out years—to be raised through billboard advertising solely, or are there other areas of advertising from which the minister expects to raise that money? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: There may be a number of opportunities for advertising revenue, and we will advise the member of that. We will take that part of the question on board as well when we provide that supplementary information. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I thought that Mr D’souza indicated earlier that it was just billboards in terms of the current expectations, and I want to clarify that. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: That will be clarified when we provide that supplementary information. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Mr D’souza says he is happy to answer the question, minister. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I answer the questions here, and we will take that as supplementary information. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I still want an answer to the question. In terms of determining that amount of $9.5 million, will it be only from billboards, or are other areas of advertising also being considered; and, if so, what are they? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Madam Chair, I am not trying to avoid anything, but if the member wants us to give, as best we can, an answer to the question that he has now put to us three or four times, we will endeavour to do that, if that is the member’s wish, but then perhaps we will not need to provide supplementary information. If that is the case, I will indicate that, no, there are other options for advertising beyond the medium of billboards that are being, and will be, considered. Mention has already been made of mail-out items, for example, and there may be further capacity in the form of electronic mail-outs in the future. I do not know. We can provide that by way of supplementary information, and I have indicated that we are prepared to do so. The CHAIR: I think that covers that and is a sufficient answer. Hon KEN TRAVERS: My next question is about the Esperance port clean-up. Are the officers in charge of that clean-up responsible to the Department of Planning or the Department of Transport? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: It will be a Department of Transport responsibility. Hon KEN TRAVERS: If that is the case, can the minister indicate why Mr John Ottaway has been replaced in that role by Mr Wayne Winchester? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I may need to take that question on notice. I think that ultimately the member may find that it relates to personal decisions by the people involved. I do want to indicate that our commitment that we made last year to the people of Esperance for the clean-up and the other measures that are proceeding—that includes the appointment of Mr Ottaway as a local facilitator—is as strong as ever. Already I think the Esperance community is noticing the benefits and also appreciating the attitude of government in terms of our determination to deal with that matter. Hon KEN TRAVERS: As part of that supplementary information, could the minister provide the qualifications of those two officers? Also—this is the financial point of the question—did Mr Ottaway make any recommendations, or provide any options or suggestions, of matters that needed to be dealt with in the clean-up that are not now intended to be carried out? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I am not immediately aware of any, but we will include that, if the member likes, in the question we have just taken on notice. [Supplementary Information No A3.]
E658 [ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
Hon KEN BASTON: I refer to page 415, the line item “Other Grants and Subsidies”. I note that between 2008- 09 and 2009-10 there has been an increase of some $4.2 million from $756 000 to $5.023 million. What is that extra amount for, and does it include decisions on things such as Integrity Coach Lines to service the north of the state? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I will refer that to Mr D’souza. Mr M. D’souza: The figure of $5.023 million under “Other Grants and Subsidies”, compared with the figure of $756 000, is correct. The reason for that change is when we had the former Department for Planning and Infrastructure, within various divisions of the department there used to be cash transfers for funding or for requirements within the other sections. For example, if the communications branch had to provide additional services to a particular business unit, that was done through a cash transfer, and that was on an internal basis only. When we split the budgets to balance the books, all the cash transfers had to be summed up, which amounted to about $4.5 million. That is why it is up under “Other Grants and Subsidies”. They are not new grants and subsidies; they are cash transfers. [10.10 am] Hon KEN TRAVERS: Does the budget for 2008-09 include any funding for Integrity Coach Lines? Does it include any additional funding for Integrity Coach Lines? Does the department expect Integrity Coach Lines to be operating next year? Has Integrity Coach Lines been unable to negotiate an effective subsidy package to maintain that service? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: That matter falls within the purview of the Public Transport Authority, not the Department of Transport. The CHAIR: We have just completed an hour of this committee and these divisions are scheduled to be completed by 11.00 am. As members are yet to ask questions about Main Roads, I will now entertain questions on Main Roads. We will see how we go. If members run out of questions to ask about Main Roads, we will come back to the transport division. If any members have further questions they wish to ask about the transport division, please submit them by the end of the day and the department will ensure that they are answered within five working days. Hon LIZ BEHJAT: I refer the minister to the line item on page 428 of the Budget Statements concerning the Reid Highway and Alexander Drive interchange. I am quite familiar with the area. Another interchange on the Reid Highway is the Mirrabooka Avenue interchange. There has been a lot of debate about whether the most number of crashes occur at either the Reid Highway and Alexander Drive interchange or the Mirrabooka Avenue interchange. Mirrabooka Avenue does not appear in the budget. Has no money been set aside for that in the budget? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: The entry in the Budget Statements at page 428 is for works at the Reid Highway and Alexander Drive interchange. That is a partially federally funded project. The general indicative amount is the federal government will provide $10 million and the state government will provide about $62 million. I am also aware that there is nothing in the budget papers for the Mirrabooka Avenue and Reid Highway interchange. They are both busy intersections. I am aware of the views expressed by observers about the relative merits of which interchange needs to receive treatment. It was the previous government’s view that it should be the Alexander Drive interchange, and that is what the government is proceeding with. The commissioner may wish to make some observations about the various merits of the statistics for crashes in those areas. Mr M. Henneveld: I thank the member for the question. In general terms, from a road safety point of view regarding fatalities and crashes, the Reid Highway and Alexander Drive intersection ranks as one of the worst in the metropolitan area, if not the state. The Mirrabooka Avenue and Reid Highway interchange is up there but it is not high enough to attract funding at this stage. Therefore, there are no funds for the Mirrabooka Avenue interchange. If the member wants detailed information about the statistics, we have them. I do not know whether that answers the question the member asked. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I indicate that if members ever want to get statistics of the sort that has been referred to, they are welcome to apply either directly to the liaison officer or through my office, and we will put them in touch. Hon LIZ BEHJAT: My understanding is that although more crashes occur at Alexander Drive than at Mirrabooka Avenue, they are mostly rear-end accidents, whereas deaths have occurred at Mirrabooka Avenue. Which statistics does the department rely on when deciding which interchange will receive funding? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I think Mr Des Snook might be able to answer that question. Mr D. Snook: Main Roads recognises that the improvement of the interchanges at Reid Highway and Alexander Drive and Reid Highway and Mirrabooka Avenue is a priority. The member correctly stated that some fatalities
[ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E659 have occurred at the Mirrabooka Avenue intersection. Two or three years ago, after a serious fatal crash, we made improvements to the intersection. Those improvements included realigning the traffic signals and creating a clearer definition of the turning pockets. That resulted in a reduction in the number of crashes that have occurred there. We have taken some interim steps already. That is why we believe that at this stage the priority is to improve the Reid Highway and Alexander Drive interchange. We certainly will look at making further improvements to the Reid Highway and Mirrabooka Avenue interchange in the future. Hon NICK GOIRAN: I am very interested in trying to find in the budget some works for the South Metropolitan Region. As this is the first time I have been involved in the estimates committee, it is hard to delve deeply into these things. However, I have managed to find a couple of matters that I would like the minister to clarify. I refer to the bottom of page 419 of the Budget Statements where there is reference to an election commitment about the Ranford Road duplication and the moneys that have been allocated towards it. I am particularly interested in that matter because my new electorate office will be located on Ranford Road. Will the minister clarify exactly what the money is intended to be used for? I hope to reserve the right to ask a further question on this matter. [10.20 am] Hon KEN TRAVERS: Here is an answer I prepared earlier! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I have information about a whole range of election commitments, but with the member’s office being located on Ranford Road, I will ask my advisers to check if we have got any land acquisition or road-widening proposals in that vicinity, because I might have some more news for the member later on. Ranford Road is a local government road under the care and control of the City of Armadale and the City of Gosnells respectively. There was an election commitment to upgrade the road and $5 million has been allocated in this coming year’s budget to do that. There will be $600 000 provided in the coming year, and another $4.4 million in 2010-11. The state has already provided Metropolitan Regional Road Group funding to both of the councils towards converting both sections of Ranford Road into dual carriageways. The City of Armadale has also successfully secured federal funding assistance towards one of its upgrade projects. Basically, that is the project; it is going ahead and it will be delivered as promised. Hon NICK GOIRAN: The other project of interest to me in the South Metropolitan Region is listed on page 430 of the Budget Statements. Reference is made on that page to Roe Highway extension, for which a sizeable amount of money has been allocated, but it is not clear to me exactly what is incorporated in that project. Roe Highway extension could almost mean anything; it is a big project that has been on the books for a long time. May I have some clarification about that line item? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: It is a fairly general question. It does relate to a very large and complex project. For the member and the committee’s benefit, I will ask the Commissioner for Main Roads to give an overview of where we are at with the Roe Highway extension project, particularly as it relates to the forthcoming financial year. Mr M. Henneveld: The member is asking generally what is the Roe Highway extension project. The project involves the design and construction of some five kilometres of new dual carriageway from the Kwinana Freeway to Stock Road. That is the scope of the project. The government has committed to start construction of that project within four years of the 2008 election. The project itself has generated a lot of community interest because of the environmental aspects of the project and we are doing a lot of work to sort out the preliminaries associated with that. One feature of what we have done to date is the establishment of what we call an integrated planning alliance. That is where Main Roads Western Australia combines with experts in the private sector to deal with environmental community engagement in the preliminary design of these projects. The aim is to have, very early on, community engagement. Community engagement, from our point of view, is not going to the community and telling them what we are doing; it is going to the community and saying, “This is the overall scope of the project. How can we now engage with you so that you have genuine input not only into the design but also the initial planning of that project?” That is where we are at the moment. We have just recently awarded that alliance and we will liaise with that consultant to undertake that extensive community and stakeholder engagement. An overall view that we have of the project is that we will work to enhance the environment; in fact that is the objective we have set ourselves. Of course, to do that we have to have some serious engagement with all the stakeholders, and there are many stakeholders who are very passionate about the environment, as is Main Roads. We will engage with the community to ensure that it has an involvement in the planning for that project. Hon KEN TRAVERS: My first question is about the money allocated in the current financial year’s budget. Can the minister give us a guarantee that all of the cash received from the commonwealth will be used for the purposes for which it was specified by the commonwealth when the advance was made in this financial year?
E660 [ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I thank the member for the question. There are a lot of projects for which the commonwealth is the source of funding. Commonwealth funding is secured through a variety of agreements and mechanisms—some of them of an ongoing nature; some of them of a cyclical nature; some of them are individual projects; and some of them are programs that have been given a big title by successive federal governments. But when we enter into those arrangements those funds can only be expended on the projects for which they are provided. However, of course—particularly with large-scale or ongoing projects—there is the capacity for the state to approach the commonwealth to reallocate funds from one area to another. That is done by negotiation or request and response. That is not uncommon, it happens all the time. I can give several examples. Hon KEN TRAVERS: The minister may have misunderstood my very specific question. I understand the arrangements between the commonwealth and the state for the purposes of funding, but I am asking whether or not Main Roads can guarantee that it is not using any cash advanced by the commonwealth for a specific purpose, for a project other than that specified by the commonwealth when the advance was made. I am asking whether or not there is any cash within Main Roads’ holding account that is currently being used, as we come to the end of this financial year, for a purpose other than for which it was specified by the commonwealth when it was given. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I am quite happy to answer a specific question. Has the member got a specific area of concern or is he asking about a specific project? Hon KEN TRAVERS: I am not asking about a specific project, I am asking whether or not the minister can give a guarantee that the government is not using cash advanced by the commonwealth for a specific purpose to fund other projects before the end of this financial year. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: As I indicated in my earlier answer, it does happen, on a not infrequent basis, that funds are diverted after the advice and agreement of the commonwealth has been obtained. The member cut me off before when I was about to indicate for the benefit of members that, for example, when a project has concluded and the available funding has not been fully expended but there may be a related project that ties in with it, then we engage with the commonwealth and ask if we can apply these funds in that area. I am sure that has happened. I will ask Mr Phillips, who might be able to add another dimension to it, to answer. The member mentioned the current financial year; was he asking about 2008-09? Hon KEN TRAVERS: Yes. Mr R. Phillips: Yes, Main Roads can categorically state that it has not used any commonwealth funds for purposes other than what they were approved for. We get our funding from the commonwealth on a recoup basis. Basically, in arrears of spending money, the commonwealth will not return to us, or recoup to Main Roads, any funds for a project which the commonwealth has not approved. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I understand that, and I did not expect that Main Roads would use funds without the commonwealth’s permission; I am asking whether or not Main Roads is using the cash in its holding account, put there for specific purposes, to fund other projects before the end of the financial year. I am asking about it on a cash basis. [10.30 am] Mr R. Phillips: No, we are not using any cash funds that we are holding in the Main Roads account that could be commonwealth funds for any purpose other than what those funds have been provided for and approved for by the commonwealth. Hon KEN TRAVERS: In budget paper No 3, Main Roads is listed as receiving two amounts under the Treasurer’s advance. It was expected that Main Roads would apply for two amounts; one of $22 million for recurrent purposes and one of $5.8 million for capital works purposes. Have those funds been sought under the Treasurer’s advance, and have they been granted? Will Main Roads still require them before the end of this financial year? I refer to item 82 on page 229 of budget paper No 3. At the time the budget was prepared this year, Main Roads expected to receive, under the Treasurer’s advance, in the “Excesses” column, $22.4 million. For item 158 at the top of page 231, for the capital contributions component, an excess of $5.8 million is shown. Mr R. Phillips: Those amounts relate to increased allocations that have been provided to Main Roads through various adjustments to our budget through the 2008-09 year. The $22.4 million relates to some rise and fall adjustments to our term network contracts for oil price movements, and the $5.8 million is a capital adjustment. We have not yet applied for those, but they need to be applied for because they are paid for out of the Treasurer’s supplementary advance prior to 30 June, but they are state funds. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I understand that. Has Main Roads not been given that funding by the state yet?
[ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E661
Mr R. Phillips: We would have been given that in our monthly allocation through the appropriation. However, in order to tidy up the books, Main Roads must complete a particular form and submit it to the Treasurer so that the Treasurer’s advance is all balanced out across government by 30 June. Hon KEN TRAVERS: What I am trying to understand is whether Main Roads has actually received those funds into its account from the Treasury, or is it still to receive them from the Treasury? Mr R. Phillips: No, we have been progressively receiving those funds. Hon KEN TRAVERS: What is still required to be received before the end of this financial year? Has the full amount been received? Mr R. Phillips: We would have received very close to the full amount, if not the full amount, because the allocations that are provided to Main Roads are basically pro rata on very much a monthly basis in line with the cash flow needs of Main Roads. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Money is not normally obtained from the Treasurer’s advance; it is expected to be taken out of existing revenue. It may have been approved by the Treasury, but the cash may not have actually been received. I am trying to find out whether Main Roads has received the cash. As a result of a question that was asked yesterday, it seems there is no cash left in the Treasury until such time as the Loan Bill is passed. I am trying to establish whether Main Roads requires that money. If the Loan Bill is not passed next week and the money is not received, what implications will that have for Main Roads and its operations between now and the end of the financial year? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: We assumed that the Loan Bill would probably receive some support for its passage, so that is an interesting development. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I hope we get better answers to our questions next week than we have today. The CHAIR: I will take that as a rhetorical question! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Is there a question you want me to address at this point, Madam Chair? Hon KEN TRAVERS: I still have my question. I still want to know whether Main Roads has received all of those funds; whether they have been transferred into its accounts, and if they have not, how much still needs to be transferred before the end of the financial year; and, if they have not, what are the implications? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I think for the purposes of the question, Main Roads is confident that those funds are available to it. They are received on a pro rata basis. Whether the totality of it, in accounting terms, has literally filtered its way into the cash reserves at this stage is a moot point. The source is available. I do not know what the member wants us to provide. Clearly, we are not in a position to interrogate some accountant to determine the exact number of cents that have been provided at this time, but the money either has accrued or will accrue. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Perhaps the minister can provide to me by way of supplementary information the amount of money that had been provided, as of today’s date, by the Treasury under those two advances. Does Main Roads need any additional money over and above the two amounts listed in the budget? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: We will respond to that by way of supplementary information. [Supplementary Information No A4.] Hon KEN TRAVERS: Are those two amounts of $22.4 million and $5.8 million all that is required as excesses, or does Main Roads need to seek any additional funding from the Treasurer before the end of this financial year? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: That is a double banger. Yes, the money is sufficient, and no, Main Roads will not require any additional funding. Hon LYNN MacLAREN: I have a couple of questions about projects in the South Metropolitan Region. One of them relates to the Roe Highway extension, and the amount of money that was budgeted. It must be very difficult, with a project for which no design exists, to project how much the cost will be. In particular, this project must be incredibly innovative to be able to overcome the incredible environmental challenges involved in building a road that has already been rejected by the Environmental Protection Authority. How did the minister guess how much money it would cost to build and, of the $166 million included in the budget for this project, how much is allocated to the consultation that the minister was speaking about earlier? [10.40 am] Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: As the commissioner indicated in an answer to an earlier question, there are some environmental sensitivities. We want to get an environmental outcome that is better than what we started with. Main Roads is prepared to pursue new and innovative ways of assessing how we do that, because it matters. Mr Henneveld also indicated that a planning alliance is being formed. I recently approved a contract to engage a
E662 [ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] consultant to assist in that. I will ask one of the officers to answer that part of the question about how much is represented by the planning component. That is a question that we are in a position to answer at this time. The total cost of the whole project will depend very much on the scope that is arrived at. How much are we talking about? Perhaps an elevated roadway, what route it follows precisely—its dimensions—other engineering changes and other expenses necessarily incurred by way of meeting environmental expectations of the wider community. Main Roads has a good record in doing just that. A lot of people think that Main Roads and the environment is a bit like trying to mix oil and water—literally, in some cases, but that is not necessarily the case. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Is the minister saying it sits on top of the environment? Hon LYNN MacLAREN: It is an interesting way to put it, minister. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: It has to, by definition, co-exist within the environment. There are a lot of indicators— air quality, threats to flora, fauna, people, groundwater and the rest of it. I can point to some good success stories within the South Metropolitan Region that give form and substance to the commissioner’s assertions that Main Roads takes these responsibilities very seriously. Examine, if members will, Roe Highway stage 6, which negotiates an extensive wetland system quite successfully. Acknowledge, if members will, the new Perth- Bunbury highway project. Part of the large cost of that project was to accommodate a range of environmental considerations. Here we are talking about a five-kilometre extension to a similar type of highway. Hon LYNN MacLAREN: Through an internationally significant wetland. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Yes, and it is a significant road requirement as well. There will be ongoing disagreement about the relative merits, and that is part of the process that Hon Lynn MacLaren acknowledged in her maiden speech last night. I mention that to show her that I was listening closely. I will ask the commissioner or one of his officers to deal with the issue that we can specifically deal with; that is, the cost of planning processes at the moment. Mr M. Henneveld: I thank the member for the question. The question was: how do we determine the value of a project when it is in such a formative stage? Figures in the forward estimates show that there is some money available. It is probably worthwhile to explain how that money got to be there and what it actually represents. The amount of $165.9 million in the four-year forward estimates is for the Roe Highway extension. That amount includes $20 million that the government committed in the 2008 state election. They are the only funds that we have identified as being commitments to that project for the project itself. A further $70.5 million of state funds was diverted from three projects that were part of the Perth urban transport and freight corridor and a similar amount from the commonwealth, because those three projects were federally funded projects. The decision to transfer those funds from those three projects was made earlier in the year. It was made outside the control of Main Roads. Those funds have sat in those estimates up until now. An amount that will be transferred will come from the Kwinana Freeway freight management system to the Roe Highway extension. We will have to reconsider the allocation of those funds. I am sorry that that is a very longwinded answer to the question. I wanted to explain that the $165.9 million that is sitting there does not relate to any estimates that we have done for the project. Hon LYNN MacLAREN: It is the revenue that is there. What were the three projects that the funds were redirected from? Mr M. Henneveld: The three projects were part of the Perth urban transport and freight corridor series of projects. It is still an initiative under the Nation Building program. It is a partly federally funded program. I mention that because we will not know what the total cost of this project will be until we have gone through the exercise that I just mentioned. We still need the environmental approvals. We are going through a public environmental review process. Once we understand from that process what are the requirements, I imagine that we would be in a position in possibly two years’ time to say that we think the project will cost X million dollars. Hon LYNN MacLAREN: The other part of that question was related to how much is being spent on the consultation phase that the commissioner mentioned in answer to a question asked by another South Metropolitan Region member. Mr M. Henneveld: How much will be spent on what we call the project development stage is really most of the $20 million that the government has committed. The planning alliance that I mentioned earlier will eat into a large part of that. There will also be land matters, survey requirements and a whole lot of project development requirements, including a community engagement exercise, which will use up a large part of that $20 million. Hon KEN TRAVERS: The commissioner did not state from which three projects the money was diverted. Mr M. Henneveld: I am looking through my documents for them; I do not want to state them off the top of my head. One was the Kwinana Freeway freight management system, which was the intelligent transport systems associated with the Kwinana Freeway. Another project dealt with the Kewdale freight terminal. The final project
[ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E663 was the widening of the Kwinana Freeway in the vicinity of the Roe Highway extension; that is, putting an extra lane there to accommodate future requirements for the Murdoch education and medical precinct. They are the three projects. The CHAIR: Hon Lynn MacLaren, I ask that you limit yourself to one question at this point because three other members wish to ask questions and we are running close to the end of the time allotted. Hon LYNN MacLAREN: Which question will I choose. Perhaps this is the toughest one for me: as a new member trying to work out budget papers, I was looking under new works for funding available for the Leighton Oceanside Parklands development road realignment. The minister may recall that Curtin Avenue in the North Fremantle area is to be part of the Leighton redevelopment. It involved the realignment of that regional road to go near the railway. Obviously from the expression on the minister’s face it is a mystery to him also. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Is this a question that the member placed on notice? Hon LYNN MacLAREN: It is similar to a question I may have flagged earlier, but I have not received the answer. [10.50 am] Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: This might help. We received a question from the member in these terms: it appears there is no listing for the reconstruction of Curtin Avenue from North Fremantle to Cottesloe for regional traffic along the railway as part of the Leighton Oceanside Parklands development. Is this located elsewhere in the budget papers; and, if so, where? We have provided an answer. I may as well give the member the answer now, for everyone’s benefit: while a reservation is included in the metropolitan region scheme for the new Curtin Avenue to go behind the Leighton Oceanside Parklands development, no funding has been allocated in the 2009- 10 budget and forward estimates for this upgrade. The question of why the member could not find it is therefore answered. Mr Phillips has indicated to me that he may be able to offer some further information on a matter that Hon Ken Travers was pursuing just now. It might be a variation of what was given before, so it is probably important that we get that on the record. Mr R. Phillips: To the member who asked the question before about the two amounts and whether Main Roads had received any funds, in terms of correcting my answer, I think they are the two amounts that we have been asked by Treasury to defer drawing down until 2009-10, relating to an overdraw of the Treasurer’s advance. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Mr Phillips mentioned earlier they were related to the term network contracts. Has the department not therefore already incurred the expenditure? Mr R. Phillips: Naturally, it is a matter of how people spend the total program and whether they have cash in the bank that can allow them not to draw down extra cash. Main Roads will have sufficient funds in the bank to see its way through for the balance of 2008-09 without needing the $27 million that we have been asked to defer. Hon KEN TRAVERS: That does not require the department to use any of the cash at bank that was provided for other purposes by the commonwealth, or anybody else for that matter; is that right? Mr R. Phillips: That is correct. Hon MATT BENSON-LIDHOLM: I am particularly interested in pursuing, under the banner of new works funding, the issue of the future construction of the Hopetoun-Bremer Bay road. Reference is made to stage 1 on page 429. I note that the estimated expenditure for 2009-10 is stated as $10 million and that there is another $10 million in the 2010-11 estimates. I also refer to page 430, on which note (b) reads — The Hopetoun to Bremer Bay road project shows funding for the State’s contribution to the project’s total cost. The remainder represents the Commonwealth contribution, which is subject to negotiations with the Commonwealth Government. Have negotiations commenced at this stage with the commonwealth government; if so, where are they at; and, if not, when does the minister expect them to commence? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I thank the member for his interest. The proposal the member refers to is to construct a sealed road linking Hopetoun to Bremer Bay via the Fitzgerald River National Park. The purpose of the works, which were initiated or suggested by the Premier, I think, is to provide a boost to the local economy following the suspension of operations at the BHP Billiton Ravensthorpe nickel project, which, as the member will know, was a severe blow to the local area and the residents there. The economic and expenditure reform committee has agreed to provide $20 million in state funding for the Bremer Bay-Hopetoun road proposal. The funding will be allocated, as the member has pointed out and as can be seen on page 429 of the budget, as $10 million in the coming financial year and $10 million in 2010-11. That money will go towards the upgrading of the road eastwards from Bremer Bay to Point Anne, upgrading Hamersley Drive westwards from Hopetoun to the telegraph track and planning the central section through the national park, referred to as the telegraph track. The
E664 [ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] estimated total cost of these works is $40 million. A $20 million contribution is to be requested from the commonwealth. Our $20 million contribution is in there now. It is hoped that works will commence on that first part of the project in November. The engagement with the commonwealth is yet to take place, but the request will be going in over the next month or so. Hon MATT BENSON-LIDHOLM: Obviously, at this time there is no guarantee of anything in respect of that extra $20 million. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: The question the member asked is a pertinent one. He is concerned that this sort of project goes ahead, and so is the state government. Although it takes a while to conclude the arrangements for commonwealth-state joint funding, in the meantime we are getting on with parts of the project that we can fund, which we can start soon, which will have a benefit and which can be standalone if the commonwealth funds should not be available at all or not be available for some little while. Hon MATT BENSON-LIDHOLM: Madam Chair, may I continue with a few questions on this theme? The CHAIR: Perhaps another one. The member should be aware that we have others. Hon MATT BENSON-LIDHOLM: Perhaps I am in Hon Lynn MacLaren’s position of trying to find one question of a number. The CHAIR: It is a popular division. Hon MATT BENSON-LIDHOLM: I am very keen to pursue—if not now, certainly later on—what subsequent stages are proposed for this project. I am also particularly concerned about the clarification of anticipated costs for future stages, depending on how many future stages there are. We are told in the budget papers that there is only stage 1 with an expected cost of $40 million. I would have thought a road of that magnitude between Bremer Bay and Hopetoun, given particularly that it will be a sealed road through the Fitzgerald biosphere area where particular environmental considerations will also need to be addressed, would have required a greater amount of money than an anticipated cost of $40 million as a starter. I am not a cost accountant, engineer or anyone of that particular nature, but I would have thought that subsequent stages and costs would elevate that project to something significantly greater than that mentioned in the budget papers. Could the minister give us some sort of indication of future possible stages, maybe expected costs and what he anticipates to be the duration? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Ultimately, we could be looking at a project of a value of $170 million if all the potential aspects that have been flagged were to proceed. As I think the member alluded to, some significant environmental aspects need to be negotiated with regard to the sensitivity of upgrading the telegraph track, as it is now, to a sealed road to take significant volumes of traffic. I think where the project might end up is with a segment, and that segment might be very different from what was originally prescribed. In the meantime, there is scope to get on with the Bremer Bay-Point Anne road and also the upgrading of Hamersley Drive west of Hopetoun through to the south west coast highway. There are a number of aspects to this potential project. Hon MATT BENSON-LIDHOLM: I gather it is a highly complex issue. The minister’s comment about $170 million, as far as the opposition is concerned, is very significant because if the original allocation of $20 million proves difficult to obtain from the federal government, I certainly have concerns for the future viability of this project. That is my concern as a person representing the Bremer Bay end, if we like, of the Agricultural Region. [11.00 am] Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I take the member’s concerns on board and I look forward to working closely with him as a local member. I think the Premier’s intent at the time of the shutdown in Ravensthorpe was to give stimulus to a community that was reeling from economic impacts. I am sure the member would applaud that. The ultimate form that this takes is yet to be determined. The state government has included that commitment in the budget for this year, and for next year as well, for that $20 million in full. That is a pretty good start, and it represents a good injection not only of work but also of infrastructure into an area that, frankly, needs a bit of a hand up at the moment, and I know the member would support that. Hon MATT BENSON-LIDHOLM: I do have other questions, but I note the time. The CHAIR: I reiterate that members are welcome to submit further questions that will be answered at relatively short notice by the department, so they should feel free to submit those. Hon ALYSSA HAYDEN: I have only two brief general questions. I refer to page 429, “New Works”. When can we expect to see some action taken on the long overdue Perth-Darwin highway? Can the minister indicate when the Lloyd Street extension in Midland—another long-overdue project for the East Metropolitan Region—will be made a priority?
[ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E665
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: We will take Lloyd Street first. Madam Chair, I will respond quickly, if inadequately, given the time. The Lloyd Street extension is an important project for the district. I know that as I have spoken several times to the City of Swan and the Swan Chamber of Commerce about these matters. Lloyd Street is not a Main Roads road but a local road; however, there is a requirement for the state to assist if the extension is to proceed. I cannot determine right now the exact source of those funds. I do not believe we have sufficient funds allocated anywhere, at this time, to enable that to proceed, say, in the next year or two. In terms of Main Roads funds, there are none; there is no provision for it at this stage. That is not to say they could not become available in the future. I am sorry to say that there is not a lot of joy in these unfortunate economic circumstances for that project, although I would like to see it progressed. Briefly, in relation to the Perth-Darwin highway, that is a major project of national significance. To give the member a kilometre-by-kilometre rundown, I will refer the question to the Commissioner for Main Roads. He can start at the Perth end! Mr M. Henneveld: I am not sure whether I can give a kilometre-by-kilometre rundown. I will be a little more general. I thank the member for the question. The planning for the Perth-Darwin corridor has been underway for some time. It is something that Main Roads has been involved in in determining options and putting those options to the community. There has been a lot of consultation with the community about where the highway may go in the future immediately north of Midland and some 50 to 80 kilometres north of there. My understanding is that the final discussions on which option to go with are approaching completion, but there are still many public workshops to be conducted. That is my understanding of the situation. Of course, a Perth- Darwin corridor highway project is still probably decades away, but we are currently doing the early planning for that. The CHAIR: I will give the final call to Hon Ken Travers and then we will end this division. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I refer to page 419 and the overall allocation of funding for the agency. Over the forward estimates we see a dramatic decline in the funding for item 131, “Capital Appropriation”, where for capital works in 2012-13, after $5 million for borrowings is taken off, only $26.363 million has been allocated by the state government. Having gone back through previous budgets, I can say that this would be the lowest figure ever provided by a state government for capital works. In that final year, the only way we will get capital works is through commonwealth funding. Is that correct? Why has no other state money been provided, other than the money paid for by people through motor vehicle registrations under the Road Traffic Act? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I am surprised it has taken this long for this issue to be brought up. It underscores the fact that we are now looking at out years in the budget beyond what we have seen before. It used to be restricted in recent and previous budgets to perhaps the previous year, the current year and the next year, whereas on this occasion it has four years. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Specific projects were not broken up but the total allocation was shown over four years. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I will answer that in a couple of ways. Firstly, I will concede that the state is reducing some allocations in forward years because of the economic climate. The second point is that we are looking primarily now at the 2009-10 financial year, and that is the year we need to focus on. Hon KEN TRAVERS: A lot of these projects go over the four years. The CHAIR: Hon Ken Travers, please, we will run out of time. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Much of the decrease from the previous year can be apportioned to the impact of the bubble that has formed in overall expenditure on the Perth-Bunbury highway project, which is a major target of funding. I have a graph—and I am not proposing that this be incorporated. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I wish the minister would, because I can show him a graph of this government’s expenditure, and the only money coming in in four years’ time will come from the commonwealth and we are not going to be able to match it. The CHAIR: Hon Ken Travers, we are running over time by almost 10 minutes. Is the minister proposing to table that graph? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: For the record, my answer has not been given on this. Clearly, the member wanted to have some excuse to hold up some bits of paper. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Says the minister after holding up a graph himself! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I was offering some information in response to a question to which Hon Ken Travers clearly did not want to hear an answer. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I do want to hear the answer; you cannot answer. The CHAIR: Can we allow the minister to finish his answer please, and then we will end this division.
E666 [ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
[11.10 am] Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: As I was indicating, if we look at the total state appropriations over a period of time, we see that a major expenditure last occurred in 1999-2000. We then see a steady decline. I appreciate that this graph is not the sort of thing that can be preserved in the written record, but the blue part of this graph shows, for the period 1997-98 to 2009-10, the total appropriations for Main Roads in real terms—that is, we are comparing apples with apples. Members can see that apart from the red bubble on the graph for the Perth-Bunbury highway, the appropriation has declined since the period of the coalition government and during the period of the former Labor government—the boom years. However, the appropriation is now approaching the level that it was 10 years ago. So the member should not think for one minute that the — Hon KEN TRAVERS: Are those figures adjusted for inflation? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Yes, they are. I have told the member that. The forward estimates that are indicated here will be the same as what the capital appropriations for Main Roads will be. I predict that the appropriation will rise, and I look forward to the member holding me to that in future estimates hearings; he will see that that is indeed the case. For the 2009-10 financial year, which is what we are about today, there is a very full amount of capital appropriation. The CHAIR: Was the minister intending to table that graph? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I was not, Madam Chair, but I am prepared to do that if you wish. The CHAIR: It might make it easier for anyone who was reading this at a later stage if they could have access to the graph. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I am more than happy to table the graph. The CHAIR: I thank the minister and his department, and members. We will now take a short break. Meeting suspended from 11.13 to 11.18 am Division 11: WA Health, $4 590 003 000 — Hon Ken Travers, Acting Chair. Hon Simon O’Brien, Minister for Transport representing the Minister for Health. Dr P. Flett, Director General. Mr J.W. Leaf, Chief Finance Officer. Ms N.M. Feely, Chief Executive, South Metropolitan Area Health Service. Dr D.J. Russell-Weisz, Chief Executive, North Metropolitan Area Health Service. Dr S. Patchett, Executive Director, Mental Health. Mr D. Cloghan, Acting Executive Director, Development Division. Mr K.G. Wyatt, Director, Office of Aboriginal Health. Dr A. Robertson, Director, Disaster Management, Regulation and Planning. Mr W. Salvage, Director, Infrastructure Coordination. Mr N. Guard, Executive Director, Drug and Alcohol Office. Mr P. Aylward, Executive Director, Child and Adolescent Health Service. Mr K. Snowball, Chief Executive Officer, WA Country Health Service. Dr R. Lawrence, Executive Director, Innovation and Health System Reform. [11.20 am] The ACTING CHAIR: On behalf of the Legislative Council Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations, I welcome you to today’s hearing. Before we begin, I must ask you to take either the oath or affirmation. [Witnesses took the oath or affirmation.] The ACTING CHAIR: This hearing is being held in public although there is discretion available to the committee to hear evidence in private either of its own motion or at witness request. If for some reason you wish to make a confidential statement during today’s proceedings, you should request that the evidence be taken in closed session before answering the question. Government agencies and departments have an important role and duty in assisting Parliament to scrutinise the budget papers on behalf of the people of Western Australia. The committee values that assistance.
[ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E667
For the information of members, these proceedings will be reported by Hansard. The daily Hansard will be available tomorrow morning, and will be circulated as per normal house sitting days. It will be given 1.5 line spacing to make it easier for members to make corrections in the daily and for those pages of the daily Hansard to be returned to the Hansard office. The cut-off date for corrections will be indicated on the bottom of each page. Members are asked to sit towards the front of the chamber on the non-government benches where practicable so that witnesses will not have to turn their head to the back of the chamber when answering questions. It will greatly assist Hansard if when referring to the Budget Statements volumes or the consolidated account estimates, members give the page number, item, program, amount, and so on in preface to their questions. If supplementary information is to be provided, I ask your cooperation in ensuring that it is delivered to the committee’s clerk within five working days of receipt of the questions. An example of the required Hansard style for the documents has been provided to your advisers. The committee reminds agency representatives to respond to questions in a succinct manner and to limit the extent of personal observations. For the benefit of members and Hansard, I ask the minister to introduce his advisers to the committee, and for each adviser to please state their full name, contact address and the capacity in which they appear before the committee. [Witnesses Introduced.] The ACTING CHAIR: At this time, I would ask each of the witnesses whether they have read, understood and completed the “Information for Witnesses” form. The Witnesses: Yes. The ACTING CHAIR: Do all the witnesses fully understand the meaning and effect of the provisions of that document? The Witnesses: Yes. The ACTING CHAIR: Some questions on notice have now been tabled for the purposes of this committee and are available at the back of the room for members. Do members have any questions? Hon Sue Ellery. Hon SUE ELLERY: I refer to appropriations, expenses and cash assets on page 161 of the Budget Statements and, in particular, to the line item “Total appropriations provided to deliver services”. The 2008-09 budget was some $3.8 billion and the estimated actual was some $4.066 billion, leaving a budget blow-out of about $192 million. Can the minister confirm the figure of $192.7 million and provide a breakdown of where that blow-out has occurred? It is now just two weeks until 30 June. Does the minister believe that that figure will change, or does he believe that the figure will remain the same at the end of the financial year? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: The member really asked three questions, and I ask Mr Leaf to address them. Mr J.W. Leaf: The best way to answer this question is in the context of the expenditure limit that was set. The original budget papers for 2008-09 have an expenditure limit of $4.535 billion. That represented growth of 3.8 per cent, compared with the $4.368 billion that was the actual outcome for the previous year. The increase in expenditure in the budget papers from $4.535 billion to $4.817 billion in the 2008-09 estimated actual is not all represented by what we would deem to be a blow-out. I will run through some of the items because that might clarify exactly why we do not see that as being evidence of Health having blown its budget. The major contributors to the change were $22.7 million that we received for election commitments, $34.4 million as a result of enterprise bargaining agreements that were fully funded by the government, and the generation of unsourced revenue above the estimate of $83.5 million. We have a general understanding that unsourced revenue that comes into the Department of Health from whatever source is added to our expenditure limit, often because that unsourced revenue is a consequence of increased activity or increased health delivery. [11.30 am] We received additional funding through the Australian Health Care Agreement of $77.7 million, and in April this year the economic expenditure review committee provided an additional $110 million. That included $77.4 million for additional activity largely in our hospital sector, and $15 million to compensate the Department of Health for beds it purchased to cope with demand in hospitals. We met that pressure by buying care-awaiting- placement beds costing $15 million. We have had significant cost pressures in the Pilbara region, for which we were provided with compensation of $17.6 million. They were the key contributors to the growth in our expenditure in 2008-09; offsetting that was the efficiency dividend that was deducted from our expenditure. That is the only other significant item in this explanation, and that, as the member can read in the Budget Statements, was $60.676 million.
E668 [ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
Hon SUE ELLERY: I have a follow-up question. Dr Flett gave evidence to the subcommittee of this committee that was investigating the three per cent efficiency dividend in March, after I had asked a question about a suggested budget blow-out of between $180 million to $230 million, that he would not disagree with those figures. I used the flippant term “budget blow-out”, but Dr Flett was anticipating a discrepancy of between $180 million to $230 million. Now it looks to me like the blow-out will be $192 million. How can the evidence that Dr Flett gave then be reconciled with what has just been said? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Dr Flett might want to reflect on his earlier comments and how they are now being characterised. I have noticed the repeated use of the term “blow-out” when there is a variation in the total expenditure, which, as Mr Leaf has indicated, can be attributable to a number of deliberate actions that probably could not be characterised as a blow-out perhaps in that sense. Maybe in the first instance Dr Flett might like to respond to the member’s comments. Dr P. Flett: As I recall, I made the comment that we were under budget pressure at that point, but at that stage, in March, I was not confident to definitively say what the end point would be at the end of the financial year. That is why I answered the way I answered. Mr Leaf has commented on the actual circumstance we find ourselves in at this time. Hon SUE ELLERY: I refer to page 170 of the Budget Statements and the heading of “Admitted Patients”. If we turn to the first of the service areas, at the bottom of that page note 2 refers to the specifics of the funding received from the commonwealth government for the elective surgery blitz program—that is not my flippant word, it is in the Budget Statements. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: And a very good word it is, too, member! Hon SUE ELLERY: Depending on who is using it; sometimes different words are good depending on where a person is sitting. In May 2009 there was public debate about the increase of about 500 in people on the waiting list for elective surgery, and a reduction of about 1 000 operations being carried out. Given the level of funding received from the federal government for the blitz program, what has gone wrong with waiting times? My recollection of when I used to sit on that side of the house is that there was normally, in April or May, a reduction in the number of people on waiting lists; it was one of those seasonal things. What happened to effect the change? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Dr Robyn Lawrence will be able to provide a good answer. Dr R. Lawrence: Stage 1 of the commonwealth blitz money was completed at the end of December last year, so that program has finished. We have maintained the level of activity, and in fact the year-to-date activity is greater than both last year and 2007, the base year from which the blitz was funded. Despite that, the member is right; the waiting list has not continued to go down as it had been doing previously. The main reason behind that is that since about October last year we have had 500 additional patients a month over historical levels coming on the list. That is where the variation has been. It is not actually in the level of activity being undertaken, it is in patients being added to the list. Hon SUE ELLERY: Where have the 500 patients who have been added to the list come from? Were they predictable? What has happened to generate that extra 500 patients? Dr R. Lawrence: The simple answer to that is that they are coming through outpatient clinics in tertiary hospitals. We had an active strategy to decrease the wait-to-wait, and that has been very successful in increasing the ratio of new patients to follow-up patients in the outpatient clinics. As a direct consequence of that, we are getting more patients onto the list. There are other factors in the background and it is hard to know how much they are contributing. There is the economic environment, and the changes to private health insurance that were brought in last year are now coming to bear. We know that there does not seem to be a drop off in private health insurance, but historically we know that patients tend to use it less. It is very difficult to measure the impacts of those two things, but the bottom line is that additional patients are being seen in the outpatient clinics. Hon SUE ELLERY: Still on page 170 of the Budget Statements, I wish to ask a question about full-time equivalents. I will start with page 170. For each of the 14 services there is an FTE figure, but for convenience I will use page 170 as the reference point. In February this year the Treasurer made a public announcement about a cap on public sector full-time equivalent positions. The information on FTE numbers that the department provided to the subcommittee was that there were about 31 000 at that point. The cap imposed by the Treasurer, based on the 2008-09 budget figure, was around 29 000. I have not done the sums to find out whether the department is over the 31 000 that it had in March, but my question is: will the department be able to meet the Treasurer’s cap; and, if so, how will it do that? If it is not going to be able to meet the Treasurer’s cap, how will that issue be resolved?
[ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E669
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Dr Flett will answer. Dr P. Flett: As of March this year, the FTE figure was 31 047, which equates to a headcount of 37 302 engaged employees and 37 862 employed individuals. That cap is a challenge to meet, and we now have to meet a target of 31 420 by June 2010. That means that for the period from now until June 2010 targets will be set every month. That will constrain FTE growth. [11.40 am] Hon SUE ELLERY: What is the monthly target that you have set? Dr P. Flett: The figure we have set is 31 420. That is the target we have set for June 2010. Hon SUE ELLERY: The Treasurer’s cap is 29 000, so there is obviously a difference in the figure. I am not sure whether the director general is able to answer or whether this question should go to the minister. How is that discrepancy resolved? The Treasurer has said that the cap for Health is 29 000, and Health is saying that it will aim for some 2 000 over that figure. How does that figure get resolved? Dr P. Flett: That is something that we are discussing at the moment with Treasury. Hon SUE ELLERY: There is a target for the end of June — Dr P. Flett: That was 2009. The target was set and we have said we are not going to reach that target, but we now have a plan for the target of June 2010, which gives us time to come to what we think is appropriate. Of course, that has not been set by the government, and that is the point that we are to negotiate on. We have detailed information behind reaching that figure. Hon SUE ELLERY: If I might ask the minister the policy question: how does the government see that issue being resolved? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I would prefer to answer that question by way of supplementary information. I am here only in a representative capacity, and I would not want to mislead the member about what has been happening in this area. However, it is an important question, and with that in mind I am prepared to refer it to the Minister for Health for his consideration. [Supplementary Information No C1.] Hon ALISON XAMON: I have a series of questions about mental health. I refer to the third dash point at the top of page 167 of the Budget Statements, which states — establishing a peak body for mental health consumers and advocates for mental health services. I cannot actually find where that item is in the budget, or whether money has been allocated for it. Can someone point that out? It is an election commitment, and from the feedback I have received from peak bodies, they seem to think it is a fairly positive one. I want to know how much money has been allocated to it. Dr S. Patchett: The establishment of a peak mental health consumer voice was one of the five election commitments of the new government. The proposed model to establish that peak mental health consumer voice is being developed at the moment and there will be an important influence on that from the strategic planning exercise that mental health is undertaking at the moment, whereby much of the consultation with carers and consumers and the mental health sector is being used in the establishment of this consumer voice. Funding has been identified within the existing budget to fund that peak voice when the model has been properly decided upon and worked through. Hon ALISON XAMON: When is it anticipated that that will happen? Dr S. Patchett: It will happen progressively through the mental health policy and strategic planning exercises being undertaken at the moment that will give us the blueprint for the direction of mental health for the next 10 years. That is being undertaken at the moment. The report will be finally handed down at the end of January next year. It is a huge exercise. As part of that, this issue will be properly analysed and decided. It is fair to say that there are a lot of varying views about what that peak body should be and what is the correct model for representing the consumer voice in mental health. Hon ALISON XAMON: Is there even a vague idea at this point of what it is anticipated it might look like, and how much will be allocated to it? Dr S. Patchett: I could not comment on that at the moment. Hon ALISON XAMON: I refer to the asset investment program for mental health services shown on page 179 of the Budget Statements. How many inpatient mental health beds are currently available in the East Metropolitan Region? Are there any plans to increase this number; and, if so, where? I will give an idea of where I am going with this as well. I also want to know how many inpatient mental health beds will be located at the
E670 [ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] new Swan Health Campus, and when they will be available. I realise that that is four different questions, but they all point in a similar direction. Dr S. Patchett: With regard to the first question, I did not — Hon ALISON XAMON: East metro. Dr S. Patchett: Unfortunately, the Department of Health does not have a separate designation in regards to east metro. Health services in this state are divided around areas of north and south metropolitan and Western Australian country health services. I could take it on notice if the member could be more specific about what she envisages as east metro. [Supplementary Information No C2.] The ACTING CHAIR: I think the member is referring to the East Metropolitan Region in terms of electoral boundaries. I am sure the minister can assist you with information pertaining to those boundaries. Dr S. Patchett: We will be able to match up the services with that area. Hon ALISON XAMON: The specific question was in relation to the new Swan Health Campus: how many inpatient mental health beds are expected to be created there and when will they be available? Dr S. Patchett: The Swan Valley Centre currently has 25 beds, and the designation of beds in relation to what may be additional beds in the Midland health campus development is yet to be determined. Currently, it is planned that there will be 15 extra beds at the Midland campus, so that will take the total number of beds in the Swan region to 40. The service planning around that will see those 15 beds in the new hospital serving the hospital in terms of consultation and liaison, and serving the emergency department as well with acute beds. It has yet to be determined where the 25 beds in the Swan Valley Centre will actually go, or whether they join the 15 beds already at Midland, but if they stay on the Swan Valley site, they will be intermediate care step-down facility beds. Hon ALISON XAMON: I refer to page 161 in relation to the suicide prevention program, for which there has been a significant injection of funds. That is great, but there is not a lot of detail. I am interested in getting some more information about how that will be administered, what it will look like, and how the funds will be allocated statewide. [11.50 am] Dr S. Patchett: Western Australia has been at the forefront of suicide prevention for the country since the late 1980s, when there was a spate of youth suicides in the north west. We have always had a suicide prevention strategy through the auspices of the youth suicide advisory committee, which then became the Ministerial Council for Suicide Prevention in the early 2000s. The Ministerial Council for Suicide Prevention was completing the work towards a state suicide prevention strategy. There is a requirement for a state suicide prevention strategy to fall out of the national suicide prevention strategy—the LIFE framework as it is known, for Living is for Everyone. The new government made a specific commitment in relation to that—commitment No 3—and allocated $13 million to develop the suicide prevention strategy for the state. That has been a replanning exercise of the draft from the ministerial council and it is in the final stages of preparation. It is being driven strongly by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Mental Health, Hon Helen Morton, who is sitting in the chamber now, and it is about to be released. The whole state of Western Australia will be excited about what they will see in front of them. I reiterate that the state suicide prevention strategy borrows heavily from the national suicide prevention strategy priority areas, with particular reference to Aboriginal clusters of suicide in this state and having a robust and effective model to deal with those. The $13 million funding will be split over three years. The initial funding is $500 000 this financial year and then $6.25 million for next financial year and the following financial year. That funding will go towards particularly the community development aspect of the suicide prevention strategy. We will see the advent of a new ministerial council for suicide prevention, a small office for suicide prevention and then community suicide prevention coordinators. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: I refer to the reference to asset investment program facilities remodelling and development of health infrastructure under “Asset Investment Program” on page 179. The planned capital expenditure for 2009-10 is $527 million. Under the heading “South Metropolitan Area Health Service”, reference is made to the modifications at Royal Perth Hospital to ensure that these key facilities remain clinically appropriate pending relocation and/or redevelopment. Why has this not been listed under election commitments, given that the relocation and/or redevelopment of Royal Perth Hospital was a core Liberal promise? Is it the intent of the government to relocate the hospital or redevelop it? If the minister does not know the answer, I will ask him why he does not know the answer after nine months in office. Why was it not listed under the election
[ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E671 commitments when clearly there was reference to it in another part of the budget? If the minister does not know the answer, perhaps the director general knows the answer. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I ask the member to give me a chance to seek advice. I appreciate that I am trying to provide objective advice to what is a subjectively motivated question. The fifth dot point states — Modifications at Royal Perth Hospital, Fremantle Hospital and the Shenton Park Rehabilitation Centre to ensure that these key facilities remain clinically appropriate pending relocation and/or redevelopment; The reason that is in this division is that the hospitals are part of the asset investment program. This is what is done on an ongoing basis, for not only these facilities but also a number of other facilities that are identified under the various dot points. For example, other dot points state — • development of the Armadale-Kelmscott Memorial Hospital to expand ED capacity and support services; • continued redevelopment of the Rockingham Kwinana Hospital to provide an increased range of clinical services, including general surgery, orthopaedics, emergency, obstetrics and gynaecology, paediatrics and mental health and provide childcare facilities Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: With due respect, can I refocus the minister on Royal Perth? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: The member’s question was a scattergun one. She is coming from the prospect that somehow, having made an election commitment, which we did, to keep Royal Perth Hospital, there is now some omission of that in this year’s budget. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Where is it under election commitments? The ACTING CHAIR: If the member lets the minister finish, I am sure he will be concise. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I do not know what the member’s point is. If there was an initiative to do something other than to keep Royal Perth Hospital and replace it with something else, perhaps the member would be looking for that item here. We will keep Royal Perth Hospital in the same way it has been kept for 100 years or more. I honestly do not understand what the member is driving at. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Is it the intent of the government to relocate or redevelop the hospital? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Works will be undertaken at Royal Perth Hospital. In the fifth dot point, which the member is placing so much interest in, there will, under this asset investment program, be a number of modifications to Royal Perth Hospital over the course of the 2009-10 financial year. Royal Perth Hospital is a massive campus. It is a complex set of interrelated structures and all that will be dealt with in the upcoming financial year is reflected in the asset investment program, which is summarised under these dot points. If the member would like to know what modifications will happen, we can drill down to that. The question of whether it is an election commitment to keep Royal Perth Hospital does not arise. The question of whether we are keeping Royal Perth Hospital does not arise. The ACTING CHAIR: Minister, that was in answer to the previous question. Has the minister finished answering this current question? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I am quite finished with it. I do not know what more the member wants. The ACTING CHAIR: I am happy to ask the member to ask another question. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Can I ask Dr Flett, through the minister, to make some comments on the future of Royal Perth Hospital? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: If Dr Flett has something else to add about the future of Royal Perth Hospital that the member might be interested in, I invite him to do so. Dr P. Flett: My comment, which follows on from what has already been said, is that Royal Perth Hospital and Fremantle and Shenton Park hospitals will be operating at full capacity for the foreseeable future and, as such, need to be maintained at that level. Despite the fact that there are plans in the future to either change them in some way or possibly rebuild them, decisions have not been made at this stage. Certainly with Shenton Park decisions have been made. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: When will the decision be made on the redevelopment or relocation of Royal Perth Hospital? That is the information that I am after and what the general public is interested to know. I am not interested in the interim period. Clearly, the government went to the election with a promise to redevelop or relocate. What sort of a time frame could we be looking at for either of those proposals? [12.00 noon]
E672 [ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
Dr P. Flett: With regard to that question, the determination of the format of Royal Perth Hospital of the future would depend on many factors. One of them is what is termed the clinical services framework, which really identifies the role delineation—in other words, what things are being done at each hospital—over the foreseeable future. That is the first act to determine what Royal Perth Hospital will be like in the future. That clinical service framework is being developed at the moment and is expected to be completed in September or October of this year. At that point any determinations about the future changes to Royal Perth Hospital will be made. It will be in the forward years; it has not been made at the moment. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: I just want to ask the director general whether in fact this clinical framework that is being undertaken is the work that was being done by the Royal Perth Hospital steering committee from which Dr Philip Montgomery recently resigned as the chair or is there is a separate committee that has been set up. Dr P. Flett: The Department of Health has a separate planning unit that has this role to determine—based on population change, growth and movement—what is required in the role delineation. That is an ongoing thing that has run for many years now and is continually being updated. No, it has been nothing to do with the committee of Dr Montgomery that they communicate with. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: What is the committee that Dr Philip Montgomery resigned from as chair? Dr P. Flett: The committee had only been going for a few months. It was just at the very early stages of looking at the whole environment of Royal Perth Hospital, and not the hospital as such alone, and so it was a strategic committee looking at the future role of that very large environment as well. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: My understanding was that Dr Montgomery resigned as the chair because his committee was not funded by the government to be able to adequately continue with the task that had been given to it. I am just wondering whether the director general would like to make a comment in respect of that. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I think that was an attempt to relate this line of questioning to the budget by using the word “funding”. I am not sure what it has to do with the 2009-10 budget. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: It was an important committee. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I understand there is not going to be a committee of that nature operating in this financial year, the subject of these estimates. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: The work of Dr Philip Montgomery is now not going to continue. Is that what the minister is saying? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Do not try to put words in my mouth. If the member has a question, she should ask a question. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: I have asked the question. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: If there is a question: is the work of this strategic planning committee going to continue in some form or another? If that is the question, I should be glad to pass it to Dr Flett. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: That is the question. Dr P. Flett: This committee will continue. There has never been a consideration of stopping the committee. Further to that, Dr Montgomery came to me. He resigned because he had decided that it was an appropriate time for him to resign. It was around, as he told me, superannuation reasons. I quote: he said that after 33 years he felt that he had done his fair share and he was ready to hang up his boots—I unquote. That was the commentary we had. He and I are friends. That was the basis of his resignation. The ACTING CHAIR: I have Hon Giz Watson and Hon Liz Behjat in that order. I then have Hon Helen Morton. I have then got Hon Alison Xamon and then Hon Sue Ellery again. Hon GIZ WATSON: I might just check whether this division covers funding for Healthway. Is that within the ambit of this division? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: After extensive research, I am given to understand that Healthway is funded by a direct appropriation from the Treasurer. Hon GIZ WATSON: I thank the minister. I will reserve my question. Hon LIZ BEHJAT: I have questions in two areas. The first is Indigenous health. I understand that the Department of Health does not allocate budgets specifically for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. I draw the minister’s attention to page 164, where under “Indigenous Health” it reads — The National Partnership Agreement on Closing the Gap in Indigenous Health Outcomes and Indigenous Early Childhood Development and other State Government Initiatives will target:
[ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E673
— a reduction in smoking in Indigenous population; I am interested to know why that item would have attention drawn to it when perhaps alcohol and substance abuse may be more of, if not equally, a problem in the Indigenous population. Is that dealt with in a separate area of the budget of which I am not aware? Perhaps we could find out why that is being particularly targeted. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: That is a very worthy avenue of inquiry. I might ask Ken Wyatt, head of Indigenous health, if he could respond. Mr K.G. Wyatt: The response to that question is that there are two distinct programs. Smoking is a priority within the national Indigenous initiative, which is a COAG process. Alcohol is still a priority and is handled by my colleague, Neil Guard, and there are joint initiatives in the way that we are reflecting the level of impact of both tobacco smoking and alcohol. The state has a number of strategies. This particular line item refers to growth in respect of state funding to tackle the complex issues around tobacco smoking, with an emphasis on pregnant mothers and reducing the prevalence of smoking within that cohort of the population. Hon LIZ BEHJAT: I am interested in the staged implementation plan for the four-hour rule, in particular at the Joondalup Health Campus in the region that I represent. The budget papers indicate that it will take two years from implementation to achieve the full target. Could we just get an indication of where that is at the moment, with particular reference to Joondalup Health Campus? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I think that Dr Robyn Lawrence is best placed to respond to that. Dr R. Lawrence: The four-hour rule program will roll out essentially with commencement in three stages over 12 months. It commenced in April of this year with stage one. Joondalup Health Campus is in stage two, which will commence in October. Each site as it enters the program then has two years to achieve the final headline target, which is 98 per cent of patients admitted, discharged or transferred within four hours. The early planning phase is with Joondalup. We have met with its executive and some of its core senior staff members, and will soon meet with all of its staff. They are fully engaged and ready to take on the challenge. Hon HELEN MORTON: I have a three-part question. I refer to page 175 and the third dot point dealing with aged and continuing care. I might ask all three questions at once so that the minister may then come back and address the first part. Is there an increase in the number of people unable to access a permanent care placement in a commonwealth government-funded residential aged-care facility? Does the $123 a day, paid by the commonwealth for a high-level care nursing home resident in a nursing home, get paid to these people when they are in state-funded care awaiting a placement facility? Is the minister aware that for the first time in Western Australia’s history licences for nursing home beds have not been taken up, due to inadequate capital and recurrent funding and that building is at a standstill? If yes, what effect is this having on the state’s health budget and what initiatives have been implemented to address the burgeoning number of elderly people waiting for nursing home care? [12.10 pm] Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: In the first instance, we will go to Dr Flett, who may then wish to refer to other senior staff. Dr P. Flett: Perhaps, if I could take the third question first in response. Yes, we do have a problem in Western Australia with the number of licences taken up by operators, remembering that all aged-care facilities are managed by private operators. The Department of Health does not manage any aged-care beds at all. We have somewhere in the vicinity of 1 500 to 1 800 beds fewer than the number we should have operating. The reason that these licences have not been taken up is as a result of the cost of land and building to the private operator in that they are unable to make a margin by building under the current economic climate. There have been a number of communications with the commonwealth government over this shortage of licences and pointing out that the state government has put into operation care-awaiting-placement beds at our cost. Effectively, the commonwealth government is cost shifting to the state government to maintain this to allow us to discharge patients from the public hospitals. This is an ongoing negotiation that I and others were having with the commonwealth government. At this stage, we have had no clear indicator that there will be any direct help. However, one proposition that I have put to the commonwealth is that if they were able to increase the number of each program places available, which is care at home for these patients if they cannot be given care in a nursing home; that would go a long way to help in this dilemma. That has been the current proposition before the commonwealth government. There were some other questions? Hon HELEN MORTON: Does the commonwealth make the $123 a day payment for a person requiring high- level care to these people when they are in the care-awaiting-placement program? Dr P. Flett: I will ask whether Dr Lawrence knows the answer to that question.
E674 [ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
Dr R. Lawrence: My understanding is once the patient has been formally assessed under the care criteria and that has been processed and the person has been admitted for 30 days, if they are in a care-awaiting-placement bed, then yes they do. Hon HELEN MORTON: Was there an increase in the number of people unable to access a permanent care placement in a commonwealth government funded facility? Are we seeing an increasing number of people in care awaiting placement? Dr P. Flett: Last year, yes, we did see this. This year that cohort of waiting patients has reduced somewhat, because we have seen more beds becoming available. This is as a result of a building program that has been going on in the past with private operators, and now these beds are coming on line. That has eased the burden on the care-awaiting-placement program that exists at the moment. We have also been able to replace some of our care-awaiting-placement beds with transitional care funding, which is from the commonwealth government. They become transitional care beds. Those two factors have helped us in handling the numbers this year, and we expect that to improve too. However, in the long term the issue still remains as I described. Hon ED DERMER: I was also interested in the question of the four-hour rule. I would like to refer to page 172 and the reference to emergency departments. I was puzzled by the reference to only 15 FTEs across emergency departments in Western Australia being assigned for the purpose of ensuring that the four-hour rule is adhered to. That small number surprised me, and I was interested to learn further how with that small number of additional people the four-hour rule is expected to be adhered to. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: It is a pertinent question. This important initiative of the four-hour rule is about changes to the way EDs operate, rather than just pouring more and more resources—indeed endless resources— into doing things the same way. We wanted to change the paradigm for service delivery. I believe the department has worked up well the methods that they are going to employ in order to do that. If we ask Dr Robyn Lawrence, through you Mr Acting Chair, she might be able to discuss that theme a bit more. That is the key; it is changing the approach rather than pouring in endless resources. Hon ED DERMER: With this limited allocation of staff, the department is confident that the four-hour will be adhered to; I would be fascinated to learn more. Dr R. Lawrence: The four-hour rule program is a clinical service redesign program. There is no foregone conclusion as to what is required to solve the issues, and it is not focussed purely on emergency department; it is a whole-of-hospital issue. The program takes so long because the first six months in particular is allocated to each site working with those who are involved in patient care, from the very front door at the emergency department to the point of discharge across every unit in the hospital. It is about process redesign; it is not about more people necessarily. Certainly in the UK, where we saw the program had been very successful, it was about reducing duplication predominantly utilising the existing staff, not in any greater volumes. Having said that, each of the sites will go through the process and they will determine the solutions that best fit their patients and staffing mix. There is no presumption in the FTE figures in the ED component of this in particular around solutions. The ED movement is purely related to ED service as it is provided currently. The staffing allocated to the four-hour rule is minimal currently, because they are program staff assisting the hospitals to come up with their solutions. Hon ED DERMER: At what point is it planned that there will be a formal assessment of the success or otherwise of the four-hour rule. Dr R. Lawrence: I am going to reiterate again that the rule is a measure; it is a substitute measure. We are monitoring a whole lot of key performance indicators, including that four-hour target. We do not expect to see any change in that for some way down the track, because, as I said, the first six months is purely diagnosis—then they begin to implement solutions. Whilst we are monitoring it, the soonest I would expect to see an improvement as of this clinical service redesign program is probably a good nine months after the commencement. We are looking into 2010 before I would expect to see any significant change in the indicators around that. The targets are set for two years for each of the sites. They are staggered at 12 months, 18 months and two years for that headline indicator, being 85 per cent, 95 per cent and then 98 per cent at the two years. It is a long time frame for change. Hon ALYSSA HAYDEN: Minister, I refer to page 180, works in progress. I have a question on the new Swan Health Campus with an estimate of $500 000 for 2009-10. Could the minister give me an overview on the works in progress, please? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: David Russell-Weisz is head of North Metropolitan Health Services and is best placed to assist the member. Dr D.J. Russell-Weisz: A considerable amount of clinical planning has been done on the new Swan Health Campus, or the Midland health campus, on the Clayton Street area. We have been in that process for the past 18
[ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E675 months. With the commonwealth allocation of funding to the Midland health campus of $180 million, there will be more planning done in the next year. [12.20 pm] Because the last business case that we submitted relates to June 2008 figures, we are currently updating the business case to update the capital cost of the new Midland health campus. We will also be doing some other planning activities in the next six months to make sure that we have an accurate cost for the two options that are being considered for Midland health campus. Hon SUE ELLERY: I will give the reference point as page 172, service 4, “Palliative Care”, which deals in part with supporting terminally ill people. However, I could not find anywhere in the budget documents where money might have been allocated for the establishment costs and the education campaign that will be conducted in association with what is commonly referred to as the living wills legislation. Has any provision been made for the establishment costs and the education campaign for that legislation? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I thank the member for the question. It is an important question. A role will be played here by both the Attorney General’s department and the Department of Health, because this crosses the vote for those two departments. The member might find that information of use when making further inquiries. Insofar as the Department of Health is concerned, I will ask Dr Flett if he can make some comments. Dr P. Flett: I can make only some brief comments. We are discussing with the Attorney General’s department the next stages of the planning for the rolling out of this process. If the member would like, we can give her more detail on that as time progresses. Hon SUE ELLERY: I would appreciate that. The CHAIR: That will be question on notice C3. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: With respect, Madam Chair, I think this is an undertaking by Dr Flett to provide information on an ongoing basis as things proceed, so we probably cannot provide that as supplementary information. The CHAIR: I thank the minister. Hon SUE ELLERY: I refer to page 172, service 5, “Emergency Department”. Yesterday, or the day before, the Minister for Health made the comment in the other place that he was happy to give consideration to the use of fly in, fly out doctors for the Albany Regional Hospital emergency department. What will be the cost implications of providing a fly in, fly out doctor to be on shift at Albany hospital? Is this an economical way of providing that service? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Kim Snowball, the head of WA Country Health Service, would be the best person to answer that question. Mr K. Snowball: The use of fly in, fly out doctors is very much a short-term measure for Albany. It is about getting over a particular workforce problem that one of our practices in Albany is experiencing at the moment. The cost will actually be offset by a reduction in the fee-for-service payments that we would normally make to the practice that was providing that cover for the hospital, so there will be some netting-off of the cost. There is certainly an additional cost involved for airfare and accommodation, but it is not prohibitive in terms of the provision of the overall service. Hon SUE ELLERY: I refer to page 174, service 8, “Prevention, Promotion and Protection”. I am interested in communicable disease control, in particular the incidence of sexually transmitted infections in children. The minister may need to take this on notice, but I am interested in knowing, for the period 1 January 2009 to 1 May 2009, how many children under the age of 14 have been notified with a sexually transmitted infection; the breakdown of those children by age; the nature of the disease; the ethnicity of the child; and the regions from which those notifications have come. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: We may need to take that on notice, but I will ask Dr Robertson whether he can make any comments on that. Dr A. Robertson: Given the detail of that question, yes, we will need to take it on notice. The CHAIR: Is the minister clear about the detail of that question? Hon SUE ELLERY: I am happy to read it out again. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: We know the gist of the question, if not the exact nature of it, so we will make sure that we get the exact question, and we will respond to it as supplementary information. [Supplementary Information No C3.]
E676 [ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
Hon SUE ELLERY: I refer again to page 174, “Prevention, Promotion and Protection”, in particular child health issues. The minister would be aware of public comments by the Commissioner for Children and Young People, Michelle Scott, about the need for, in her mind, additional child health nurses. She has made the comment that there has been no significant increase in the number of child health nurses in Western Australia for more than 20 years. She is particularly concerned about Aboriginal child health nurses. She has compared Western Australia very unfavourably with Victoria and has suggested that Victorian babies are significantly more likely to see a child health nurse than Western Australian babies. What is Western Australia doing to catch up with that shortage of child health nurses? Is anyone in a position to comment on the commissioner’s views about child health nurse numbers in Western Australia? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Mr Aylward may be able to assist with that question. Mr P. Aylward: Although I do not have a specific response for the member today, we are aware of the two parliamentary inquiries that have dealt with this area, and of the comments that have been made by the commissioner. The Department of Health has given extensive evidence before those inquiries, which has demonstrated, as the member has said, an absence of growth in this area. The Department of Health will be providing a response to government and to Parliament with regard to those inquiries in the next two to three months, or certainly within the agreed period of time. Hon SUE ELLERY: Although I appreciate that the department has a responsibility to respond to those particular inquiries, I am making an inquiry now of what plans are underway in the department to address the child health nurse shortage. For example, the government has a program to recruit X number of nurses. There was an election commitment around that. Therefore, the department must have given some consideration to what component of that would include child health nurses. I am reasonably confident that a degree of planning is already underway in respect of that election commitment. Although I respect the department’s right to provide answers to those inquiries, I am asking questions now about what planning is underway. [12.30 pm] Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Dr Flett has some more information to offer. Dr P. Flett: I can make some further comments on this issue. It is recognised that there is a shortage of community child health nurses, school health nurses and child development nurses across the state. That is driven by the increase in the number of births over the past five years, which has grown by about five per cent a year. As far as addressing the shortfall is concerned, we will present to a future cabinet expenditure review committee a paper on the gap in those services. The election commitment on nursing relates to nursing in tertiary hospitals and not this particular cohort of nurses that we are short of. Hon Sue Ellery: What is the time line for the cabinet expenditure review committee submission? Dr P. Flett: I do not have a time line for that. Hon MAX TRENORDEN: I refer to the first sentence under “National Healthcare Agreement and National Partnership Agreements” on page 164 of the Budget Statements. I refer to opting in or out of healthcare rebates, depending on which deckchair one sits on the Titanic. I know that the minister is keen on this issue. When I was active in the Kimberley, there were six or fewer private practitioners in the community. In my own electorate, the federal government allocates a rebate in the expectation that it will be spent, but the rebate does not get spent. I notice that the minister has had a few things to say about this. Do we have an opportunity of winning that argument and putting money into the Kimberley, the Pilbara and my electorate so that the federal funds that are never claimed can be used by not only Indigenous Australians, but also Australians across the spectrum? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: It might be most productive if I direct this question to Kim Snowball. Mr K. Snowball: The provision of appropriate access to primary health care in places where we cannot recruit private practitioners that are essentially funded from Medicare has been around for a long time. The matter the member raised is exactly the scenario that occurs in the north west of the state. Unlike the rest of the Australian healthcare system, there are elements that are missing from those places, and access to a private general practice is one of those elements. The most recent estimates of the shortfall in the national per capita Medicare benefit schedule is around $60 million in the Kimberley and Pilbara alone. That is a very significant shortfall. That means that someone who would normally see a GP would end up in either a hospital or at an Aboriginal medical service that operates in the area. The state is basically carrying the load for primary health care as well as for acute hospital care and aged-care services in those areas. Proposals have been put and submissions sent to try to address this issue. The Northern Territory has addressed this issue in a different way. We are looking at how we might replicate that approach. Obviously we will also take up the issue with the federal government. Hon MAX TRENORDEN: I know that it is a case of asking how long is a piece of string, but are things looking better today than they were before? I had not heard about the progress in the Northern Territory. Is there a prospect of receiving some of that funding?
[ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E677
Mr K. Snowball: I am certainly hopeful. We are providing what I think is very firm evidence of the shortfall in funding in Western Australia. Recently, an audit of general practice across Australia was conducted and Western Australia was found to have the poorest general practice coverage and achieved the worst results in remote and regional areas. There is enough evidence to demonstrate to the federal government and others that this is an issue for us in primary health care. Hon MAX TRENORDEN: This is a significant issue and I am sure that the Minister for Health will take notice of it. That would be a fantastic win if we could achieve it. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I have noted the member’s comments about and commitment to this issue over a long time. It is a matter about which the government is sympathetic. I can advise the member that, although I am here in a representative capacity, my colleague the Minister for Health has his senior advisers observing these proceedings closely. I will make doubly sure that the member’s sentiments are conveyed to the minister. Hon MAX TRENORDEN: I know that the Minister for Health has an interest in it. The CHAIR: At least six members have indicated that they want to ask questions and there is approximately half an hour left to deal with this division. Therefore, I ask members to limit themselves to a couple of questions at this point, and if there is time to ask more questions, we will come back for another round. Hon ALISON XAMON: I apologise for being unable to find a reference point for this issue in the budget. How much has been allocated in the upcoming financial year for the home-based midwifery and homebirth schemes statewide, and how does that compare with 2008-09? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: David Russell-Weisz will answer the question. Dr D.J. Russell-Weisz: The community midwifery program will be expanded. We are negotiating with Community Midwifery Western Australia, which assists us in running the community midwifery program. The program comes under the North Metropolitan Area Health Service. CMWA will receive its usual core funding, and additional core funding of about $600 000 will be provided in 2009-10 to extend the number of homebirths that can be done. Hon ALISON XAMON: How does that compare with the demand for these services? Will that amount come close to dealing with the number of women who want to access these services? Dr D.J. Russell-Weisz: We are seeing an increase in demand, and there has been an increase in the number of women taking up homebirth deliveries. That is why additional funding has been provided for the community midwifery program. I am happy to take on notice the question about the increase in numbers. In 2009-10, we expect to see an increase in the number of homebirth deliveries, just as there was an increase in 2008-09. [Supplementary Information No C4.] Hon KEN TRAVERS: It is noted on page 161 of the Budget Statements that the estimated actual total appropriations provided to deliver services in 2008-09 was $4.066 billion. The minister’s answer earlier referred to the additional money over and above last year’s budget estimates. I assume that is the figure that is also referred to in budget paper No 3 at page 229, where it is indicated that the Department of Health intends to receive an additional $42.2 million out of the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill 2009 for delivery of services, and an additional $45.7 million as a contribution to the hospital fund; therefore, there is a total allocation from the Treasurer’s advance of $189.9 million for this year. It is my understanding that as of 14 May the Department of Health had already drawn down $176.2 million of that funding. [12.40 pm] Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Before the member continues, to help us follow the question, is the member referring to volume 3 of the Budget Statements? Hon KEN TRAVERS: I am referring to page 229 of the Economic and Fiscal Outlook. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: We need to open that up so that we can the follow the question because it is getting to be quite complicated. Hon KEN TRAVERS: It is under the heading “Department of Health”. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Is that items 71 and 72? Hon KEN TRAVERS: That is right. That shows a total of $189.9 million. Based on the answer to a parliamentary question I asked, I understand that as of 14 May, $176.2 million of that $189.9 million had already been drawn down. I am asking, firstly, whether the Department of Health has drawn down the remaining $13.7 million from the Treasurer’s advance; and, secondly, whether the department expects, or will require, a drawdown of further funds from the Treasurer’s advance before the end of this financial year. Mr J.W. Leaf: That is a very complex question; we will take it on notice.
E678 [ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
Hon KEN TRAVERS: No, it is not that complex. Does the department expect to draw down further funds before the end of this financial year from the Treasurer’s advance? It is not that hard—yes or no? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: We will answer that part of the question. With respect, the question contained question after question after question. However, if the member wishes a response to that matter in isolation, we can answer it and would be more than pleased to do so. Mr J.W. Leaf: For clarification, the question is: will the Department of Health draw down any further funds from the Treasurer’s advance? Hon KEN TRAVERS: That is, over and above the $189.9 million that was allocated. Mr J.W. Leaf: I need the reference to $189 million clarified, because I can go back to our Economic and Expenditure Reform Committee decision on 1 April when we were allocated an additional $110 million. I do not really know the context of the $189 million today. My understanding is that we are here to talk about division 11. I have not done a lot of preparation on the contents of this budget document. But I am happy to say that the Department of Health is not seeking to draw on the Treasurer’s advance beyond the $110 million that was provided to the Department of Health on 1 April. The CHAIR: Does the member wish the remainder of that question to be answered by way of supplementary information? Hon KEN TRAVERS: Yes, I do. [Supplementary Information No C5.] Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Madam Chair, is the balance of the question that we have just taken on notice clear enough at the committee level? The CHAIR: That is a very good question, minister; I think it is clear enough. It will be in transcript and we can provide that. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I would like to know how much the department has drawn down from the Treasurer’s advance as of today’s date, and what the total drawdown from the Treasurer’s advance for this financial year is expected to be; and I would like a break-up of what each of those drawdowns were for. Mr Leaf talked about the $110 million, and if we can get a bit more detail about how that $189 million is broken up, that would be useful. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Now that that has been clarified in the transcript, we will certainly take that on board. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I have a final quick question. Can the Department of Health guarantee that it has sufficient financial controls in place to ensure that the department is not using cash advanced by the commonwealth for purposes other than those specified by the commonwealth when the advance was made? Mr J.W. Leaf: Yes. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: I cannot find a reference to this in the budget papers, but I have a question about the government’s decision to retain Royal Perth Hospital as a tertiary hospital and major trauma facility. There has been some comment by the Minister for Health that this will result in significant cost implications for the health system, particularly between 2010 and 2014, because, as I understand it, that is when the new Fiona Stanley Hospital will be commissioned. What will be the cost to the health system to operate the 400-bed Royal Perth Hospital trauma facility in 2013-14 at the same time as commissioning the new 643-bed Fiona Stanley Hospital? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I thank the member for her interest in this matter. This is a detailed matter that will occur in the out years, and I think the information that she is seeking simply does not exist, and that is underscored. I understand the member is a member of this committee—as indeed I have been in past years—and she would be well aware of the committee’s rule that the questions need to be related to what is in the budget papers that we are considering, generally by reference. I am quite happy to take on questions along the lines of where in the budget can we find the sort of thing we would expect to find, but, really, the member cannot expect to find the answer to that question in this year’s budget. The CHAIR: Could the member clarify her question? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: With all due respect, the simple fact is that the government did make an election commitment and promise in respect of the trauma facility. The minister has publicly said that given the timing of Fiona Stanley Hospital coming on stream, it will cost a lot of money. I think it is a reasonable enough question to ask, and I think that is it is a reasonable expectation that the people of this state, who will have to foot the bill, have a right to know what the answer to that question is. If the minister is telling me that he does not know the cost of this to the health budget because it is towards the end of the forward estimates, how can we have any confidence in the integrity of this budget?
[ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E679
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: If there is some way we can assist the committee, that is fine, but one of the drawbacks of the high honour of ministerial office is that we sometimes have to sit here and be hectored. It does not bother me, but it is probably not a good use of the committee’s time. I am not avoiding this question and the government is not avoiding it, nor will it ignore any of its undertakings. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Does the minister know the answer? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: The member has asked what the cost of operating the trauma aspect of a new hospital vis-à-vis the current operations in an existing hospital will be in 2013-14. My quite reasonable response to that is that the information does not exist. There has been no clamour from the public demanding to know exactly what the figure is; the public want to know what this government’s broad policy undertakings are. The government has had regard for specific commitments to build the new hospital and the elements and services that it will contain. That will be funded in the proper way in due course. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: I wonder whether Dr Flett might have an idea if the minister does not. The CHAIR: I think the minister has answered that, and it is reasonably removed from the budget as we are dealing with it today. Hon SUE ELLERY: No, it is in there. The CHAIR: Perhaps Hon Sue Ellery could assist. Hon SUE ELLERY: Budget paper No 3, Economic and Fiscal Outlook, which is one of the budget papers subject to scrutiny in this process, states at page 43 — The Government’s decision to retain Royal Perth Hospital (RPH) as a tertiary hospital and major trauma facility will result in significant recurrent cost implications for the health system. In order for that statement to have been put into the budget papers, someone must have advised the minister that there would be, in fact, significant recurrent cost implications and must have at least canvassed with the minister some kind of ballpark figure. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask about what that advice was based on, and on what basis that statement is put into the budget papers. Someone has done some calculations, be they ballpark or more detailed, in order for that statement to go into budget paper No 3. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I am not sure what the point of this exercise is. It would be bleedingly obvious to anyone — Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: The point is that we have a right to know. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: The member can sit on her high horse. But it must be obvious, I would have thought, to anyone in this part of the galaxy that if Royal Perth Hospital is to be retained as a tertiary hospital and major trauma facility, there would be significant recurrent cost implications for the health department. What has just been quoted from is a narrative; a discussion of the various health department-related issues. It is a comment well made. Hon SUE ELLERY: It had to be based on something. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Well, no—the member’s colleague wants to find the exact quantum cost of operating trauma facilities at Fiona Stanley, while still retaining them at Royal Perth Hospital, in 2014. I cannot give a precise figure for that. I do not know whether Dr Flett can provide a ballpark figure, if that is what the member is now happy with. However, she should not come back to me or to my colleague the Minister for Health or to the Treasurer and say that the figure we provided at the estimates in 2009 is $127 out, or something. Hon SUE ELLERY: The minister should not try to tell us what budget papers we can or cannot discuss in this forum. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Which budget papers does the member want to discuss? I am on to 2009-10. The CHAIRMAN: I call members to order. I think we are getting a little too lively here. Minister, finally on this issue, would Dr Flett like to make a comment? Otherwise, we will move on to the next question. Dr P. Flett: At this stage, we do not have such figures available. As regards the planning process we are undertaking for Royal Perth Hospital, that will be part of this process. At this stage we are not at that point in time, and it will be some time yet before we get to it. But, yes, that will be part of the overall planning process. I do not have the figures to give the member at the moment; they do not exist today. Hon HELEN MORTON: I refer to the ninth dot point under “Asset Investment Program” on page 179. It is about the further development of Armadale-Kelmscott Memorial Hospital to expand emergency department capacity. This is a follow-on question to one that I asked last year on this matter. The answer that was given at that time was that the intensive care unit at Armadale hospital would be opened following the opening of the emergency department. I am aware that that emergency department has opened and is now operational. Can the
E680 [ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] minister please indicate now the timing for the commencement of the intensive care unit, given that the emergency department has already commenced operation; and is there any pressure on intensive care beds across the system? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: What an excellent question. I compliment the member on her interest in and her commitment to this matter. Dr Flett will answer. Dr P. Flett: As far as Armadale-Kelmscott Memorial Hospital is concerned, yes, there is a recognised necessity to open the level 1 intensive care beds at that site. With the advent of the development of Rockingham hospital as well, there are plans to do this. I cannot give the member a date for those plans, but this should occur over the next two years, as secondary patients who are currently treated in tertiary hospitals are moved out into secondary hospitals. The first stage of that is Rockingham hospital, and subsequent to that it will be Armadale. During that time we will expect a reduction in activity at Fremantle Hospital and to a lesser extent at Royal Perth Hospital and Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital. There is a recognised shortage of intensive care beds in Western Australia compared with numbers per 100 000 population in other states, and that is the subject of a paper being developed at the moment to be put to the government. Hon ED DERMER: My question relates to the home-based hospital programs mentioned on page 171 of the Budget Statements. The descriptive paragraph concludes with the sentence — Programs include ‘Hospital in the Home’ (HITH), ‘Rehabilitation in the Home’ (RITH) and ‘Mental Health in the Home’ (MITH), and are provided by Area Health Services and contracted non- government providers. This question might be best taken on notice, but I am interested in finding out the actual allocation of funds to each of the separate programs, and also the details about the different services provided under each of the programs. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: We will provide that answer by way of supplementary information. [Supplementary Information No C6.] Hon ED DERMER: Will any of the services that have previously been provided under the home-based hospital programs be discontinued in the coming financial year; and, if they will be, for what reason has the decision been made to discontinue those programs? Dr R. Lawrence: As the dot point states, Hospital in the Home, Rehabilitation in the Home and Mental Health in the Home programs are provided by the area health services, and there is no plan to change the activities of those programs. They will continue as they are, servicing the populations that they currently do. There is also a component that we call Hospital at the Home, which is currently provided under contract by Silver Chain, and that program has been provided with additional funding for expansion. Hon ED DERMER: Have any services been discontinued? Dr R. Lawrence: For those programs providing home-based hospital care, the answer is no. Hon ED DERMER: Within the scope of home-based hospital programs, none of the existing services will be discontinued in the coming financial year? Dr R. Lawrence: No. Hon LIZ BEHJAT: I hope this is not a boring question. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: The member does not do boring questions. Hon LIZ BEHJAT: I refer to the heading “Indigenous Health” on page 164. The final dot point on that page talks about the Aboriginal health action groups that have been set up in the southern metropolitan region. I understand that those groups have been running quite successfully. The dot point states that additional groups will be established across the northern metropolitan region. Is there any estimated time line for that happening, and in which areas across the northern metropolitan region might we be seeing those? Mr K.G. Wyatt: The process has already commenced in the South Metropolitan Health Service, and those committees are now functioning effectively and providing advice. The north metropolitan area has a particular group of issues around the development of the new hospital in the Midland area, and a subsequent group will be established to provide broader advice from the grassroots up to the various levels in the department. [1.00 pm] Hon LIZ BEHJAT: Is anything planned for the Mirrabooka region? Mr K.G. Wyatt: Those committees will cover broad regions so that we get representation across the breadth of the north metropolitan area. The regions will not be excluded in that process.
[ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E681
The CHAIR: I am aware that it is one o’clock, but, as we started a little bit late, does the Leader of the Opposition have a further question? Hon SUE ELLERY: I suspect that the minister will need to take this question on notice. I am interested in the impact that the increase in electricity tariffs will have on the breadth of the facilities for which the Department of Health has responsibility. Can the minister advise what is the average electricity usage for the major hospitals in Western Australia; the total cost of electricity for each of the tertiary hospitals in 2008; and by how much the department is anticipating its electricity bills to increase in future years because of the announced increase in electricity tariffs? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I will take that question on notice in the spirit in which it has been asked. I know what information the member is after. I am not sure whether the information she wants is by financial year or calendar year. We will provide before and after information for those establishments that come under the health department—that is, the electricity bill for the whole health department. That is the information that I think is being asked for. I will take that question on notice. [Supplementary Information No C7.] Hon SUE ELLERY: I want to clarify, for the purpose of the Hansard, the question I asked about sexually transmitted infections in children. It will be one less piece of paper I need to hand over. The question was in respect to children aged 14 years and under for the period 1 January 2009 to 1 May 2009. I am seeking a breakdown of how many children have been notified as having a sexually transmitted infection by age, by the nature of the sexually transmitted infection, by ethnicity and by region in Western Australia? The CHAIR: The minister has that question on notice noted. Hon SUE ELLERY: It has already been identified? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Yes, it is on notice. It is just a point of clarification for the committee staff. The CHAIR: I remind members, if they have questions that they have not been able to ask in this session, to please submit them before the end of the day and we will endeavour to get the answers back to them. I thank members, the minister and his departmental staff. We will now break for lunch. Meeting suspended from 1.04 to 1.50 pm Division 70: Environment and Conservation, $184 768 000 — Hon Ken Travers, Acting Chair. Hon Donna Faragher, Minister for Environment. Mr K. McNamara, Director General. Mr J. Sharp, Deputy Director General, Parks and Conservation. Mr A. Sands, Acting Deputy Director General, Environment. Dr J. Byrne, Director, Corporate Services. Ms F. Keating, Acting Director, Strategic Policy. Mr S. Cowie, Acting Director, Sustainability. The ACTING CHAIR: Good afternoon everyone. On behalf of the Legislative Council Estimates and Financial Operations Committee, I would like to welcome you to today’s hearing. Before we begin, I must ask you to take either the oath or affirmation. [Witnesses took the oath or affirmation.] The ACTING CHAIR: This hearing is being held in public although there is discretion available to the committee to hear evidence in private either of its own motion or at the witness’s request. If for some reason you wish to make a confidential statement during today’s proceedings, you should request that the evidence be taken in closed session before answering the question. Government agencies and departments have an important role and duty in assisting Parliament to scrutinise the budget papers on behalf of the people of Western Australia. The committee values that assistance. Members are asked to sit towards the front of the chamber where practicable so that witnesses will not have to turn their head to the back of the chamber when answering questions. It will greatly assist Hansard if when referring to the Budget Statements volumes or the consolidated account estimates, members give the page number, item, program, amount, and so on in preface to their questions. If supplementary information is to be provided, I ask your cooperation in ensuring that it is delivered to the committee’s clerk within five working days of receipt of the questions. An example of the required Hansard style for the documents has been provided
E682 [ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] to your advisers. The committee reminds agency representatives to respond to questions in a succinct manner and to limit the extent of personal observations. For the benefit of members and Hansard, I ask the minister to introduce her advisers to the committee, and for each adviser to please state their full name, contact address and the capacity in which they appear before the committee. [Witnesses Introduced.] The ACTING CHAIR: At this time, I would ask each of the witnesses whether they have read, understood and completed the “Information for Witnesses” form. The Witnesses: Yes. The ACTING CHAIR: Do all the witnesses fully understand the meaning and effect of the provisions of that document? The Witnesses: Yes. The ACTING CHAIR: There are some questions on notice and I now table those. I give the call to Hon Sally Talbot. Hon SALLY TALBOT: I refer to the total appropriations on page 887 of the Budget Statements. I think that it is now pretty much agreed—it is on the public record—that there has been a decrease of $53 781 000 between the 2008-09 total appropriation and the 2009-10 total appropriation. At the same time it seems apparent that there is an increase in expenditure of about $15.7 million. I have a couple of questions about that. First, the appropriation seems to have been cut by a lot more than the three per cent demanded in the efficiency cuts. Can the minister comment on that? Secondly, is the projected income from the increased landfill levy that will be going into consolidated revenue incorporated in those 2009-10 figures? Hon DONNA FARAGHER: Yes, the appropriation has been reduced; however, that will be more than offset by the proposed changes with respect to the levy of $39 million, as well as the election commitments and also increases in terms of grants and other expenditure. I ask Mr McNamara whether he can add to that. [1.50 pm] Mr K. McNamara: I refer to page 887. The important figure there is the total cost of services. The figure of $292 million is given for 2008-09 as the estimated actual; and the 2009-10 budget estimate is $308 million. There is an increase there. Hon SALLY TALBOT: That is an increase in costs? Mr K. McNamara: That is an increase in the total cost of services; therefore, that is the total amount we will spend on delivering the department’s services. The increase is as a result of a number of factors—some negative, some positive, of course. There is the three per cent efficiency dividend. There are some adjustments in media and marketing and advertising. There are some finite fundings of relatively small amounts that have ceased. There are the election commitments which are shown at the bottom of page 887, which produce increased funding. There is a more accurate allowance for projected grants and other revenues from the commonwealth and other sources. Of course, with the landfill levy issue, there is no net effect because the reduction in appropriation equals the projected increase in the landfill revenue. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: Given that the landfill levy of $39 million needs to be redirected either by regulation or by act, should those regulations or acts not be forthcoming, where will the minister find the relevant funding to continue her activities? Hon DONNA FARAGHER: Legislation was introduced today in the other place to broaden the purposes for which the levy can be applied. It is the government’s view that this is a new policy position with respect to enabling the levy to be used for broader environmental conservation purposes through the department, as well as waste-related purposes. I would like to think that the opposition, the Greens (WA) and other parties will support that legislation. It is our very strong view that that legislation will go through. It has been introduced today. Hon SALLY TALBOT: The minister talks about a reduction in the appropriation. If that legislation did not go through, and the minister could not use that money from consolidated revenue, would it be true to say that her decrease in appropriation would be more like $90 million than $54 million? [2.00 pm] Hon DONNA FARAGHER: We are referring to the $39 million. It is a hypothetical question as to whether the legislation will not go through, but, having said that, any issues in respect of shortfalls, much like any other portfolio, will be dealt with in the midyear review. Obviously, it is a hypothetical question with regard to the legislation. We have introduced the legislation and it will go through the usual parliamentary processes.
[ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E683
Hon SALLY TALBOT: It is a very interesting construction to refer to proposed legislative change as “a hypothetical question”, but that is something we can pursue elsewhere. I have another small technical question about that section before we move on to what my good friend and colleague the former Minister for Environment referred to as the dead, stinking cat in the corner—which of course is the landfill levy. I refer to “Item 172 Capital Appropriation” on page 887. I am sure that there is a technical explanation. The out years funding decreases from $22 582 000 for 2008-09 to $12 933 000 for 2009- 10 and then down to $2 089 000 for 2010-11. What is the explanation for that? Hon DONNA FARAGHER: I will ask Dr Byrne to answer that question. Dr J. Byrne: Yes, that relates to the completion of the herbarium and the science centre at Kensington. Hon SALLY TALBOT: I move now to note 4 at the top of page 891. The government’s rhetoric about the 300 per cent increase in the landfill levy refers to expected behaviour change that will result in an increase in waste diverted from landfill, and note 4 reflects that. I have two questions. The figures in the table on page 890 show the actual for 2007-08, the estimated actual for 2009-10 and the budget target for 2009-10 as 40 per cent. Where is the expected increase in waste diversion shown in the budget? Hon DONNA FARAGHER: I will refer the question to Mr Cowie, but I will say that those figures do not include construction and demolition waste. The information is not complete. As I understand it, further survey work is expected to be done throughout the year, particularly through the Waste Authority. That is essentially one of the explanations for that. Hon SALLY TALBOT: Is the minister saying that the figure of 40 per cent refers to household and domestic waste? Hon DONNA FARAGHER: Essentially, yes, it does. Hon SALLY TALBOT: Is the minister not expecting any decrease in waste going to landfill? Hon DONNA FARAGHER: We expect that there will be. As I said, we will be doing surveys, principally through the Waste Authority. Obviously, they are indicative figures. I would like to see a significant increase in recycling in the budget papers next year. I will now turn the question over to Mr Cowie. Mr S. Cowie: The figure base for 2007-08 used different data from the figures for 2008-09 and 2009-10. The data is no longer available; it is based on data from a recycling and recovery rebate scheme that ran until 2006. There are different data being used now for 2008-09 and future calculations. We intend to see a significant increase from the budgeted 24.6 per cent to 40 per cent. Hon SALLY TALBOT: That means that note 4 is effectively redundant, because it does not actually apply to the table. I will come to the question from another angle. I refer the minister to page 888 and the line item under “Economic Audit”—“Waste Management Landfill Levy”. There is an expected income of $39 million for each year. There is also a footnote that states — (a) The increase in the landfill levy will create a disincentive to dispose of waste to landfill and, at the same time, create an incentive to re-use or recycle. If the levy is designed to change consumer behaviour, why is there no reduction in the amounts of money collected in the out years? Hon DONNA FARAGHER: That will be looked at each year. It is certainly fair to say that evidence suggests that an increase in the levy will provide an incentive for people to recycle. I refer particularly to the example of construction and demolition waste in New South Wales, where there is a significantly higher level of levies— around $46 a tonne, which I understand will increase to around $50 next year. New South Wales has a recycling rate of more than 65 per cent. In Western Australia the rate of recycling for construction and demolition waste is less than 20 per cent, and that accounts for around 50 per cent of our waste. My advice is that an increase in levies will be an incentive to recycle. We have budgets each year, and these things will be looked at, but the projections from the Department of Treasury and Finance are $39 million. Hon SALLY TALBOT: Perhaps I need a more technical answer to that question, because I cannot see why the estimated income in the out years does not reflect any sort of behavioural change, even if the argument is that most of it will occur in a sector that is not accounted for in the budget papers. Hon DONNA FARAGHER: These things will obviously need to be looked at on a yearly basis, as will every other area within the portfolio. The projections at this stage are $39 million. These things will be looked at over the year, and they will be looked at in the course of the budget process, but that is the advice I have from the Department of Treasury and Finance, and obviously it will be looked at in the coming year. Hon SALLY TALBOT: Does the minister have some pretty serious doubts about the accuracy of those out year figures?
E684 [ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
Hon DONNA FARAGHER: No, I am saying that those are the projections that we have in place, but each year the projections are looked at, and, if changes are needed, they will be looked at. These are the projections within the forward estimates at the moment. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: In New South Wales the state government owns the tips and they are all gated and under government control, but in Western Australia they are owned by local governments. How can the minister be assured of even that level of income, given that we can anticipate that people will tend to use the ungated tips on the outskirts of the metropolitan area rather than the gated tips? Mr S. Cowie: I am not sure of the current situation in New South Wales and whether the tips are still owned by the government, or if they have been privatised. But in Western Australia we expect some increase in illegal dumping as a result of the change in the levy to increase the cost. As a result of that, legislation will be introduced into Parliament later this year to increase the penalty. Part of the licensing requirements for the majority of ungated landfill sites is that they are to be fenced, which should reduce the amount of dumping on those sites. There is waste being generated in the metropolitan area which needs to be charged as landfill, even if the waste is deposited outside the metropolitan area into a licensed landfill. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: Given that local governments will now be in charge of these levies, what funding base will be provided to local governments to facilitate both the gating of ungated tips and the administration of this program? [2.10 pm] Hon DONNA FARAGHER: The legislation that was introduced in Parliament today provides for 25 per cent or more of the moneys received through the levy to be used for waste-related purposes. If local governments have issues with waste, obviously that will be an avenue for them to look at through the Waste Authority. Mr Cowie commented on illegal dumping. The point that was raised was that people might illegally dump in outer areas and the question was whether that would be classified as illegal dumping. The department has taken that on board and is looking to make sure that adequate provisions are in place to counter any person who utilises that mechanism to illegally dump. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: I wish to drill down into that. Who will actually police that, because local governments cannot afford to? Who will police any illegal dumping, and what funding is available to do that? Hon DONNA FARAGHER: I will also defer to Mr Cowie for some more information, but I understand that more than 100 departmental officers are authorised under the act to enforce matters related to illegal dumping. I understand that the police also have that power. Mr Cowie might have some further information on that. Mr S. Cowie: Essentially, that is correct. The legislation is still being drafted, but I think we have just over 120 authorised inspectors under the environmental protection legislation, plus police officers, who will be able to enforce that legislation. We will be working with local governments to determine whether they can get that power once the legislation is drafted. Mr K. McNamara: The department has a total staff complement of about 1 950 or 1 970 staff throughout the state. In the Perth urban area, clearly we have national park rangers and workers in places such as Mundaring, Jarrahdale, Serpentine, Yanchep, Gnangara and the like, so we have lots of eyes and ears out there. The budget includes under the election commitments at the bottom of page 887 an extra $1 million going forward to improve our compliance and monitoring capability. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: Who is going to pay for the clean-up of illegal dumping, if anyone is, and is there a budget line item for that? Mr S. Cowie: Under the offence of illegal dumping, once the legislation is drafted, costs for the clean-up can be recouped from the person under the Environmental Protection Act. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: Sorry; I am drilling down into a big hole here. Is the minister saying that her staff will be out there 24/7 watching for illegal dumping? Who is going to be running the ship while they are away? Hon DONNA FARAGHER: I will let Mr Cowie answer that question, but the reality is that illegal dumping occurs now. We are obviously very concerned. There is a recognition that an increase in the levy may result in some people who might not ordinarily illegally dump actually looking to do that. At the moment the highest fine for illegal dumping is $1 000 if a cause of pollution cannot be made. In an effort to deter illegal dumping, we have proposed quite significant increases in those penalties to, I think, $62 500 for individuals and $125 000 for bodies corporate. I would like to think that that would send a very strong message to the community that illegal dumping will not be tolerated. Some people will continue to illegally dump, and we have officers in place to deal with that. It is my expectation and the department’s expectation that those people will be held to account. Hon SALLY TALBOT: I am pursuing the same line of questioning. The minister is talking about having nearly 2 000 pairs of eyes and ears on the ground policing these matters and 100 environmental inspectors with the full
[ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E685 powers of the EP act, but there have been two prosecutions in four years, one of which was unsuccessful. Where is the minister’s evidence that upping the fines will produce this sort of disincentive? Hon DONNA FARAGHER: Those two prosecutions occurred under the previous government. Hon SALLY TALBOT: I am looking for evidence in this budget, minister. Hon DONNA FARAGHER: The member is referring to a particular area under the previous government. To date in 2008-09 there have been 3 241 infringements for littering. That is quite a significant number. Hon SALLY TALBOT: I have one more question on this specific subject if you will bear with me, Mr Acting Chairman. I refer to the line item “Receipts from Regulatory Fees and Fines” on page 900. It looks to me as though the minister is expecting $60 000 a year. Does that include the income from the new illegal dumping fines? Hon DONNA FARAGHER: No, it does not actually cater for that because obviously the legislation is not currently in place. Hon SALLY TALBOT: And neither is the legislation for collecting the 300 per cent increase. Hon DONNA FARAGHER: That legislation has been introduced today. Hon SALLY TALBOT: How much money has been set aside for policing and prosecuting the new offence? Where are the new measures that the minister has introduced shown in the budgetary allocation? Mr K. McNamara: The vast majority of the staff at the department have multiple functions and roles. As Mr Cowie said in answer to an earlier question, there are 100 or 120 fully authorised inspectors under the Environmental Protection Act. They deal with all classes of offences. We do not have people dedicated to just one class of offence or another. We have many other staff who are authorised under the Conservation and Land Management Act, the Wildlife Conservation Act and so on. We also have in this budget an extra $1 million a year for monitoring and compliance, with which we are recruiting an extra eight staff—two, I think, in the central environmental enforcement unit in Perth and the other six in regional locations. The environmental enforcement unit in Perth, which coordinates the enforcement of the Environmental Protection Act, probably has 10 or a dozen staff. Mr Cowie might be able to be more precise on that. It is a coordinating group and an overall standards group. Staff throughout the department have multiple roles in enforcing multiple pieces of legislation. Hon LIZ BEHJAT: I know the minister will bear with me in my relative newness to this process. I am not too familiar with the budget papers. I refer to the election commitments listed in the table of major policy decisions on page 887 and to the line item “Kimberley Toad Busters”. I note that moneys have been allocated across the years until 2012-13. Does that mean that by that year we will have eradicated cane toads? I am not sure how that works. Hon DONNA FARAGHER: I thank Hon Liz Behjat for her question about Kimberley Toad Busters. Yes, that commitment of $1.2 million to assist the group in the great work it does was made during the election campaign. I advise the committee that towards the end of last year I visited the Kimberley Toad Busters in Kununurra and spent a night toad busting with the group, and, I might add, we caught more than 600 toads. It is fair to say that cane toads are a significant threat to our biodiversity. Unfortunately, in February this year the first cane toad voluntarily appeared across the border; essentially it jumped over the border at the quarantine point. The reality is that as much as we have tried to stop cane toads, they are progressively moving across the border. As a result, a number of works are being undertaken. At my request the Department of Environment and Conservation did some very good things earlier this year. They include the distribution of cane-toad packs of information about the safe handling of these pests, protecting children and pets and, importantly, how to identify a cane toad correctly. Also cane-toad disposal points have been set up in Kununurra at the DEC office, as well as at the local veterinary centre and the Shire of Wyndham-East Kimberley depot. Holding cages have also been installed so that people can deposit toads at any time. Also last month I released the draft of a new 10-year state strategy for cane toads. The strategy was prepared by the department in consultation with a broad stakeholder reference group and sets out the goals, objectives and actions that are needed to control toads. Not only is that a matter for the Department of Environment and Conservation, but also obviously there are issues with respect to quarantine. It is also fair to say that the department is working hard, particularly with other organisations and universities to identify a biological control for cane toads. Mr McNamara will probably agree with me that it is the only way we will be able to stop them. Short of sending a bill to Queensland, we have to consider every measure possible to reduce the spread. The department is also undertaking biological surveys to identify key natural values that could be threatened by toads, and also developing management strategies, which include islands and the like for potential translocation of species that might be under threat by cane toads. It is fair to say, therefore, that the commitment referred to by the member is quite specific to Kimberley Toad Busters. It is an acknowledgement of the great work that they do and their great volunteer effort. However, quite
E686 [ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] considerable work is being done by the department as well as other agencies, such as the Department of Agriculture and Food. [2.20 pm] The ACTING CHAIR: Does Hon Jon Ford have some questions on that point? Hon JON FORD: Yes. I ask the minister to excuse me; I have lost my voice. The ACTING CHAIR: If anyone finds Hon Jon Ford’s voice, please return it to him! Hon JON FORD: I thank you, Mr Acting Chairman; that would be fantastic! I have been aware of cane toads coming over the border for the past two years. In actual fact it is in my electorate and I could have taken the minister there. If she has ever stood on top of the Five Rivers Lookout and looked out, she would have seen the mammoth task — The ACTING CHAIR: I remind the member of the requirement not to indulge in personal observations during questions. Hon JON FORD: This is important for this question. The minister said in answer to the previous question that the only way to beat the cane toad problem is through some sort of biological solution. Is the $1.2 million that the minister has given to Kimberley Toad Busters not window-dressing and a waste of money, and in fact would be much better invested in finding that biological solution? How much money is being invested by this state in research for the biological solution? Hon DONNA FARAGHER: I will make a general comment and then I will hand over to Mr McNamara. The clear advice to me, obviously, is that biological control is what is necessary. I do not think anyone would disagree with that. However, until such time as that is actually achieved, there are a range of actions that we should continue to support. Kimberley Toad Busters and their volunteers do magnificent work in the Kimberley. The Stop the Toad Foundation, which the previous government supported as well, has also done considerable work in the Kimberley, or more precisely in the Northern Territory, going in over the border and catching thousands and thousands and thousands of these cane toads. It is a combination of community effort, of departmental effort and of university effort. Right across the board I think it is fair to say that there is a need for biological control, but until such time as we have that, there is a range of actions that we should support. I believe we should never underestimate the value of Kimberley Toad Busters and the Stop the Toad Foundation, and any other organisation that commits its time and effort to reducing the speed at which these cane toads are coming across the border. It has been said to me that the community effort has certainly helped stem the tide for a lot longer than perhaps would otherwise have been the case. I will defer to Mr McNamara on that. Mr K. McNamara: Biological control is not easy. I am aware of national efforts that Western Australia contributed to in search of biological control agents about 20 years ago when teams were sent to South America to conduct surveys and research, and unfortunately came back pretty well empty-handed. In recent years the Western Australian government has granted funding of $850 000 to the Australian Cane Toad Genome Program run by Professor Grant Morahan at the Western Australian Institute for Medical Research, and $300 000 is being provided over two years to work being done by Professor Rick Shine at Sydney University on a lungworm parasite. Professor Shine has a long-running research presence through his group in the Northern Territory, which is being applied to cane toads. There has been commonwealth investment, there has been Queensland investment, there has been Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation investment and there have been assistance and efforts through the Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre. Our contributions, therefore, have been real, but they should be looked at in the context of a range of other contributors that are investigating biological control possibilities. The ACTING CHAIR: Members, I am worried about the time and that we need to keep moving through. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: I will put my supplementary question in as a question on notice. Hon LIZ BEHJAT: I refer again to the Kimberley region and the election commitments for the “Kimberley Conservation Strategy” referred to on page 887. Is this funding tied to the public forums that will be starting in the Kimberley? What is happening in that area? Hon DONNA FARAGHER: Yes, it is. The government committed $9 million at the election for a Kimberley science and conservation strategy. We have said that the Kimberley has enormous unique values not only to Western Australia, but also indeed to Australia and the world. The Kimberley has enormous economic and tourist potential. There is a great range of cultural and heritage values in the Kimberley. This strategy will, therefore, develop an integrated science and conservation strategy for the future. Towards the end of last year I asked the department to prepare a scientific document on the Kimberley. In March this year I called for public submissions on what people would like done with this strategy because I believe it is really important that we get the views of all stakeholders. A couple of weeks ago the member probably heard in the news that we will be
[ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E687 commencing the next phase of the consultation period, and I am very excited with respect to this particular aspect. Public forums will be held in both the Kimberley and in Perth. An independent facilitator, Mr Chris Ellison, will chair those forums. Mr Ellison will also be available to meet with those people who may not feel comfortable appearing before a public forum. [2.30 pm] I understand that meetings have already occurred this week with a couple of conservation groups. The public forum meetings—I will check this with Mr Sharp, who was at the earlier meetings—will be held through June and July. I hope to attend a couple of those meetings in the Kimberley, the first of which may even be next week. It is very exciting. The government is very committed to developing this strategy and to gaining the input of all the relevant stakeholders. I will refer now to Mr Sharp for confirmation of the meetings that are being, or are to be, held. Mr J. Sharp: Yes; three processes are going on simultaneously. Chris Ellison is holding meetings with individual stakeholders if they so request. Hearings will commence at a number of venues next week—that is, in Kununurra, Wyndham and Halls Creek—all of which have been and will continue to be well publicised; and workshops will be held at which ideas can be tested. In addition, the minister earlier in the year called for submissions, and we have already received 40 substantial submissions. The meetings with stakeholders commenced last week, and five key stakeholders have already been engaged in stakeholder meetings. The second round of consultations will start on 20 July in Broome, Derby and Fitzroy Crossing. In between the two lots of Kimberley-based forum sessions, a forum will be held in Perth on Tuesday, 7 July, and, if necessary— Chris Ellison has indicated there may be a need—a second forum will be held in Perth. But that is the current program. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: I have a quick question. I refer to the landfill levy fees, about which there has been considerable debate. We did hear from a minister earlier this morning that the decision to impose a levy in another area was in fact imposed by the Treasurer on the minister and the agency. My question is: did the Minister for Environment suggest the increase from $14 million to $57.5 million for the landfill levy fees or was that decision made by a subcommittee of the cabinet and imposed by the Treasurer or Premier? Hon DONNA FARAGHER: I thank the member; I am just trying to find the correct page to refer the member to. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: I do not know that the minister needs a page number for that question specifically. Hon DONNA FARAGHER: I refer the member to page 888 of the Budget Statements and the economic audit line item. This matter was referred through the economic audit process. Obviously, there are budget processes, and this was a government-endorsed decision that is reflected in the budget. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: I want to get this clear. Was it imposed by the Treasurer on the minister or did the minister have the opportunity to say no, because it is cost-prohibitive and disadvantageous and so on, or did she just cop it? It is a fair question? Hon DONNA FARAGHER: It was a government-endorsed decision that is in the budget papers. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich, I am very committed to increasing recycling in this state. The reality is that an increase in the landfill levies will increase the incentive for people to recycle, particularly construction and demolition waste. From an environmental perspective, I would like to think that people would agree and look positively upon increasing the level of construction and demolition recycling. I am not sure whether the member was here when I mentioned this previously, but I will mention it again: more than 65 per cent of construction and demolition waste is recycled in New South Wales, but less than 20 per cent is recycled in Western Australia. I have had representations from a range of people asking that the levy be increased to create that incentive to recycle. Obviously, increasing the levy will increase revenue, and, as has been reflected in the budget papers, it has also been identified through the economic audit. However, there are clear advantages in increasing the levy, one of which is an improvement in the level of recycling. The ACTING CHAIR: Before I give the call to Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich, I remind members that I have quite a long list of people who want to ask questions. We do not have a huge amount of time this afternoon, and, obviously, a lot more members are asking questions than is normally the case. I ask members to keep their questions succinct and the minister and her advisers to keep their answers succinct. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: I only want to make the point that irrespective of how the minister dresses up the levy, the simple fact is that this is an excessive levy, and the minister knows it. Hon DONNA FARAGHER: I will say that even with a 300 per cent increase, the levy in Western Australia is not as high as is the case in a number of other states. It is about $46.70 per tonne in New South Wales, and that will increase to more than $50 per tonne. Even with this increase, we are well below the figure in other states.
E688 [ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
Hon JIM CHOWN: I refer to the second dot point under “Significant Issues Impacting the Agency” on page 889 of the Budget Statements concerning threats to Western Australia’s biodiversity. I wonder whether the minister can advise what activities are being undertaken in respect of feral animals such as wild dogs, cats and, of course, the ubiquitous fox. Hon DONNA FARAGHER: I will ask Mr McNamara to make some more specific comments, but it is fair to say that pests, particularly European foxes, cats, goats, donkeys and the like are a significant threat to native species in particular. The department has a very successful Western Shield program that was launched back in 1996-97. I understand the department baits almost 4 million hectares of conservation lands up to four times a year. The fox is a particular target species. The department has achieved significant benefits through the program, and I will ask Mr McNamara to provide a bit more detail. Mr K. McNamara: The department’s current financial year expenditure on the control of introduced animals will be around $5.5 million. I expect that level of expenditure to be maintained in the next financial year. A significant proportion of that money is spent on the Western Shield program outlined by the minister. We also continue to conduct research into how to achieve better outcomes in areas such as cat control in particular and wild dogs, as specifically mentioned by the member. The department works with pastoralists and with declared animal groups under the Agriculture Protection Board and Biosecurity Council regime administered through the agricultural portfolio in joint operations to deal with wild dogs. Wild dogs are a challenge, as many people in the pastoral communities and the northern and eastern wheatbelt know. We actively contribute to baiting programs. The Minister for Agriculture and Food is also considering barrier fence issues, but that is not something for the environment portfolio directly. Hon JIM CHOWN: With your permission, Mr Chair, I have a couple more questions. The ACTING CHAIR: I will have to give each member an opportunity to ask one question each, and then come back to members if we have time. [2.40 pm] Hon ALYSSA HAYDEN: I refer to the major capital works program at page 889 of budget paper No 3 and the funding allocated to parks and visitor services. Can the minister advise what improvements to visitor facilities will be made in the Perth hills area? Hon DONNA FARAGHER: I thank the member for that question. A number of capital infrastructure works are scheduled for the Perth hills area. They include, but are not limited to, $210 000, for example, for Perth hills parks, reserves and forests for maintenance of facilities across 274 recreational sites and a road maintenance program. The ACTING CHAIR: If the minister has a document there, perhaps to speed things up she can table that, and we will take it as a tabled document. Hon DONNA FARAGHER: I am happy to table that. Hon JON FORD: Can the minister tell me the size of the conservation estate. I would like to know also what capital infrastructure has been allocated to the management of these assets and how much of the budget is allocated to that management. Mr K. McNamara: Without getting into the detail of how it is broken up, the conservation estate in Western Australia, which includes the existing national parks, nature reserves and conservation parks and lands that have been acquired for reservation, but are not yet reserved, in round figures are 25 million hectares, plus about 1 million hectares of state forest, plus about 1.5 million hectares of marine reserves. The capital budget for managing park facilities and roads is in the order of $12 million per annum and, for three major services of the department; that is, nature conservation, parks and visitor services and sustainable forest management—I do not have the tally readily at hand—together would be in the order of $200 million. A large proportion of that budget is spent on managing those lands and waters. But, of course, some of it, particularly in nature conservation, is spent outside the conservation reserve system on research, biodiversity conservation outside reserves and so on. Almost the entire parks and visitor services budget, a large proportion of the nature conservation budget and all of the sustainable forest management budget is spent on those lands. Hon JON FORD: How many FTEs are involved? The minister can take that question on notice. Mr K. McNamara: I think there is an FTE figure for each service in the budget papers. There are 1 970 FTEs across the department. [Supplementary Information No D1.] Hon ADELE FARINA: As the minister will be aware, the Port Geographe development is in non-compliance with the environmental conditions of approval. The former Labor government put in a lot of work to bring that project into compliance, and that work was ongoing. Will the minister advise what action she has taken to
[ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E689 immediately bring this project into compliance with environmental conditions and approval? When does she anticipate that the project will be in compliance? Mr A. Sands: A number of actions are being taken to bring that process into compliance. They are mainly working with the proponent to meet the conditions regarding the odour and some of the water quality treatments. The monitoring of both those categories has been undertaken and we are in close consultation with the proponent and the key stakeholders to bring that together. Hon ADELE FARINA: When does the minister anticipate that the project will be in compliance with the environmental conditions of approval? Mr A. Sands: I cannot give a date on that. But we are working with the proponents to bring that into compliance as soon as possible. The ACTING CHAIR: Can you provide supplementary information on that. Hon DONNA FARAGHER: I will hand over to Mr McNamara. I understand also that the DPI is involved with respect to the studies it is doing. Mr K. McNamara: A lot of effort is going into the management of that project and the issues down there. As Mr Sands and the minister indicated, apart from the monitoring and the consultation with others and the work of the developer itself that is taking place, a very important component is the study by the Department for Planning and Infrastructure of the seagrass and water movement as it is affected by the groynes. A fundamental issue is to see what those studies reveal in the way the sand and seawrack are accumulating to see if there are design issues that need to be addressed with those groynes. From my recollection, that is a two-year study and will not be due until next year. Hon ADELE FARINA: Do you have an anticipated date for when this project will be compliant? This project is very fast approaching handover and it is still not in compliance. There does not seem to be a time line from the current government to bring it into compliance. If it is not in compliance by the hand-over date, will the government prosecute? Hon DONNA FARAGHER: As Mr Sands and Mr McNamara have outlined, a number of programs are in place. Work is being done in consultation with the relevant other departments, particularly Planning and Infrastructure, which is obviously the lead agency on this. Hon ADELE FARINA: No; these are environmental conditions of approval. The minister’s department is the lead agency. Hon DONNA FARAGHER: I am aware of that. I am talking about the issue in general. The department is taking a range of actions. I am happy to take it on notice and give the member further details on a time line of events. [Supplementary Information No D2] The ACTING CHAIR: We need to keep moving with questions. Hon ADELE FARINA: Has the department completed its audit of the water monitoring report for Port Geographe 2007-08, which was due on 31 March last year? Hon DONNA FARAGHER: We will have to check that. I will take that question on notice. [Supplementary Information D3.] Hon KEN BASTON: My question relates to works in progress on page 894. I refer to the new Walpole and Nornalup inlet marine park. Bearing in mind that recreational fishing and boating can continue in that park, are dogs permitted in boats in the park or on boats in transit through the park to the Southern Ocean? How many extra staff are involved in the management of the marine park? The ACTING CHAIR: That is for constituents travelling from the southern to the northern part of your electorate I take it, Hon Ken Baston! Hon KEN BASTON: Absolutely—coming down from the Kimberley. Hon DONNA FARAGHER: Hon Ken Baston raised an issue about a constituent who has some concerns regarding dogs being allowed into the marine park. I sought some advice from Mr Sharp behind me and he can provide information about that. As I understand it, a policy allows dogs in the park, but I will defer to Mr Sharp. Mr J. Sharp: The management plan for the Walpole-Nornalup National Park provides that dogs will be prohibited. That was a proposal that came from the community consultation process and was an outcome of the draft plan that was available for public consultation. However, that recommendation goes on to say that, where appropriate, permitted areas may be gazetted to facilitate use. It is really about the impact on shore birds and sea birds that are on the shore.
E690 [ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
As the minister indicated, that will be dealt with as a matter of policy, whereby it is quite clear that the policy relating to marine parks is that if people are in transit, dogs that are travelling in a vessel in a marine park or a marine management area can be taken in transit on boats. [2.50 pm] Hon MATT BENSON-LIDHOLM: I want to look at the department’s asset investment program, and I note in particular the commitment to the tourism road improvement program. Can the minister provide any information about the major beneficiaries of the 2008-09 tourism road improvement program? That is obviously the current one. For the four years from 2009-10 to 2012-13, the estimated total cost of the tourism road improvement program is $12.45 million. What major programs will be addressed or are expected to be addressed in those four years? Will the Bremer Bay to Hopetoun road be part of the tourism road improvement program? Hon DONNA FARAGHER: I will also defer to Mr Sharp on this question. However, under the tourism road improvement program, the department is responsible for managing and maintaining about 39 000 kilometres of roads and tracks used by the public. I will have to check the 2008-09 figures, but the allocation for 2009-10 is for road maintenance primarily in national parks throughout the state. That is made up of just over $2 million from the department as well as $1 million from Main Roads. There is also about $5.3 million in the budget for the park improvement program. I will defer to Mr Sharp as he may have more details. Mr J. Sharp: A large proportion of the allocation of funds for roading is for ongoing maintenance and repair of roads. There is no one specific road that will get the majority of those funds. It is dispersed across all roads, from the Kimberley to past Esperance. The roading improvements that take place are usually part of a park management plan, so there are two components: new roads, such as the element of the upgrading of the roading in Purnululu National Park—all national parks have an element of road improvement; and ongoing maintenance, which is very expensive across that 39 000 kilometres of roading. As far as the specific road in Fitzgerald River National Park is concerned, that budget allocation is not allocated in the Department of Environment and Conservation; it is reflected in the roading budget of Main Roads WA as a $20 million item. Hon MATT BENSON-LIDHOLM: I am obviously particularly concerned about the fact that we are talking about the Fitzgerald biosphere area, where even small tracks and so on may well have issues associated with dieback and the like in future years. That will certainly need to be factored into budgets, and I am not sure exactly whether it needs to be put into the Department of Environment and Conservation’s budget. I imagine it would do, which is why I pursued that line of questioning. Hon DONNA FARAGHER: With respect to that road, that $20 million Mr Sharp referred to is within the Main Roads portfolio. I understand it is for the two bookends of that road, if I can put it that way. With respect to the notion of the road, the Premier has made it very clear that all the environmental issues will need to be addressed, and Mr McNamara may have some further details on that. However, I understand that the $20 million—I should not speak for another minister—is for the two bookends of the road. Hon GIZ WATSON: My question relates to page 889 of the Budget Statements, and deals with sustainable forest management among other things. My first question is: why has the department’s sustainable forest management expense component blown out this year from a budgeted figure of $38 956 000 to $44 149 000? Hon DONNA FARAGHER: Dr Byrne might be able to assist us with that question. Dr J. Byrne: I suggest that question be taken on notice so that we can provide a detailed breakdown of all components of the increase; it would come to about half a page or so, off the top of my head. We can definitely provide a detailed breakdown and make it available for the member. Hon GIZ WATSON: I will put the question on notice. [Supplementary Information No D4.] Hon GIZ WATSON: Can the department specify in detail how the $43 919 000 for sustainable forest management will be spent? Hon DONNA FARAGHER: We will also take that question on notice and provide the details later. [Supplementary Information No D5.] The ACTING CHAIR: For the benefit of new members, Hon Giz Watson is a member of the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations, which is why I am allowing her more than one question. In fact, she is the chair of the committee, so I am going to make sure I look after her! Hon GIZ WATSON: I have further questions on that area, but I will submit them on notice because they require detailed information.
[ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E691
I refer to the line item “Proportion of marine bioregions with marine conservation reserves” on page 890. My question is: what is the expectation of additional marine reserve areas being added to the state conservation system within the next 12 months and within the next three years? Hon DONNA FARAGHER: As the member would be aware, I recently put in an order for the creation of the Walpole and Nornalup Inlets Marine Park, so that is the first. A number of other proposed parks have been examined by the Marine Parks and Reserves Authority and I am receiving some briefings on them. Obviously these are matters, as the member would appreciate, that require the concurrence of the Minister for Fisheries and the Minister for Mines and Petroleum, but we are certainly looking at that. Furthermore, when I made the announcement about the public consultation phase of the Kimberley science and conservation strategy, we again identified a number of areas, such as Camden Sound, for discussion about either protection or enhanced protection. We have identified three or four areas and that really was to provide an opportunity for the relevant communities to give feedback about that. I am obviously also in consultation with the Marine Parks and Reserves Authority, and I have asked it to specifically look at issues surrounding the Kimberley. I am waiting for its advice and views, as well as, obviously, for what stakeholders may say about the Kimberley. As I have said, concurrence is ultimately required from other ministers, and there are government processes in relation to that. We have created the Walpole and Nornalup Inlets Marine Park, which is very exciting, and we will look at creating others in due course, and I am receiving briefings on those at the moment. Hon SALLY TALBOT: Can the minister tell us which parks and reserves they are? Hon DONNA FARAGHER: The Dampier Archipelago and the capes. Hon SALLY TALBOT: And the regional review of the south coast? Hon DONNA FARAGHER: I have not yet received that from the department. I understand that it is being finalised at the moment and will be provided shortly. [3.00 pm] The ACTING CHAIR: Members, we are now just about at the conclusion of time allocated for this division and we have the Swan River Trust next. Quite a lot of members have indicated that they still want to ask questions. Can I get an indication from members whether they would prefer us to run a bit over time on this division and shorten the time for the Swan River Trust? I see a number of nods around the chamber. It seems to be the general agreement. What I plan to do is continue for a little bit longer, into Swan River Trust time. I indicate, too, that Hon Nigel Hallett is the only member I have identified who is still seeking the call who has not asked a question. I will give Hon Nigel Hallett the call. Then I intend to give Hon Sally Talbot and Hon Robin Chapple the call, who have been identified as the lead speakers for their respective parties. I also have on my list Hon Jim Chown, Hon Adele Farina, Hon Alyssa Hayden and Hon Philip Gardiner. Hopefully we can fit those questions in in a reasonable amount of time. I give the call to Hon Nigel Hallett. Hon NIGEL HALLETT: My question relates to Walpole National Park. It leads on from Hon Ken Baston’s question. This may be taken on notice: could the minister table evidence of the community consultation workings on the national marine park and also how many staff are involved in the management of that park now in comparison to prior to the new park being brought in? Hon DONNA FARAGHER: We do not need to take that question on notice. In terms of the marine park, as I understand it there has been quite extensive consultation, particularly through the Marine Parks and Reserves Authority, as is required with respect to any potential creation of a marine park. As I understand it— Mr McNamara might confirm this for me—around two staff are required. In terms of the specific consultation, obviously that occurred prior to my becoming minister, so Mr McNamara might be able to enlighten the member further. Mr K. McNamara: The full statutory process of the Conservation Land Management Act was followed. There was publication of a notice of intent to create the park and an indicative management plan that went through a three-month public comment process followed by the concurrence of the Minister for Fisheries and the then Minister for Resources. That is the essential statutory process. In addition, there was a community-based focus group that was convened. There was extensive direct discussion with interest groups, with tourist operators and other relevant agencies. As the minister indicated, it was in fact in a previous budget. There were allocations to both the Department of Environment and Conservation and to the Department of Fisheries to meet their roles in managing their responsibilities in the marine park. It is a fairly small marine park. DEC already has a substantial Walpole office. Although I cannot be absolutely precise about it, the number of full-time equivalents directly for managing the marine park is about two or three. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: Given that in other states there is a considerable FTE allocation for management under the environmental portfolio of uranium mining and associated activities, especially in the Northern
E692 [ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
Territory, with the supervising scientist having a staff of some 100-odd members, how many FTEs have been allocated to that process within the Department of Environment and Conservation? Hon DONNA FARAGHER: We do not have uranium mining here at this point in time, but Mr McNamara has got some further information. Mr K. McNamara: The Department of Mines and Petroleum is leading a process to address the requirements on a variety of agencies that will flow from the commencement of uranium mining in Western Australia. There will be extra work to be carried out in the Department of Environment and Conservation. There are functions of the Radiological Council, the Department of Mines and Petroleum itself and perhaps others. That work is being done. The Department of Mines and Petroleum has the lead on it and it is identifying the regulatory measures that need to be put in place and the process measures that need to be put in place, and it is in the process of identifying the human resources needed across the agencies. Through the Radiological Council, there is expertise in the matter. The normal processes of the Environmental Protection Act and the assessment processes of the EPA are certainly capable of addressing the environmental impacts. Hon SALLY TALBOT: My question, in a sense, follows along the same line of questioning about the EPA. Can I first clarify a technical point, to which I suspect there is an easy answer. On page 887, under the subheading “Delivery of Services”, is the line item services provided to Environmental Protection Authority. Why is there no allocation from this year onwards? I think it has been put somewhere else but I am not sure where Hon DONNA FARAGHER: There is a technical answer to this. Mr McNamara will be able to assist. Mr K. McNamara: The previous descriptions inherited from the former Department of Environment included a specific entry for services to the EPA. With the transition to the combined Department of Environment and Conservation and the rationalisation of a number of services, I think we now have seven. The services to the EPA are included in service 6, “Environmental Impact Assessment and Policies for the Environmental Protection Authority”. The EPA itself is no longer a line entry. The funding available to the EPA is covered in that service, which is on page 893. Hon SALLY TALBOT: I refer to section 6 on page 893 of the Budget Statements. We see there a reduction in FTEs for the EPA from 131 to 115. How can the minister justify that in light of her statements about strengthening the role of the EPA? What does it mean to “strengthen the role of the EPA” if the FTEs are reduced? Hon DONNA FARAGHER: The estimated actual is 113; 2009-10 indicates 115. As I understand it, that does not refer to the EPA only. Mr McNamara has some more details. Hon SALLY TALBOT: What does the minister mean when she says that does not only refer to the EPA? Hon DONNA FARAGHER: Environmental impact assessment does not only refer specifically to the EPA as such. Mr K. McNamara: As the minister has indicated, the actual for 2008-09 is 113 and the budget target for next year is 115. They are the actual figures. There has been cessation of some finite funding allocations that were made by the previous government. There have been a number of areas in the Department of Environment and Conservation budget around land supply issues, around major project approvals, around acid sulphate soils et cetera. Finite funding was provided and progressively either has ceased or is ceasing in the next year or two. In addition, services to the EPA are provided widely across the department. There is an entire branch in the nature conservation division, for example—the environmental management branch—that spends most of its time assessing mining and other projects from the point of view of our Conservation and Land Management Act and Wildlife Conservation Act responsibilities, and feeding that into the EPA. There is a broad range of support and service outside of just the environmental impact assessment division. The ACTING CHAIR: Can I ask members to speak up a little bit, please. Hon SALLY TALBOT: To clarify a point made by the minister: how many of those 115 will not be working for the EPA? Mr K. McNamara: To provide the precise answer, we would need to take the question on notice. The environmental impact assessment division and the office of the chairman of the EPA would, I suspect, be in the order of 35 or so staff. [Supplementary Information No D6.] Hon SALLY TALBOT: The minister may want to put the next one on notice, too. Can the minister tell me what the actual head count from that FTE complement is? Hon DONNA FARAGHER: We will take that on notice.
[ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E693
[Supplementary Information No D7.] Hon SALLY TALBOT: Could the minister also perhaps take on notice getting for me a list of the projects that have been concluded? The minister just mentioned a couple to do with acid sulphates. Can I have a full list of those projects that have been stopped? Hon DONNA FARAGHER: Is that with respect to the finite funding? Hon SALLY TALBOT: Yes. Hon DONNA FARAGHER: Yes, we can. [Supplementary Information No D8.] Hon SALLY TALBOT: I have one more question on the EPA. The minister has talked about allocating funds for development of a state-of-the-art environmental data system. I know that was warmly welcomed by the environment movement. Has the minister allocated funds to that; and, if so, where are they in the budget? [3.10 pm] Hon DONNA FARAGHER: Funds have not been allocated at this stage because, as the member quite rightly indicated, I made an announcement in March following the release of the Environmental Protection Authority’s report on environmental impact assessment. As part of that response, I have referred the report to the environmental stakeholder working group, which is chaired by Dr Bernard Bowen and had its first meeting last week. With regard to the environmental data set, I have asked Dr Paul Vogel to chair a working group of interested parties from both the conservation and industry sectors, as well as government agencies that would have an interest in such a system—Landgate, for example. I have asked Dr Vogel to bring forward a cost-sharing model with industry. There is nothing in the budget at this stage, because he is doing the work to determine the most appropriate model and to identify where there are opportunities for industry to assist through investment. Obviously there will be benefits for industry in such a system. We are looking to establish a shared environmental system that can be utilised by government and industry. Hon SALLY TALBOT: When does the minister expect that system to be operational? When does she expect it to be included in the budget? Hon DONNA FARAGHER: I will have to check. I have asked Dr Vogel to come back to me with the outcomes by, I think, October. I will take the question on notice to confirm the date. [Supplementary Information No D9.] Hon DONNA FARAGHER: Dr Vogel has already had his first meeting and there is very clear support for progress towards this model. Obviously, he will provide me with the best model, which will require consultation with industry and other parties that take an interest in this. Hon SALLY TALBOT: The minister does not have a headline figure. Hon DONNA FARAGHER: We do not at this stage, because it very much depends on what model Dr Vogel puts forward and how much industry is willing to contribute. It is obviously an evolving process and it will not be an easy task for Dr Vogel to determine the best approach, but he is very committed to finding it. I understand there is work being done at commonwealth government level also. I look forward to receiving his report in due course. Hon PHILIP GARDINER: I refer to page 891, and my question also relates to page 895. Total income for the DEC is just under $100 million if the landfill levy is subtracted, and $135.5 million if it is included. My question relates to the significant income generation of the department. Nature conservation is earning approximately $26 million and sustainable forest management is earning nearly $11 million. Is an increase of that revenue restrained by what the market can afford to pay, or can more revenue be generated by raising entrance fees to national parks and so on? I also understand that there is a source of lime that is very important for the agricultural sector; I think it is located at Jurien Bay. It is being constrained from having lime sourced from it at this stage because of environmental concerns. Will the minister look at balancing whatever the limited environmental cost might be, with the major environmental benefit that might result if lime from this source were to be put on agricultural land to improve the organic carbon, microflora and microbiology of the soils? It could also increase revenue through royalties. Hon DONNA FARAGHER: I will refer the question to Mr McNamara for some more specific details, but with regard to the lime pit, I would have to have more details from the member. I am happy to either take the question on notice or talk to the member later to get some more details. Unfortunately I do not have that information, but Mr McNamara might be able to provide further information on the other points. [Supplementary Information No D10.]
E694 [ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
Mr K. McNamara: The department’s projected total revenue in the budget papers for 2009-10 is approximately $135 million. We have park entry fees, camping fees and lease fees in parks. We have extensive grants—such as the former Natural Heritage Trust, now Caring for our Country—from the commonwealth government. We have recoup work that we do for the Forest Products Commission. We have environmental regulation licence fees, which is how we fund our environmental regulation capacity. There are a range of those sorts of things, and in total they add up to $135 million. I am aware of the lime pit to which the member refers. In the environmental approvals process, at the end of the day, the minister and the government will make a decision that takes account of the net benefits of such a proposal; I am of course aware of the agricultural value of lime. Part of the point of the question was about the department raising more revenue to do its job. We do not make money through royalties or fees on mining in parks; if there is a royalty, it is a royalty to the state. That is quite independent of the DEC’s management of its conservation reserves. Hon JIM CHOWN: I refer to page 887 and the line item “Election Commitments” under “Major Policy Decisions”. I refer specifically to the item “Environmental Monitoring and Compliance Program” for which $1 million is allocated. Can the minister advise whether there will be additional staff for the regions; and, if so, where? To expedite the time constraints, I also ask if the minister could provide some information on the enforcement of environmental compliance. Hon DONNA FARAGHER: That line item is an election commitment of $4 million over four years, with an initial allocation, as the member mentioned, of $1 million. Under this initiative, there will be environmental investigation leaders at key centres. Two officers will be appointed to service the south west, south coast and the Warren region, centred at Manjimup. There will be two additional officers appointed to the Swan region. The ACTING CHAIR: Minister, if that is a document, perhaps you could table it so we can speed things up a bit. Hon DONNA FARAGHER: This will literally take a couple of minutes. There will be one officer in Geraldton and one in the Pilbara. There will also be two additional officers appointed to the environmental enforcement unit in Perth. The ACTING CHAIR: Does that answer the member’s questions? Hon JIM CHOWN: No, only one. Hon DONNA FARAGHER: What was the other question? Hon JIM CHOWN: I wanted information on environmental enforcement legislation. Hon DONNA FARAGHER: I understand that there are approximately 108 officers authorised as inspectors and they are given substantial powers under the Environmental Protection Act to ensure compliance with legislation and licence conditions. Hon SALLY TALBOT: I refer to the Waste Authority. I understand that the minister recently answered a question in reference to 28 FTEs. Can I ask what the actual head count is? Hon DONNA FARAGHER: I will take the question on notice. [Supplementary Information No D11.] Hon SALLY TALBOT: My substantial question is about note 1 under the heading “Explanation of Significant Movements” at the bottom of page 892. As this is somewhat topical, can I ask for an explanation of the deferral, particularly of the expenditure on the Brookdale site? Mr A. Sands: The deferral is due to intensive investigations. It has taken a long time to determine the actual location of some of the plumes within the area. We have been following those investigations. Some of the results have been forthcoming recently, and we are now taking action on those findings. Hon SALLY TALBOT: Has that expenditure been carried over into the current financial year? Mr A. Sands: Yes. Hon SALLY TALBOT: When is that money expected to be expended? Will it be expended in the next 12 months? Mr A. Sands: We will be spending money in the next year. I could not tell the member whether we will spend it all. I take that on notice. Hon DONNA FARAGHER: Mr McNamara has just informed me that works will commence this summer. If we can find some further details, we will provide them. [Supplementary Information No D12.]
[ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E695
Hon ALYSSA HAYDEN: I refer to the Gnangara park development 2009-10 program listed on page 894 in the table for the asset investment program. Can the minister advise what this program includes and what funding has been allocated for this development? Hon DONNA FARAGHER: The Gnangara park is a concept to integrate substantial crown land on the Gnangara mound managed by the Department of Environment and Conservation into a single area management plan under the Conservation and Land Management Act. The ACTING CHAIR: Again, is this a document that the minister could table to speed things up? Hon DONNA FARAGHER: I will just provide some detail. I understand that funding will be split for both recreational facilities and rehabilitation works. The ACTING CHAIR: That concludes the session on the Department of Environment and Conservation. I remind members that if they have further questions that they want to put in writing and provide to the committee clerk by the end of today’s session, we will provide them to the department and have them answered as supplementary questions. We will now have a break and as quickly as possible bring in the witnesses for the Swan River Trust. Meeting suspended from 3.22 to 3.27 pm Division 72: Swan River Trust, $12 422 000 — Hon Ken Travers, Acting Chair. Hon Donna Faragher, Minister for Environment. Mr R. Hughes, General Manager. Mr C. Mather, Manager, Riverpark. Ms R. Shadbolt, Manager, Strategic Programs. Ms R. Spencer, River System Manager. Mr J. Wong, Business Manager/Chief Financial Officer. The ACTING CHAIR: On behalf of the Legislative Council Estimates and Financial Operations Committee, I would like to welcome you to today’s hearing, and apologise for our late commencement. Before we begin, I must ask you to take either the oath or affirmation. [Witnesses took the oath or affirmation.] The ACTING CHAIR: This hearing is being held in public although there is discretion available to the committee to hear evidence in private either of its own motion or at witness request. If for some reason you wish to make a confidential statement during today’s proceedings, you should request that the evidence be taken in closed session before answering the question. Government agencies and departments have an important role and duty in assisting Parliament to scrutinise the budget papers on behalf of the people of Western Australia. The committee values that assistance. Members know to sit towards the front of the chamber to assist witnesses when answering questions. It will greatly assist Hansard if when referring to the Budget Statements volumes or the consolidated account estimates, members give the page number, item, program, amount, and so on in preface to their questions. Again, I draw that to the attention of members. If supplementary information is to be provided, I ask your cooperation in ensuring that it is delivered to the committee’s clerk within five working days of receipt of the questions. An example of the required Hansard style for the documents has been provided to your advisers. The committee reminds agency representatives to respond to questions in a succinct manner and to limit the extent of personal observations. For the benefit of members and Hansard, I ask the minister to introduce his advisers to the committee, and for each adviser to please state their full name, contact address and the capacity in which they appear before the committee. [Witnesses Introduced.] The ACTING CHAIR: At this time, I would ask each of the witnesses whether they have read, understood and completed the “Information for Witnesses” form. The Witnesses: Yes. The ACTING CHAIR: Do all the witnesses fully understand the meaning and effect of the provisions of that document?
E696 [ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
The Witnesses: Yes. Hon SALLY TALBOT: I know that it is not usual to have the Swan River Trust at this forum, but can I ask the minister to outline the underlying philosophy of the trust and what it does to achieve those objectives? Hon DONNA FARAGHER: The Swan River Trust plays an important role in Western Australia. Obviously, it has a role in respect of our catchments. It has a catchment to coast approach to our rivers. More recently, it has released for public comment a draft water quality improvement plan. It does a lot of survey work. Obviously, in its regulatory role, it deals with developments that impact on our rivers. It is also leading the development of a healthy rivers action plan and a number of other pieces of work on contaminants and nutrients in our waterways. Clearly the Swan River Trust works with a range of other agencies that have an interest in this area, such as the Department of Environment and Conservation, the Department of Water, the Department of Agriculture and Food and others. As the member said, the Swan River Trust does not always get an opportunity to say a few words, so I will pass to the general manager who might also be able to provide some information. [3.30 pm] Mr R. Hughes: I thank the minister for that opportunity. We are an unusual organisation in many respects. There is no agency like this in any other jurisdiction. As the minister said, we have a range of functions that are mirrored more or less to the same extent by other waterways managers, but our role goes out into the catchment. Obviously the fate of a waterway is dictated by what is happening in the catchment, so we are working from the catchment in land management down to the shorelines where we deal with development processes, as the minister said, and work on the water’s edge to establish a healthy foreshore. We then work in the waterway itself dealing with matters of water quality and waterway use. Obviously the Swan and Canning Rivers system is a very popular waterway. Many members of the community use it in different ways. That is therefore part of the challenge that the Swan River Trust faces. Hon SALLY TALBOT: Can the minister outline what she regards are the major factors impacting on water quality and the general ecological health in the Swan and Canning Rivers? Hon DONNA FARAGHER: There are a number of issues. A key issue is nutrients in our waterways. Obviously the Swan River Trust plays a key part in that with respect to the water quality improvement plan, as I said in my previous answer. Obviously, there are a number of other factors with which the Swan River Trust is involved. The trust is constantly monitoring river health, whether it be issues surrounding contaminants and the like, oxygenation or a range of other factors. We want to make sure that the Swan River is here for both us and those in the future. The Swan River Trust, therefore, actually does a considerable amount of work on investigating opportunities for improving river health. Hon SALLY TALBOT: I note that the budget papers say that sources of excess nutrients entering the waterway need to be addressed, and examples are given in the budget papers. I note that the minister underlined that as one of the key factors impacting on water health. The examples in the budget are poor fertiliser management in urban gardens, public parks, golf courses and agricultural land, which the budget papers say need to be addressed. How serious is that problem? Hon DONNA FARAGHER: It is clear that we need to reduce nutrients entering our waterways; no-one would deny that. We need to look at a range of opportunities to reduce nutrients entering our waterways. There are a range of factors, whether it be from the agricultural point of view, the individual’s point of view or the actual items that people put down their drains. The Swan River Trust takes quite a holistic approach to the issue of river health. It is fair to say that there are constraints on our river. Hon SALLY TALBOT: By “holistic”, does the minister mean from catchment to coast? Hon DONNA FARAGHER: Yes. In addition to that, the Swan River Trust is working with other departments and agencies not only to improve our waterways, but also to identify the location of the actual problems, contaminants and the like. Obviously some contaminants have been there for many years. Recent research right across the area was undertaken by the Swan River Trust and released through the Department of Water, which identified a number of hot spots—if I can call them that. East Perth was one of those hot spots. I suppose these are historical problems. Hon SALLY TALBOT: They are separate problems, though. They are identified in the budget papers as separate problems to the problem of nutrients. Hon DONNA FARAGHER: The member asked me a general question about the constraints on the river. I am saying that a host of issues affect the river. Some are long-term issues. Others issues are present but are issues in areas that the Swan River Trust is obviously working on with other agencies, such as the Department of Water and the Department of Environment and Conservation.
[ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E697
Hon SALLY TALBOT: I want to dig down a little more on this matter. The minister would be aware of the recent reports from the Department of Water that suggest we need to halve the amount of water-soluble fertilisers going into the waterway. Does the minister agree with that? Hon DONNA FARAGHER: As the member is aware, a fertiliser action plan was commenced by the previous government, and that continues. There is a clear view that we need to reduce nutrients entering our waterways. Two trials were commenced under the previous government. Although no new funding was provided by the previous government to deliver on that plan, we have announced funding of around $610 000 for further trials, particularly for demonstration projects as well as trials for alternative soil amendments. We are also looking at the issue of water quality per se through the natural resource management program. Obviously that is within the portfolio of the Minister for Agriculture and Food, but quite clearly matters surrounding natural resource management quite significantly affect the Department of Environment and Conservation, and we are a very big player in that regard, if I can put it that way. Water quality is one of the key areas that is looked at in natural resource management. [3.40 pm] Hon SALLY TALBOT: The minister may want to refer to some of her technical experts. My specific question is: does she agree with the report that the Swan and Canning Rivers can handle only half of the level of nutrients currently dumped in there manually? The water report said that the nutrients need to be reduced within the next seven years. Hon DONNA FARAGHER: I understand that report says that the nutrients need to be reduced by around 50 per cent. Mr Hughes might have some further details on the modelling. Mr R. Hughes: That modelling was done by the Department of Water on our behalf to develop the “Swan Canning Water Quality Improvement Plan”. We have taken a more sophisticated approach to the sub-catchment so that we can look at the nature of the individual catchments and what approach might be needed to get the best outcome from water quality at that more localised level so we can be more targeted in our approach. Fertiliser application is one of the things we need to address, but there are other issues, such as more efficient irrigation systems and our nutrient intervention program where we construct wetlands at the end of the drainage system or re-engineer the drainage system so water through the landscape is slowed, so that some of the nutrients can be taken out of the water that has reached the drainage system. Another action is to go back further up the catchment to engage in things such as water sensitive urban design so that the new land developments we create are not delivering the problems that traditional developments have done. A range of actions can be taken in response to the question of what percentage of nutrients need to be pulled out of the system. Hon SALLY TALBOT: The minister will be aware, because we have discussed this several times in the house, that the key point of the previous government’s fertiliser action plan is that it contained mandatory provisions to phase out water-soluble fertiliser. Why is a voluntary scheme better? Hon DONNA FARAGHER: I think the member is referring to the Fertcare program in terms of the voluntary scheme. As I said in the house during another debate, that is one avenue that is being pursued by the government through the Minister for Agriculture and Food. It is an important initiative. In addition, that is but part of the work that is being done — Hon SALLY TALBOT: Is the minister still looking at mandatory schemes? Hon DONNA FARAGHER: I have said that the fertiliser action plan continues. As I have just said, a couple of the demonstration projects were started in Busselton and Coolup. As I also said, no funding was provided by the previous government for the fertiliser action plan. Within the last month we have announced some funding of around $610 000 to expand those trials as well as look at specific trials on soil amendments, both in the urban and regional setting. It is new money going into further work. Obviously a range of other programs are being done through the Swan River Trust and the Department of Water. I cannot provide information on everything the Department of Water is doing. It is certainly undertaking a range of activities on water quality. Hon SALLY TALBOT: Nothing the minister has announced so far in her term of office has contained mandatory provisions. They were the key to the fertiliser action plan as it was formulated by the previous government. Is the minister still considering mandatory provisions? Hon DONNA FARAGHER: The target remains. As I said, the fertiliser action plan continues. We are committed to not only putting in the $610 000, as we have done, but also looking at the plan in the context of the broader natural resource management funding. As I said, that is under the portfolio of the Minister for Agriculture and Food and the Minister for Water. However, the environment is probably an equal partner, as such, on natural resource management. Water quality is one of the particular areas that all ministers have identified that needs to be addressed. From my point of view—I think it is clear from the government’s point— issues surrounding water quality are not simply matters for the Swan River Trust or the Department of
E698 [ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
Environment. A number of agencies have a role to play. A number of ministers are obviously sitting around table to discuss the natural resource management aspect, such as the Minister for Water, the Minister for Agriculture and Food and me. I suppose in looking at the issue of water quality, we must look at it from that whole-of- government perspective, and that is what we are doing. The ACTING CHAIR: I am sorry, Hon Sally Talbot; I will have to move on to Hon Giz Watson’s question. We will not be able to go over time on this; we will need to finish at 4.05 pm. Hon GIZ WATSON: I submitted some questions earlier. The ACTING CHAIR: That reminds me. The answers to the questions on notice are now tabled. Hon GIZ WATSON: Excellent; that makes things easier. I referred to some answers the minister gave in relation to a question that was related to significant issues impacting on the agency, referred to on page 913 of the budget papers. I asked which of the strategies that the trust is using to address excess nutrients entering the waterways are considered to be the most successful. The answer was that no single action could successfully address the impacts of excess nutrients. I must say that, putting on my environmental science hat, I find that rather unhelpful, to be quite frank. Surely there must be some way of grading which actions are more useful. I understand a range of actions working together would be more useful than a stand-alone action, but there must be some assessment of whether, for example, using slow-release fertilisers would have a significant impact on water quality compared with streamlining, vegetation or any other actions. Can we have another go at answering that question? Mr R. Hughes: As you know, it remains a fact that no single response is going to do what we need it to do. If we turned off the catchment today, and cut out all sources coming from the catchment, we would still have an issue in the river for many years to come because there is a massive store of nutrient sitting in the sediment. As I said, we must do things out in the catchment and down into the river. One of the things that we do, for example, in dealing with that bottom end of the story in the river itself is to try to interrupt, if we like, that nutrient release from the sediment in the waterway. We do that via the oxygenation program. That works very well as a stand- alone tactic, for example, in the Canning River, where we have more control on the system. It is upstream of Kent Street Weir. Hon GIZ WATSON: Can Mr Hughes elaborate on how it works well? I do not think that it works terribly well. Mr R. Hughes: I will get the river system manager to provide a technical explanation. Nitrogen in particular is locked in sediments that are released under — Hon GIZ WATSON: I understand technically how it works. I am interested in some evidence of what outcome it produces. Mr R. Hughes: There have been no algal blooms in the upper reaches of the Swan over the past two or three years. We monitor the oxygen levels every week so we know that we have acceptable oxygen levels in the waterway. As well as the nutrient circumstances we want, they create an ideal habitat for the other creatures in the waterway. Hon GIZ WATSON: What does it cost to oxygenate like that? Mr R. Hughes: I think it costs $140 000 a year to run two oxygen plates in the upper Swan and cover some operational issues such as electricity and the like. Mr R. Hughes: With regard to the other part of the member’s question on slow-release fertilisers in the waterway, the advice we have, from the Department of Water in particular, is that that would be incredibly important for us to achieve in this state for our waterways. Hence the Swan River Trust is part of the fertiliser action plan. Hon GIZ WATSON: If that is the case, why is that not going to be a mandatory requirement? It seems to me that further research will not prove anything that we do not already know about the impact of slow-release fertilisers. I understand that soil remediation could have an additional benefit. But I think the science in terms of slow-release fertilisers is complete. [3.50 pm] Hon DONNA FARAGHER: Mr Hughes may have some further things to say about that but the advice to me is clear: these trials need to happen and so that is what is happening. We are expanding the trials commenced under the previous government. The member mentioned soil amendments and I think it very important that we do that work. I just think that it is very important. I am advised that we need to do this work and that is why we have committed funds to do it. I refer the question to Mr Hughes. Mr R. Hughes: Yes; I think one of the things that looks different to me is the willingness of the fertiliser industry to come to the table. It has sat with the government working group and said that it can now deliver the products and that it wants to trial them to see if they maintain the productive capacity of farmers so that they are
[ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E699 not harmed. The industry is confident that it can make those products work on the ground. The fertiliser industry has also become a lot more sophisticated in the way that it is reaching out to its farming constituency. The Fertilizer Industry Federation’s Fertcare accreditation program has meant that farmers are more willing to come forward because they do not want to waste money because a brand of fertiliser that should not be hitting the ground is hitting the ground. I think the economics of it will drive this as much as anything else will. Hon GIZ WATSON: Is the minister confident that voluntary uptake will meet the need? I suggest that a target of 50 per cent reduction in seven years is minimal. Surely we need to be achieving outcomes as quickly as possible. We already have a severely impacted system. Is the minister confident that a voluntary system will ensure those targets are met in that time frame? Mr R. Hughes: I think that in many aspects our work is done in partnership with people. A small agency such as the Swan River Trust could not possibly run a regulatory regime; it would not work. A voluntary approach is always our best approach. Having some regulation in the back pocket is always helpful, and we have powers that relate to our patch of the river, but they are not appropriate to enforce something like a fertiliser action plan. I think that across the board our best approach is a cooperative one. Hon GIZ WATSON: Is it not the case that the Swan and Canning Rivers Management Act allows for prescriptive requirements for land management such that the minister has the capacity to require certain land management formulas? I seem to remember debating the bill. If it is the case that the science would say that a mandatory requirement for the uptake of slow-release fertilisers would achieve the result more quickly, why would one not choose to use that legislation to require that? This debate has been ongoing for at least 30 years in this state, so no farmer could suggest that he did not know—it has always been a matter of when. Hon DONNA FARAGHER: With regard to the act per se, I understand that river protection notices can be put in place, to use one example. Mr Hughes has confirmed that for me. As I said, we are very committed to reducing nutrients in the waterways. The reality is that there are a number of players in this process, including, obviously, farmers, but they are not the only players. Clearly, matters relating to fertilisers significantly impact on the agricultural industry. In addition to that, obviously, there are matters surrounding developments and the like, right down to individuals and what individuals do—such as individuals or small enterprises who may put down a drain something that should not be put down a drain. It is an across- the-board issue, and we are doing the work that we need to do. We are doing more in the first short term of this government by increasing funding to the fertiliser action plan, which funding was not there previously. We are committed to looking at further initiatives through the natural resource management program, as I have mentioned, as well as other programs in other agencies. The Department of Environment and Conservation and the Swan River Trust are not the only agencies that have to take responsibility for our rivers and water quality. A number of water quality improvement plans either have been finalised or are out for public comment. From my point of view, we have to pull those reports together to make a fulsome response to water quality issues. It is great to have all these reports, but we need to pull them together to identify strong actions that can be taken by the relevant agencies. Hon PHILIP GARDINER: My comments carry on from that of Hon Giz Watson. I am of the view that farmers—agriculturalists—care for their land and what happens downstream even more than anyone else does because they have been living with it. As a practising farmer who lives in the area—that is, not the Avon or Swan areas, but north—I do not know what the research really says about how much of our phosphorous goes downstream. I refer the minister to page 912 of the Budget Statements and the $3.5 million allocated to waterways management, which I presume covers a strong river-monitoring focus so that we can determine where the phosphorous is really coming from. Phosphorous and nitrogen fertiliser use should have significantly reduced for structural reasons; that is, minimum tillage—that is, cereal cropping—which has really come on in the past 10 or 15 years, would have held those nutrients in the soil much better. Cereal cropping has taken over from grazing in which superphosphate fertiliser was spread out on the bare ground in March and April. What would happen? The season would break, and the fertiliser may—I am not saying it was; but it should be reliably measured—be washed into the river. I was intrigued by the line item “The extent to which management water quality targets are achieved in the Swan-Canning catchments for phosphorous” and the steady figure of 80 per cent on page 913 of the Budget Statements; in actual fact, that figure should have significantly declined for structural reasons. Twenty years ago Northam was all grazing; now it is—I do not know the exact figure— probably 80 per cent cropping; therefore, the run-off should be less. My question is two-fold. With that $3.5 million, I would hope that the real focus is on establishing the facts about where on the river that nutrient run-off is happening and whether it is mainly agricultural or city-based run-off. As an agriculturalist, despite $1.4 million being budgeted for communication, I do not know the story. I understand that there is some question about the blue-green algae and its relationship to nutrient run-off—originally I thought there was a relationship. People in rural areas need to be communicated with. That communication is probably best coming from the Department of Agriculture and Food by way of its newsletters. That communication is needed, but it begins with
E700 [ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] the Swan River Trust’s research. I hope that there is a real focus in the way that $3.5 million is allocated so that we can identify and better understand what is going on; is that the case? Hon DONNA FARAGHER: I might ask Mr Hughes to respond. [4.00 pm] Mr R. Hughes: The percentage loss, for example, of phosphorous from agricultural applications has been mapped by the Department of Agriculture and Food and much of that study was in the original work that led to the development of the fertiliser action plan. I do not have those figures here, but, as the member stated, that work was certainly critical to our understanding of what should be done. It is really important to just quickly balance that with the understanding of the urban setting because the urban setting is as much of a problem, if not more of a problem, for us. It is not about tackling the rural sector in isolation; it is very much about tackling the urban environment as well. That is why we are talking about household gardeners and the practices of everyone out in the garden so that our response to that is through the great gardens program, which is very intensive, but it is getting down at the very local level and working with homeowners and saying, “Well, this is how you have a good garden with less impact on the environment.” It is also about working with the managers of urban parkland—that is, local government—and we work hand in glove with them in many areas of the waterway and they are doing great work in managing their irrigation and nutrient systems. Like I said in relation to farming, no-one wants to waste money putting on more fertiliser if it is going to run away and fertilise algae in the waterway. Therefore, yes, it is part of that money the member was talking about; I cannot give him the percentage of loss, but that study was done by the Department of Agriculture and Food in relation to rural areas. I think the Department of Water has also done some work in relation to the behaviour of urban land managers, either domestic gardeners or parks managers. Hon PHILIP GARDINER: Can the minister indicate roughly what percentage of that $3.5 million for 2009-10 is actually directed to getting a fix on where this nutrient wash is coming from? Mr R. Hughes: Which page number is the member referring to? Hon PHILIP GARDINER: Sorry, I was referring to the waterways management line item in the service summary table on page 912. Mr R. Hughes: Sorry, the area that we are talking about actually is expensed in service 3, the “Environmental Management Programs” line item. The waterways management program relates more to our river park management, which is where we are doing compliance work out on the waterway and so on. Therefore, it is actually in service 3, which is the bigger area of our expenditure — Hon PHILIP GARDINER: Okay. Is a percentage of that roughly directed to the area we are talking about—the $10 million? Mr R. Hughes: The bulk of that service is directed at water quality, and the bulk within that—I cannot give the member an exact percentage—is directed at nutrients. Some of that service is in relation to non-nutrient contamination, but far and away our key driver is nutrients in the waterway. Hon PHILIP GARDINER: Okay, so we should be getting results in the not too distant future; that is, some real, clear, definable results. Mr R. Hughes: I think we are getting them now, but yes. Hon PHILIP GARDINER: The Swan River Trust is getting them now; okay. I guess we need to know about it. Hon LIZ BEHJAT: The minister heard me in my maiden speech two nights ago talk about my hope that the Swan River foreshore area would be developed sometime soon in regard to the programs that we have going forward. Given the time, the minister may not be able to answer this question fully. I refer to the fourth dot point on page 913 that deals with the issue of riverside development and use pressures, and the fifth dot point that deals with the development of a river protection strategy. I have talked about developing the river foreshore. I wonder whether the minister could give me an update on that strategy. How will those two things work together? Will the river protection strategy override any development that might take place? I do not know whether there is enough time for those questions to be addressed now. The ACTING CHAIR: It looks like the minister might have a written response that she may be able to table for our benefit. Hon DONNA FARAGHER: I think it relates to two issues—namely, the Perth waterfront issue and more generally, river protection. The Perth waterfront issue is being led by the Minister of Planning; however, the Swan River Trust is part of the stakeholder task force. I requested that the trust be included on that task force because, obviously, the Swan River Trust has a very important role in protecting the Perth waterfront. The river protection strategy is an ongoing strategy that is being led by the Swan River Trust. I recently wrote to ministers
[ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E701 who have an interest in and statutory requirements with respect to the river asking for their support in the development of that strategy. I understand that the Swan River Trust recently met with a number of representatives from both government departments and community groups. A number of discussions have been held with respect to management objectives and broad strategies for the river. Mr Hughes might be able to provide an update in relation to that, though. Mr R. Hughes: If I can perhaps relate the two questions together. The river protection strategy is required by the Swan and Canning Rivers Management Act. It is about setting that overarching blueprint for management of the river in the long term. That deals with things like water quality, which we have already talked about, but, importantly, it maps out the blueprint for how the community sees the river being developed. It certainly would not clash with any proposal to have a project like the Perth waterfront development proposal; rather, it sets a framework in which at least the Swan River Trust approaches that. It is not on a collision course in any sense. The ACTING CHAIR: As Hon Phil Edman has been waiting quietly and patiently, I will give him the last question of this session, if that is all right with Hon Liz Behjat. Hon LIZ BEHJAT: Of course it is. Hon PHIL EDMAN: I have two questions for the minister but, with the time that is left, I will ask only one. On page 912 of the Budget Statements, under the heading “Service Summary”, I refer specifically to item 4, which is the communication of environmental information. Can the minister explain what community programs are run by the trust and how effective they are? Hon DONNA FARAGHER: The Swan River Trust runs a number of programs. Those programs involve both younger generations and older generations, if that is a fair thing to say. There is the Great Gardens program, which Mr Hughes has already referred to. In addition to that, there is the River Guardians program, which is a volunteer program. It is involved in a range of scientific activities. It was involved fairly recently in looking at the health of our dolphins. There is a dolphin watch program. In addition to that, there is a Ribbons of Blue program, which is a program that particularly involves teaching schoolchildren about waterways and how they can do their bit, if I can put it that way, to improve our waterways. That is a very successful program. I understand regular surveys are undertaken — The ACTING CHAIR: Minister, I am sorry to interrupt, but maybe you can take the rest of the answer on notice. I apologise for that. [Supplementary Information No E1.] The ACTING CHAIR: We have now gone over time. I wanted to get a little of the answer in for Hon Phil Edman. We need to finish off so we can get the next session started on time. Again, I thank the advisers and remind members that if they have any further questions, they can place them in writing with the clerks. We will reconvene in three minutes. [4.10 pm] Division 13: Mines and Petroleum, $89 710 000 — Hon Giz Watson, Chair. Hon Norman Moore, Minister for Mines and Petroleum. Mr R. Sellers, Director General. Dr T. Griffin, Executive Director, Geological Survey of Western Australia. Mr J.A.J. Hawke, General Manager, Finance/Chief Financial Officer. Mr M. Russell, Executive Director, Resources Safety. The CHAIR: On behalf of the Legislative Council Estimates and Financial Operations Committee, I welcome you to today’s hearing. Before we begin, I must ask you to take either the oath or affirmation. [Witnesses took the oath or affirmation.] The CHAIR: This hearing is being held in public although there is discretion available to the committee to hear evidence in private either of its own motion or at a witness’s request. If for some reason you wish to make a confidential statement during today’s proceedings, you should request that the evidence be taken in closed session before answering the question. Government agencies and departments have an important role and duty in assisting Parliament to scrutinise the budget papers on behalf of the people of Western Australia. The committee values that assistance.
E702 [ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
Members are asked to sit towards the front of the chamber on the non-government benches where practicable so that witnesses will not have to turn their head to the back of the chamber when answering questions. For the information of members, these proceedings will be reported by Hansard. The daily Hansard will be available tomorrow morning, and will be circulated as per normal house sitting days. It will be given 1.5 line spacing to make it easier for members to make corrections in the daily and for those pages of the daily Hansard to be returned to the Hansard office. The cut-off date for corrections will be indicated on the bottom of each page. It will greatly assist Hansard if when referring to the Budget Statements volumes or the consolidated account estimates, members give the page number, item, program, amount, and so on in preface to their questions. If supplementary information is to be provided, I ask your cooperation in ensuring that it is delivered to the committee’s clerk within five working days of receipt of the questions. An example of the required Hansard style for the documents has been provided to your advisers. The committee reminds agency representatives to respond to questions in a succinct manner and to limit the extent of personal observations. For the benefit of members and Hansard, I ask the minister to introduce his advisers to the committee, and for each adviser to please state their full name, contact address and the capacity in which they appear before the committee. [Witnesses Introduced.] The CHAIR: At this time, I would ask each of the witnesses whether they have read, understood and completed the “Information for Witnesses” form. The Witnesses: Yes. The CHAIR: Do all the witnesses fully understand the meaning and effect of the provisions of that document? The Witnesses: Yes. The CHAIR: I indicate to members that there are some tabled answers to questions that were provided on notice. Those answers are now tabled and, therefore, are in the public realm. Hon JON FORD: My first group of questions come under the heading “3% Efficiency Dividend” on page 204 of the Budget Statements. The first line item I will refer to is “Graduate Recruitment Program”, which shows a $300 000 reduction that is ongoing into the out years. Can the minister explain to which skills that applies; which skills set of graduates this targets; where the graduates would have been employed within the program; how the program would have operated; which tasks the graduates would have done; and whether there is still a graduate program? Hon NORMAN MOORE: This is part of the three per cent efficiency dividend, as the member identified. I need to make the point that it was necessary in the context of the budget to identify savings across the agency. These are the dividends that we believe can be implemented without having any significant impact on front-line services or service delivery. The graduate recruitment program will no longer be funded centrally. It will be maintained through the recruitment of graduates to identify vacant positions. New graduates will continue to receive the same level of development as previously occurred from in-house staff. One of my advisers may be able to give the detail to the question the member asked about which sorts of graduates this refers. Hon JON FORD: If it is not a short answer, I am happy for the question to be taken on notice. [4.20 pm] Dr T. Griffin: It is a relatively short answer. Previously, it was funded centrally through the department. We are now funding it through each of the separate areas of the department. The reason we are able to do that is that we have recognised that there are always some vacancies in the organisation, and we are using those vacancies to fill our graduate programs rather than having separate funding for it. Hon JON FORD: In the same section is a line item for the resource safety division. It shows a reduction of $196 000 in 2008-09 and $484 000 in 2009-10, with cuts continuing in the out years, making a total of around $1.5 million. How were these savings realised in the 2008-09 year, what does this mean in the 2009-10 year and how will they be achieved? Hon NORMAN MOORE: Fundamentally, it relates to extending time lines in information technology systems being developed in the department and to reducing some administrative overheads. If the member would like some more details, I will ask Mr Russell to provide that information.
[ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E703
Mr M. Russell: It is a rephasing of the IT development program. It is quite intensive. There are opportunities for us to mesh better with what is happening nationally in relation to data gathering for incident and accident data. All we are doing is putting back the time frame. The work will still be done. Hon NORMAN MOORE: The member may be aware of a move for a national mine safety regime. Discussions about that are being held at ministerial level. There may well be some uniformity across the nation if it does not mean that we would ultimately come to the lowest common denominator. I can assure the member that this saving for the three per cent is having no effect on mine safety in mine sites. There are not enough resources for that, as the member knows. It is exactly the same as the member had when he was the minister responsible for mine safety, so he will know that it was not enough. As I have told the house, we are looking at a range of strategies and measures to provide us with additional funds to significantly upgrade our capacity to manage mine safety. Hon JON FORD: I would now like to move on to page 206 of budget paper No 2 and the table headed “Outcomes and Key Effectiveness Indicators”. I apologise to the house, but I will quickly read part of it because it is an important precursor. The indicator is set to a total of the frequency of work-related injury and disease per million hours worked in the mining industry. The other one is the frequency of work-related injury and disease per million hours worked in the petroleum industry. Another one is the number of dangerous goods storage and transport accidents with a reference to notation (b), which states — Although the Department allocates resources to education and enforcement safety, it is not appropriate for the regulator to set targets for industry safety performance. As a result of the transfer of the Resources Safety Division functions from DOC to DMP this indicator is no longer applicable. Accordingly, the indicator will be removed as part of the 2010-11 budget. Why are these not appropriate indicators for the regulators set for the industry? Should not the minister or the department be setting the standard or letting miners know what the WA community expects from them? How will the minister, the community and the Parliament judge the effectiveness of the department? In relation to dangerous goods, how does the minister intend to look at the performance in regard to the carriage of community-sensitive issues such as lead, fuel, LNG or possibly uranium in the future? Hon NORMAN MOORE: I might ask Mr Russell whether he can provide a response to that. Mr M. Russell: The issue of key performance indicators for measuring the success of what the government does with safety and regulation has always been problematic. The easy way out in the past has been to use measures that measure industry’s performance rather than the regulator’s performance. We have done some work on that. What we intend to do is adopt a range of more sensitive measures. We are taking the benefit of experience with other agencies, such as the National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority, and we are trying to look at some lead indicators rather than just lag indicators. To give an example of the sorts of indicators that we would use in the future to measure our performance, they would include the number of inspections; the number of audits; the number of successful audits, so that we can actually measure a trend and see what is coming up over a period of time; and the response rate for approvals, in particular for safety-case submissions for the onshore petroleum sector and safety-case submissions for major-hazard facilities. We are trying to get smarter performance indicators that measure the effort and performance of the department. Hon JON FORD: I think that is great from an internal government and department perspective, but surely the desirable outcomes of all these are to minimise fatalities, injuries of any kind and environmental events, and, purely from a physical perspective, the protection of the asset. That is something that companies use and that the community understands. I appreciate what Mr Russell is saying about the KPI, but I do not understand why the department would remove it. Hon NORMAN MOORE: I am happy to talk about whether we might include KPIs again if there is any benefit to be had in continuing them, but, as Mr Russell has explained, there is a better way of assessing the effectiveness of the agency’s performance by looking at different KPIs. That is what Mr Russell was seeking to explain to the member. This simply refers to what is happening in the industry but has no reflection on the capacity of the agency to do its job properly. As the KPIs relate to the agency’s performance, it is appropriate that they should have some relevance to the agency’s performance as opposed to the industry’s performance. I am happy to take on board the member’s comments, and maybe we can do that. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: The minister provided an answer relating to page 203 and to appropriations, expenses and cash assets. The answer indicated for 2000-01, 602 full-time equivalents, but there was no identification of allocation for, say, May 2008. Is there such an FTE allocation? Hon NORMAN MOORE: Forgive me, but the member has lost me. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: It is page 203 of volume 1. Hon NORMAN MOORE: I will ask Mr Hawke to reply, but I am still trying to find where I am.
E704 [ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
Mr J.A.J. Hawke: It would be information available, but we do not have it with us currently. There would be information in the printed estimates for that time. It certainly would reflect the position at 30 June in the budget for the previous year. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: May I ask for supplementary information to be provided? Mr J.A.J. Hawke: That information can be provided. [Supplementary Information No F1.] Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: Can the minister show us how many additional staff since 1999, 2000 and 2001 there are for each of the department’s functions? Again, that is a question that most probably needs to go on notice. [Supplementary Information No F2.] Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: Again, this is most probably a supplementary question. For each of those functions how many new staff have been allocated since 1999, 2000 and 2001? Hon NORMAN MOORE: Bearing in mind that I was not minister for most of that time, can the member put that on notice? Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: Certainly. The CHAIR: Was the member about to add something else to that question? Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: No, that is fine. [Supplementary Information No F3.] [4.30 pm] Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: Minister, in the whole budget, I saw no allocation in any way, shape or form to deal with prospective uranium mining and the extra staff that may be needed as a result of that activity. I note that in other states, there are up to 100 staff working specifically in those areas. The Greens (WA) asked the Minister for Environment whether she was putting on any extra staff, and she said it was in your bailiwick. Hon NORMAN MOORE: In respect of uranium mining, Western Australia does not have a uranium mine at the present time. The government has a policy position that it will allow uranium mining under very stringent conditions. At this time, there has been no application to mine for uranium in Western Australia. My understanding is that in respect to Yeelirrie, BHP Billiton had sought advice from commonwealth and state environmental protection authorities on what level of assessment would be necessary for that project to proceed. As the member would know, it is also covered by a state agreement act, and there is some expectation that sometime down the track BHP may mine that particular deposit. But there is no way in the world that anybody will be mining uranium in the context of this budget, and to start allocating funds for that potentiality is reckless. I do not know from where the member gets the figure of 100 extra staff in a department, because Mr Sellers, who is alongside me now, used to be the director general in the Northern Territory, and the number of extra staff managing uranium mining in that jurisdiction—I think he said—could be counted on the fingers of one hand. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: My understanding is the Office of the Supervising Scientist has a staff of approximately 100. Mr R. Sellers: The Office of the Supervising Scientist is a commonwealth agency. The territory government has a very limited number within its agency. My additional comment is, of course, that the potential for activity in uranium is well known. A working group is looking at the legislation and the possible requirements for extra staff and other things, and it will report to government late this month or early next month. Hon NORMAN MOORE: Can I add that we have had a very close look at what regulations exist in Western Australia for sand mining and other mining activities that involve radioactive materials. We believe that a lot of our current law on these matters is transferable to uranium mining, but we are going through that with a fine toothcomb. It is my intention, if Western Australia has a uranium mine, that it will operate to world’s best practice in respect of environmental and safety issues. We are also looking very carefully at whether we will require additional staff. If the time comes that there is mining, we will provide the necessary staff to manage it in a way that I believe is appropriate and proper. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: In relation to the proposed outcomes of the industry working group, I see nothing allocated within the budget for what we refer to as the decision-making authority. Will that decision-making authority be managed by the Department of Mines and Petroleum or the Department of State Development; and, if so, is there to be an allocation given the proposals? Hon NORMAN MOORE: First, I am not aware of what the member means by “decision-making authority” in respect of this matter. The industry working group was a group of individuals whom I brought together to provide me with advice on the approvals process, which I am told by everybody in the mining industry is one of
[ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E705 the great impediments to the development of the resource sector in Western Australia. That report has been provided to me as a member of the cabinet subcommittee, so the report is part of cabinet deliberations. I am sure the member does not have a copy of it, in which case I expect that the member does not know what the recommendations are. If the member does, well, good on him! The notion the member is putting forward is that somehow or other the decision-making authority in respect of approvals would be either DMP or the Department of State Development. I do not know what the member means by that. Hon JOCK FERGUSON: I refer to the fourth dot point under “Significant Issues Impacting the Agency” on page 205. It is claimed in the fourth dot point that a record number of 7 921 tenement applications were determined. Did this take place between 31 March 2008 and 31 March 2009, or in the nine months prior to 31 March, which would make the starting point June 2008? Hon NORMAN MOORE: Is the member referring to the fourth dot point under “Significant Issues Impacting the Agency”? Hon JOCK FERGUSON: Yes. It is the dot point that refers to new mineral tenement applications. What were the reasons behind these figures, and how were they achieved? Was it because of the extra money invested by the previous government? Were there any external elements contributing to these figures? Hon NORMAN MOORE: I will ask one of the officers to provide further detail on the figures, but I will say that the previous government put up an additional $40 million contribution to the approvals process. The member may have read an Auditor General’s report of September last year in which it was stated that the additional money delivered no outcomes whatsoever. I recommend that the member read that Auditor General’s report so he knows what happened to that money. Dr T. Griffin: The reduction in the number of applications awaiting processing was largely based on funding provided by the previous government of $3 million over four years. There was $1 million provided for each of the first two years and $500 000 for each of the subsequent two years. That made a big impact on our capacity to reduce backlogs, and as a result we have managed to deal with the very high levels of new applications coming in, and the backlog has been reduced. As the member will see in the budget papers, the target is to reduce the backlog to 5 000 by 2010. We are on target to do that. Hon JOCK FERGUSON: I return to my first question. I asked whether any external elements contributed to this figure. Hon NORMAN MOORE: External elements that might have affected these figures? Hon JOCK FERGUSON: Yes. Dr T. Griffin: We had a lot of mining lease applications that needed to be dealt with. When we compared our processing rates with those of other states, we discovered that we were allowing mining lease applications to come in even though the applicants were not ready to mine; it was simply a way for them to get guarantee of tenement by moving from an exploration licence. The regulations and the legislation were therefore changed to allow people to revert from a mining lease application to an exploration licence. That helped us clear up a lot of those applications. I do not know whether that is an external impact, but it allowed us to clear up the backlog to some degree. [4.40 pm] Hon PHILIP GARDINER: I refer to page 204 and the appropriation for PACE—“Plan for Accelerating Exploration”. I am aware that that money is coming out of royalties for regions. Has the department made any assessment of the probability of getting a discovery from the $20 million a year for four years that will be invested through PACE? If the information that the department has provided to a company about exploration activity does result in a successful mining venture for that company, does the minister have any intention of imposing upon that company—quite separate from a royalty—any charge in an endeavour to recoup some of that $20 million a year? Hon NORMAN MOORE: That level of detail I have not really contemplated. However, in other jurisdictions in which these sorts of schemes are in place, there is no recoup by the company to the government. The idea of this plan is to provide an incentive for exploration. It will be $80 million over four years. Some of the money is being allocated to companies on a cost-sharing basis, I suppose, to encourage exploration, particularly on greenfield sites and in the more remote parts of the state. In respect of the likelihood of finding something, I do not know any geologist who can tell us with any accuracy what the likelihood is. Bearing in mind that Western Australia is largely unexplored—which is interesting considering what a significant industry the resource sector in this state is—I have no doubt that there will be some significant discoveries in the future. Whether those discoveries will come out of the PACE scheme I do not know. I hope they do. I do not think we will be asking the companies to give us any money back if they do happen to find an el dorado, because they will be paying taxes and royalties
E706 [ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] and so on as a result of their find anyway. This will be, in a sense, an investment by the state to encourage the development of new resources. Hon PHILIP GARDINER: Is this an option that the minister would consider keeping an open mind on? Hon NORMAN MOORE: I am happy to do that, but we are providing these funds as an incentive. I do not think it is necessary for us to say to the companies that if they find something, they must give the money back, but we can look at that if it is worth contemplating in the future. However, I would be inclined then, if we did do that, to say that there should be more co-funded drilling. Hon PHILIP GARDINER: In another industry—agriculture—there is what is called “plant breeders’ rights”. That means that a breeder must give something back from the genetic product of any new plant that is grown. The minister might make it equivalent to a royalty, but I am thinking of a similar model in relation to this matter. Hon NORMAN MOORE: If a mining company finds an ore body and mines it, it gives the government money back through royalties. A royalty is payable on whatever is found, ultimately, and I think that is fair and reasonable in this case. Hon JON FORD: I agree with the member, and I agree with the minister. If a company benefits from this program, it should give the money back and it should be invested back into exploration. My question is on the same subject. Is there an underlying strategic approach to this fund? To give an example, does this fund target any specific mineralogy market, or is there any particular aspect of prospectivity that is being targeted here? Hon NORMAN MOORE: I will ask Dr Griffin to explain the detail of it because he is head of the Geological Survey of Western Australia, which is the main beneficiary of this particular project. The $80 million is to be expended on a range of different projects, part of which is co-funded, as we talked about a moment ago. But a significant amount of it is additional funding for the Geological Survey to explore in an aeromagnetic way—not by drilling millions of holes, but by using modern technology to assess the geology of the greenfield areas of Western Australia and the largely unexplored parts of the state. The theme behind the funding is that the money be allocated and directed towards greenfield sites, as opposed to the brownfield sites that most companies, we believe, ought to be drilling themselves. I guess it is fair to say that we want to get a whole lot more information about the state’s geology as a result of this program. The important point is that once the Geological Survey does its work, the information is then publicly available to all companies that might wish to use it. That is the beauty of the Geological Survey; the information and material that it gathers about our geology are made available to the industry free of charge—maybe we should look at that—and it is very helpful in the context of providing support to the industry. Perhaps Dr Griffin might like to add some further information. Dr T. Griffin: I think that the minister has explained very well that the strategic approach is really to go into those areas that are severely under-explored, and the reason they are under-explored is that they are covered by sand and thin sedimentary layers and the rocks do not outcrop at the surface. One of the very strong techniques we have to look through that surface material is airborne geophysics. A major component of the program is to do a lot of airborne geophysics. One thing that is surprising is that we are behind the other states of Australia, such as the Northern Territory and South Australia, which have more coverage and more detail than we have in Western Australia. I do not think I need to go through the details of the program—it is very well publicised—but I am happy to do that if the member would like. Hon NORMAN MOORE: We will make it available to Hon Jon Ford. Hon JON FORD: Given the minister’s recent public recognition of the need to increase the number of safety inspectors in the regional sector following the Kenner report, how many new inspectors does the minister believe he needs to fund and when can we expect to see those inspectors? Hon NORMAN MOORE: The question does not relate to the budget itself, other than the member wanting to know what I might do in the future. I do not know to what extent you, Madam Chair, would suggest a question is in or out of order. I will find out whether there is a ballpark figure for how many additional staff we will need. The CHAIR: Perhaps the member could indicate the source of his question. Hon JON FORD: I am referring to the services and key efficiency indicators on page 207. I note that in the resources regulation table, the number of full-time equivalent employees is 488 for 2007-08 ongoing. The minister has publicly said that we need more inspectors. Hon NORMAN MOORE: I do not have a problem answering the question; I just would not want the member to be ruled out of order. I do not have an actual number, and the reason I do not have one is that we are not just trying to go down a cost-recovery path. That is one option for raising more money. Another option is to seek more funds from Treasury. It is not our intention to simply try to get more money and do more of the same with more people. We are also looking very carefully at the way in which we deal with mine safety across the board. The member will be aware, having been responsible for this area, of what he would have said to the Treasurer when he was the minister about seeking additional staff. He will be aware that the petroleum industry operates
[ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E707 under a safety case regime. A fair amount of work is being done by the agency and by others to look at whether some form of safety case regime, modified or otherwise, in the mining industry might be more appropriate than the regulatory framework that we operate under now. Going down that path or doing the job in other ways may not necessarily result in more staff, but it may. However, it also may result in doing things differently and using funds in a different way; I do not know. All I am saying to the member is that we are about finding out how we can better deliver mine safety in Western Australia and how we can get more funds to do that. I can assure the member that once we have finalised our approach, the member will be the first to know. [4.50 pm] Hon JON FORD: On the matter of cost recovery, who in the minister’s department is looking at that model and when will that assessment be finished? Hon NORMAN MOORE: That has nothing whatsoever to do with the budget. Besides, it is inappropriate to inform the member of which officials are working on which projects. It is of no consequence to the member. Hon JON FORD: It has an impact on the budget. From what I have seen, there is no extra funding for mine safety in the budget. There is, however, $80 million for exploration. All I can see are cuts in the department’s safety and regulatory functions. Although I accept the minister’s argument that we must do things differently—I support that—I want to know where the money is. Who is carrying out the study? Hon NORMAN MOORE: Without providing names, the department itself is working its way through this. A number of people in the department have significant expertise in this field. The member would know who they are because he has probably worked with them. They are working together. The director general will make a recommendation to me. That has not consumed any more money than the department already consumes. It is carrying out its functions within its current appropriations. When a recommendation has been made to me, I will consider whether I need further supplementary funding or whether we will go to a cost-recovery model. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: I refer again to the royalties for regions initiatives on page 204 of the Budget Statements. The minister indicated that some money has been provided to various companies. As a question on notice, will the minister and the department provide the names of the companies to which that money has gone and which minerals those companies are seeking that require part funding? Hon NORMAN MOORE: Is the member referring to the co-funded drilling program? Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: Yes. Hon NORMAN MOORE: For this program, we have already called for applications for the first round of co- funded assistance and have received 168 applicants. The department is currently working through those applications and will recommend to me which companies should be funded. I think we will probably have an answer to that next week. We intend to make that public. The member will appreciate that because it is government money that is assisting companies to drill for minerals, it will be managed very carefully by a probity auditor. I am very anxious to make sure that this is done in an absolutely proper way, because some people will get money and some will not. It might be suggested that a friend got the money rather than someone else. The probity auditor will provide a completely independent scrutiny of the process. The names of the companies and which minerals they are looking for will be made public next week. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: I refer to a question on notice to which we got an answer concerning volume 1 of the Budget Statements. The answer to the third question was that the Department of Mines and Petroleum proposed to spend approximately $680 000 on sites for carbon storage and sequestration and proposed to spend a further $230 000 in the future years. Given the importance of that project, why is there a reduction in the amount that is to be spent in future years? Is that a significant enough amount, given the amount that was spent on the federal Cooperative Research Centres program to look for geosequestration sites? Hon NORMAN MOORE: I will quickly say this: I was in Collie recently to announce a joint funding arrangement between the coal companies and the government to look at a site between Harvey and Bunbury for geosequestration. I think it is about $600 000, if I remember rightly, for that project. It will be a desk study done by an international company to indicate whether that site is suitable for geosequestration in the future. If it is found to be prospective, consideration will be given to additional funding for the drilling of a well to see what is down there if it meets the desk study conclusions. However, what we are doing here is basically looking at what is available to Western Australia for geosequestration purposes for the coal industry, bearing in mind that the coal industry and the associated coal-fired power stations in the south west are an integral part of our energy supply system. The advice given to me was that future coal-fired power stations in that part of the world, if it is possible for geosequestration in the future, will be built to allow carbon capture, storage and transfer, and that is why it is important to identify the site now. We have not gone much beyond that, I do not think. Perhaps Dr Griffin can add to that.
E708 [ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
Dr T. Griffin: The figure there is in relation to work we have in train. Some of it is to do with the Gorgon project and assessing the capacity for the site on Barrow Island to carry the extra CO2 and also whether it is a secure site into the future. The expenditure in the out years is based on the staff who are involved in looking at these aspects of our work, and there may be a case in the out years for us to spend some additional money on doing some assessment of these sites; so that number will increase, but we have not actually allocated any money to CCS work in subsequent years. In addition to that, part of the work that those staff are involved with is looking at what the federal government is offering, trying to put Western Australia in a very good position to take advantage of that federal money, and getting some of that project money into Western Australia to enhance our capacity to understand the opportunities for carbon capture and storage. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: In relation to the Gorgon project, that was funded out of the federal CRC; therefore, what was the requirement or the need to provide any extra funding to the Gorgon project for carbon sequestration evaluation? Dr T. Griffin: The Gorgon project work is done for our department, the Department of Mines and Petroleum, because the department is putting up a proposal to get approval to capture and store the CO2, or to store the CO2, off Barrow Island. We needed to be confident that that could happen in a safe and secure way, so we have had the work done ourselves. My understanding is that we will recover that money back from the Gorgon project people in the long run, but it was seen that if we were going to do that work, it was better for us to do it independently of the company doing it, and so the government took on that work. Hon NORMAN MOORE: Does the member understand that it is under a state agreement act and the state has a particular interest? Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: Yes. The CHAIR: Members, I am aware that we are very close to the time, but I did promise Hon Jock Ferguson one last question. Hon JOCK FERGUSON: I shall be quick. I go back to the issue of the PACE—plan for accelerating exploration—program. Hon NORMAN MOORE: It is actually the EIS—exploration incentive scheme. It is PACE in South Australia. I am sorry, I misled the member before. Hon JOCK FERGUSON: That is okay. As long as we both know what we are talking about, that is fine. How are the applicants assessed, and who makes the decision at the end of the day on which applicants are successful? Hon NORMAN MOORE: I ask Dr Griffin, who heads the Geological Survey of Western Australia, to respond. It is making the decisions. Dr T. Griffin: There was a lot of press publicity about people being encouraged to put in applications for this co-funded drilling. There was a clear cut-off date when those applications came in. The applications had to be in a certain form and the information on that was on the web; everybody had access to it. Once those applications came in, we recruited three industry people who had no association with us, and had no association with people putting in applications either. In one case, a person had experience in applying for co-funded drilling in South Australia, so that person had experience in doing this. The group of industry people have had a very rigorous process of assessing these applications—as the minister said, there has been a probity auditor looking over their shoulders as they have gone through this process—and they have made recommendations to the department on who should be the successful applicants. The CHAIR: I am sorry, members, we are already five minutes over time. If members have further questions, please submit them and they will be answered within five working days. I thank the minister and his advisers. We will now move to the next division. [5.00 pm] Division 61: Child Protection, $331 309 000 — Hon Liz Behjat, Acting Chair. Hon Robyn McSweeney, Minister for Child Protection. Mr T. Murphy, Director General. Ms J. McGrath, Executive Director, Corporate and Business Services. Ms F. Lander, Executive Director, Policy and Learning. Mr S. Glew, Executive Director, Service Standards and Contracting. Mr J. Hancock, Executive Director, Country Services.
[ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E709
The ACTING CHAIR: On behalf of the Legislative Council estimates and financial operations committee, I would like to welcome you to today’s hearing. Before we begin, I must ask you to take either the oath or affirmation. This hearing is being held in public, although there is discretion available to the committee to hear evidence in private either of its own motion or at the witnesses’ request. If for some reason you wish to make a confidential statement during today’s proceedings, you should request that the evidence be taken in closed session before answering the question. [Witnesses took the oath or affirmation.] The ACTING CHAIR: Members are asked to sit towards the front of the chamber on the non-government benches where practicable so that witnesses will not have to turn their heads to the back of the chamber when answering questions. It will greatly assist Hansard if when referring to the Budget Statements volumes or the consolidated account estimates, members give the page number, item, program, amount, and so on in preface to their questions. If supplementary information is to be provided, I ask your cooperation in ensuring that it is delivered to the committee’s clerk within five working days of receipt of the questions. An example of the required Hansard style for the documents has been provided to your advisers. The committee reminds agency representatives to respond to questions in a succinct manner and to limit the extent of personal observations. At this time, I would ask each of the witnesses whether they have read, understood and completed the “Information for Witnesses” form. The Witnesses: Yes. The ACTING CHAIR: Do all the witnesses fully understand the meaning and effect of the provisions of that document? The Witnesses: Yes. The ACTING CHAIR: The Leader of the Opposition. Hon SUE ELLERY: I refer to the total appropriations provided to deliver services under “Appropriations, Expenses and Cash Assets” on page 779 of volume 3 of the Budget Statements. I note that there is a dip between the budgeted amount for 2009-10 and the amount for 2010-11. Reading deeper into the budget document, I could find, if we like, a corresponding dip of about $2 million in service 2 on page 781. However, I could not find any other areas under the services that add up to that dip in the appropriation for that year. Can the minister explain that to me? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: I will hand over to the director general to explain that dip. Mr T. Murphy: It will take a bit of time to trace it through to the specific services. Basically, that dip is due to demand funding received by the department being allocated just for the 2009-10 year. It will be reconsidered for the 2010-11 budget process. It is an amount of $15 million. While it is not quite exact, there are a number of other ups and downs, but, essentially, that is the one that explains the difference. [5.10 pm] Hon SUE ELLERY: In the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations subcommittee hearings earlier in March, the department indicated that it expected a cash deficit of about $9.5 million. Looking at the Budget Statements, it seems to me that the deficit might be a bit higher than that. What is the anticipated cash deficit for the end of this financial year? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: For what number? Hon SUE ELLERY: I am on the same page as the minister’s appropriations. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: There has been an increase of $38.135 million—is that what the member wants to know? Hon SUE ELLERY: No; I just want to check that my sums are right because I make it about $12.357 million. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: Is the member referring to the increase of $12.356 million? Hon SUE ELLERY: Yes. In March the director general gave evidence that he expected an end-of-financial-year cash deficit of about $9.5 million. We are now about two weeks away from the end of the financial year. I am asking whether that cash deficit is still expected or whether it will be bit higher than that. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: No, because $8 million has been allocated to fee-for-service placements; $4.393 million for pay rise funding; $1.853 million to government housing; $917 000 for the working with
E710 [ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] children card; and $250 000 additional funding for the place to call home initiative. The $4.378 million was a three per cent efficiency dividend. Does that answer the question? Hon SUE ELLERY: Therefore, is the $9.5 million referred to in March now nothing? Somebody needs to tell me that. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: No; we have $8 million and $4.39 million. The $12.39 million was additional funding. Hon SUE ELLERY: I want the minister to absolutely confirm that there is no cash deficit at the end of this financial year. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: No. Hon SUE ELLERY: Thank you. I turn to the other matter raised in the subcommittee hearings earlier this year, which is the matter of full-time equivalent staff. By way of a reference point in the Budget Statements, I am referring to the line item “Employees (Full Time Equivalents)” under each of the three services, the first of which appears in service 1, “Supporting Children and Young People in the CEOs Care” on page 783. By the time of those hearings, the Treasurer had announced in February a total public sector cap of around 99 000 FTE staff. He based individual departmental caps on the 2008-09 budget figures. At the time of that conversation earlier this year, the Department for Child Protection’s FTE level was higher than the cap allowed. This budget puts the 2009-10 FTE figure at 2 050—which is great—but that does not reconcile with the cap set by the Treasurer in February. How will the department meet the Treasurer’s cap; and, if it will not meet the cap, how will the issue be resolved? I make the point that, by way of policy, the minister’s agency is not the only agency in this position. I expect that cabinet or the minister and her colleagues will have worked out some way by which agencies with a discrepancy between their FTE levels and the cap will resolve that issue. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: The Department of Treasury and Finance has given a public sector exemption. There has been an increase of 244 FTEs, with 85 being for demand growth. In 2007-08, the actual figure was 1 577 FTEs; in 2008-09, the estimated number was 1 821; and in 2009-10, the figure was 2 050. Getting back to the figure of 244 FTEs, we have 85 for demand growth; 55 for new residential care facilities; 47 FTEs for mandatory reporting; 29 for increased skilling of existing service delivery and other staff, including 12 new SPDOs; 28 FTEs for responsible parenting; new staff of 22; and increased usage of 7 FTEs. There was an increase of 229 FTEs due to the following: full-year filling of 100 new service delivery positions provided during 2008-09; 68 additional positions for the reform and expansion of residential care services; an increase of 52 to fill existing permanent positions; 48 additional positions from the 2009-10 budget process, which amounted to 33 additional case workers in the care for children and child protection areas; nine domestic violence intake teams in the country; three remote community child protection workers; three misconduct function workers; and two positions already included in that base. Hon SUE ELLERY: My question was actually about what I think the minister described as the exemption. Is there an agreed figure; that is, the total 2 050 — Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: The 2 050 is the total—the agreed figure. Hon SUE ELLERY: It is agreed with Treasury and whoever else. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: Yes, it is the agreed figure. Hon SUE ELLERY: Thank you. I refer to the last dot point on page 781 of the Budget Statements, which is about providing support to individuals and families at risk or in crisis. It also relates to service 3, which is where it is implemented in terms of supporting individuals and families in crisis. When I was trying to identify where the investment is in that dot point and in that service, I could see additional funds in service 3 coming from the national homelessness program, but I wonder whether the minister can identify for me where the greater state investment is in service 3. All I could see were an additional five FTEs. I might start the discussion there. Some work has been done around the strategic framework on supporting individuals and families at risk, and I commend the department for the work on that strategic framework, but what I have not been able to see is whether any money has been invested in service 3. I can see money in service 2, but I cannot see money in service 3, which is really about early intervention for families at risk, rather than families in which the child is about to be taken into care—those for whom the risk is perhaps a bit lower. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: Yes. There was money in the budget for the non-government organisations—for Wanslea Family Services and Anglicare—and that was for children who were at risk of entering care — Hon SUE ELLERY: Is that not in service 2, though? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: Sorry. The member was right; $9.96 million was in the national partnership agreement funding. However, for the state, there was $1.3 million for the domestic violence intake teams; $1.2 million for the hardship utility grant scheme and financial counselling; $1.1 million for the responsible
[ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E711 parenting initiative, which was for the one-year full-year rollout; $750 000 for remote community child protection workers, which were in Blackstone, Warakurna, and Burringurrah; and $690 000 for the working with children funding for the information system. Hon SUE ELLERY: I refer to service 3 on page 785. In last year’s budget an efficiency indicator was the number of clients seen, and the work done in the first version of the demand model was based on a prediction of about 100 000 clients. I think the figure that appeared in last year’s budget was that 105 000 clients were seen. In this budget, note (d) on page 785 is about the number of clients but there is a significant difference of about 30 000 between the figure that was relied on in the demand model prepared for the last budget and the number that appeared in the last budget. I do not understand why that would be the case. I do not think that 30 000 clients would have been transferred to the Department for Communities, so I do not know where they have gone. [5.20 pm] Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: As I have not personally seen that 100 000 figure, I will take that on notice. We will get back to the member on that. I realise that was in the demand model, but I have not actually seen that projected anywhere, apart from the demand model with the averages — Hon SUE ELLERY: Except it was in last year’s published budget papers. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: Yes, I understand that. But what I am saying is that we will take that on notice because it is a discrepancy. I do not know where that is coming from. That was the projected figure in the demand model but it is not stacking up under these figures. I admit that. [Supplementary Information No G1.] Hon PHILIP GARDINER: Expenditure of $331 million, as I have discovered, is all to do with services 1, 2 and 3. I added the figures up and it is all to do with working with children in difficult circumstances. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: What page is the member referring to? Hon PHILIP GARDINER: On page 779 is the aggregate, but I am really looking at the tables on pages 783 to 785 and the footnotes to those three tables. The part that must be most distressing to the department itself— because I find it distressing myself—is that it is almost like a losing battle. The trend lines are all going in the wrong direction, no matter how hard everyone is working. I guess what I am coming to, as I said when I was boring members on Tuesday night, is whether we are getting — The ACTING CHAIR: Will the member get to the question after the preamble. Hon PHILIP GARDINER: I am getting to that, Madam Acting Chair. Is the department getting to parents, as soon as they have children, to try to help the parents early enough? Following on from what Hon Sue Ellery said, is the department getting to the parents early enough before damage is set in train, instead of trying to make a very difficult rescue? Is the department getting to the parents soon enough to have an impact upon not just the children, but the parents as well, because they are crucial in bringing up the children at that early stage? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: I agree with the member. It is parents learning how to parent, or parents not knowing how to parent. It is crucial that we do that. It is across child protection, it is across health and it is across education. We are working on it. The federal government and the Western Australian government have an agreement to have five early childhood learning centres in the north west, where they are needed. We have the Best Start program for parents—that is when children are visited from the age of zero to two. I understand it is not in here, but the Department for Communities has a range of parenting programs and a parenting centre. Anyone can get help throughout Western Australia from parenting centres. We need to invest more in parenting. As a minister, I am looking at that. We are working on it throughout the state. We will continue to do so because it is critical. Hon PHILIP GARDINER: Do we have the resources of sociologists and psychologists? Do we have enough already or do we need to have a plan to train people through universities et cetera? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: It has been very hard to attract psychologists into government, because they can earn a lot more in private practice. A couple of years ago, it was very hard to get clinical psychologists. I will hand over to the director general. I believe that we are getting more clinical psychologists. We have them in place. Mr T. Murphy: We are very confident in our recruitment of all the staff necessary. Our preferred qualification in the department is social work for most field officers, but a range of other professional and tertiary qualifications can qualify, with adequate in-service training, to work in our department, whether on family support or in child protection and looking after children who are taken into care. As the minister said, we have also increased the number of psychologists we have in the department. They are a particular challenge. The commonwealth’s decision to provide Medicare rebates for the services of psychologists has resulted in a number of psychologists choosing to work in private practice, and that has increased the demand on a limited pool.
E712 [ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
However, we have recruited well in the past year, having changed our intake to include four-year qualified registered psychologists, subject to adequate supervision and so forth being available. Most positions have been filled. Our difficulties now lie in the remote areas of the state and in residential services, where we still have some vacancies. Hon ALYSSA HAYDEN: My question relates to the foster care partnership. I note the reference to the foster care partnership in the seventh dot point on page 781 of the Budget Statements. Can the minister explain how the foster care partnership works, and what assessment of foster carers takes place? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: I chaired a committee a couple of years ago that looked at the adequacy of foster care, and also Prudence Ford, in her review, recommended strengthening the provision of training for foster carers and that the department acknowledge, in a good way, the foster carer as a critical team member in the provision of care. Foster carers are absolutely critical, because they are the ones who have the day-to-day care of the child. Since being in government I have relaxed some of the rules that have affected the children, such as foster parents having to go back to the chief executive officer to allow a foster child to get a driver’s licence, or to have a sleepover. I have allowed the foster carers to make those decisions, because they have the child, and it was such an impost on them to have to go back to the department all the time. The foster care partnership policy has recently been released following extensive consultation with the foster care involvement. This model highlights the critical role of a foster family team and how the department’s care teams work in partnership with a foster family to ensure that the placement is facilitating the child’s safety and wellbeing. The foster care partnership model is concentrated on the core relationship of a foster family with the child and the department’s relationship with the foster family. It is centred on the child and highlights the critical role of that foster family team in providing daily protection to that child. The third element of that model is the supporting role of the department’s care team. Through honest, open communication, the Department for Child Protection’s care team works in partnership with the foster family. It has to be a partnership for it to work, and I am pleased to see that that has started. A competency-based assessment framework for foster carers was implemented during 2008-09, and assesses carers against five key competencies specified in the act. This framework provides a very transparent process. [5.30 pm] Hon JON FORD: I refer to the major policy decisions on page 780. Under the subtitle “3% Efficiency Dividend” is the line item “Fleet Management Efficiencies”. It has an ongoing significant reduction in funding. Could the minister explain to me what those reductions were targeted at, particularly from a regional perspective? I want to know whether there is any reduction in the number of access vehicles for regional offices. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: Four-wheel-drive vehicles will be replaced in remote areas. One-third of the existing four-wheel-drive vehicles will be replaced with lower-cost alternatives such as standard sedans in country areas, not impacting on service delivery. I have just been up to Mt Newman. Obviously, a sedan could not be driven on some of those roads, and also the area around Halls Creek. The number of those vehicles will not be reduced. The number of four-wheel drives that are city-based will be reduced. We will look at reducing home garaging of the fleet. The policy on staff home garaging vehicles has been revised to reduce the home garaging of vehicles, which will result in lower fringe benefits tax required to be paid and will reduce the cost of the existing fleet. The existing vehicle fleet will be replaced with four-cylinder cars, where they can be, instead of the higher-cost six-cylinder cars. Monitoring of the existing fleet will be improved, and the fleet will be monitored more closely to ensure that all vehicles are efficiently and effectively used across the department, which could include the rotation of vehicles to maximise the use of vehicles to reduce costs. Hon KEN TRAVERS: On top of that, does the department meet the global reduction in motor vehicles that the Premier has announced, which is something like 10 per cent of the government vehicle fleet, on top of the efficiencies that the department is already making as part of the three per cent efficiency dividend? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: I have not been advised of that yet, but I have seen it in The West Australian. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Has the department not been advised through the Department of Treasury and Finance of a requirement to reduce its fleet? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: No, not as yet. Hon BRIAN ELLIS: My question relates to the sixth dot point on page 781. There is a reference to a range of strategies being implemented to protect children and young people. I presume this is where the income management efficiency fits. Can the minister please advise how the income management initiative is going in WA, where it operates, the number of referrals and the preliminary outcomes that have been achieved? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: Income management for child protection is a really unique management tool. It operates only in Western Australia. It is a case-by-case response and not a community-wide response. I would personally love it to be a community-wide response because I believe in it so much. It is used to assist in addressing the neglect of children when parents’ use of available financial resources is contributing to the
[ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E713 neglect, and income management when that income management is in the best interests of the child. Income management can be used as part of a reunification plan to enable a child to return home safely. If parents get a Basics card and all they can buy on that Basics card is food, not alcohol or cigarettes, there will be no alcohol in the family. That could settle things down for quite a while until those people are able to go off income management. There is voluntary income management and mandatory income management. Only 22 families are on mandatory income management but about 135 are on voluntary income management. Those on voluntary income management say that they like it a great deal because the bills are paid and they can buy only food. Parents who are referred by the Department for Child Protection to Centrelink for income management receive ongoing case management from the department. They are provided with relevant services, such as parenting support. They are referred by Centrelink to non-compulsory financial counselling or money management services. Income management started in Cannington. The ACTING CHAIR: I am sorry to interrupt the minister, but I am just wondering if perhaps she might like to wrap that up or table the document. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: I believe that every member here knows that I am a great supporter of income management. The ACTING CHAIR: Thank you, minister. Hon ED DERMER: My questions relate to pages 780 and 781. I will start with page 780, if I may. The three per cent efficiency dividend refers to a reduction in policy staff resulting in a reduction of $981 000 in 2009-10 and then in excess of $1 million for each of the forward estimate years. I would be grateful for an indication of what that reduction in expenditure would equate to with the number of full-time equivalent policy staff. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: It is 12. Hon ED DERMER: I am trying to get a sense of proportion. That is a reduction of 12. What is the total number of policy staff available? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: While the director general is looking for an answer to the question, I will expand just on the number of 12 staff: five family and domestic violence staff, three children and young people staff, two child protection staff, one responsible parenting staff and one individual family support staff. Hon ED DERMER: That is reducing the number of staff in each of those areas. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: It is a reduction in policy staff. We now have 82 staff. Hon ED DERMER: Basically, it is a reduction of 12, leaving 82 staff, which would otherwise be 94. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: Yes. Hon ED DERMER: I am trying to take that into account and assess what the impact will probably be of reducing those staff numbers and what work that has been carried out to date will be discontinued. The ACTING CHAIR: I might point out that that is probably more of a policy issue. The minister should feel free to answer if she wants to, but I do not think she really needs to. Hon SUE ELLERY: It is a matter of policy; it is a matter of detail. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: It is 84 full-time staff with 12 policy staff fewer and, yes, it is going to impact but, hopefully, it is manageable and will be manageable. It is just that the impact of the three per cent efficiency dividend is that 12 policy staff will no longer be there. Hon ED DERMER: Can the minister identify particular areas of policy examination that will discontinue? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: Yes. I did identify them. There were five family and domestic violence staff, three children and young people staff, two child protection staff, one responsible parenting staff and one individual family support staff. Hon ED DERMER: That is as specific as the minister can be about what work will be reduced or discontinued. One of my colleagues has already referred to the sixth dot point on page 781, which refers to using evidence- based policy development, and reads — A range of strategies to protect children and young people from abuse are being implemented, using evidence-based policy development … I am endeavouring to reconcile a greater emphasis on evidence-based policy development with a reduction in the policy staff referred to as part of the three per cent efficiency dividend. I would be grateful for an explanation of how we can extend evidence-based policy development, while at the same time reduce policy staff. [5.40 pm]
E714 [ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: There is nothing specific on that, but when one looks at what the department does with the implementation of mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse, one sees that the policy has been decided; it has been established. The implementation of the signs of safety child protection practice framework has been done. Policy decisions being implemented are the establishment of child first assessment and interview teams in partnership with the WA Police; the interagency early intervention framework policy and protocols in partnership with King Edward Memorial Hospital for Women focusing on at-risk newborn babies; compulsory income management all across the Kimberley and Cannington districts and now in four other city areas; the policy on neglect, which I might add I instigated from opposition; and completion of phase 2 of Assist, the client information service that will support all of the child protection system. These initiatives are being implemented. They are all policy decisions and they have been implemented and that is ongoing. They are all evidence based. Hon ED DERMER: Is the minister satisfied that this emphasis on evidence-based development can continue unimpeded by the reduction in policy staff? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: I am satisfied that it can. Hon ALISON XAMON: I refer to the sixth dot point on page 781 under “Significant Issues Impacting the Agency”, which refers to mandatory reporting. I understand there were 382 reports up to 31 March, at least. Does this reflect an increase in the number of reports compared with the previous years; and, if so, by how many? I have some follow-up questions from that. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: There has been a 22 per cent increase in child protection notifications and an 84 per cent increase in child sexual abuse notifications. That sounds horrific, but it was from a number of around 360, if I remember correctly. Some of those were multiple reports. Hon ALISON XAMON: Does the minister know the number of children that represented? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: I am fairly sure that it represents around 360 children. I am happy to provide the member with further information, because it shows how many reports have been made by teachers, police, nurses and doctors. When I said that some of those were multiple reports, it means that a doctor, a nurse and sometimes a midwife have all made reports. The ACTING CHAIR: That will be provided as supplementary information. [Supplementary Information No G2.] Hon ALISON XAMON: How is mandatory funding allocated? Specifically, what proportion of funds is allocated to investigation, prosecution, treatment and also prevention? I wanted to get a picture of how that is playing out. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: The allocation over four years was $68 million, including $43.9 million for the Department for Child Protection to implement it. Is that the line of the member’s question? Hon ALISON XAMON: Implementation can take a number of forms. I am trying to get an idea of how that is broken down as well. Does the minister have those figures? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: It is entirely in assessment and investigation. I must say that the mandatory reporting system set up by the previous government is a brilliant system. I was very sceptical before I went out and looked at the office. It is absolutely state-of-the-art and probably the best system that I have seen in Australia. Hon SUE ELLERY: I hope Hansard got that! Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: As the Minister for Child Protection, I have continued the mandatory reporting system. I have been minister for eight months and I do not see anything wrong in saying that the previous minister did the right thing about the reporting of sexual abuse of children. I think we are both on the same page in that respect. However, before the term of this government ends, I will make it mandatory for all forms of abuse to be reported. I return to the question asked by Hon Alison Xamon. The allocation covers staff numbers at the centre, assessment, working with police, and the information systems at the core unit. The amount allocated to the unit was $3 803 000 to set up information systems, infrastructure maintenance, on-call training and professional education. There was an allocation of $4 905 000 for training, learning development and after-hours services. We have six FTEs in crisis care. The Crisis Care Helpline is run from this unit. When the Department for Child Protection is called after hours anywhere in the state, the call goes to Crisis Care. One of the six staff at Crisis Care takes the call and calls the person on duty in the area from which the call came, who will then contact the police and perform the call-out. There are also allocations for country services, non-government services, sexual abuse treatment and HR support, and the balance goes to DCP core services, for which there are 53 FTEs in the mandatory reporting unit.
[ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E715
Hon SUE ELLERY: I refer to the sixth dot point under “Significant Issues Impacting the Agency” on page 781. It states, in part — A range of strategies to protect children and young people from abuse are being implemented, using evidence-based policy development … What evidence led to the decision to cease funding for the men’s program run by SafeCare? My understanding is that the only evidence that existed was the evaluation report, which evaluated the program as being successful and safe. Is it the case that there are now more children at risk of abuse because the corrective services system is not meeting the therapeutic needs of men who have been abused and actually want to do something to address their behaviour? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: My answer to that is that there are clinical psychologists in Western Australia, and if men go to a general practitioner, they can be referred to a clinical psychologist who specialises in that area—there are a few—to get treatment. The report that came out during the member’s time as minister — Hon SUE ELLERY: It was actually before my time as minister. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: There were concerns raised about that program. I had concerns because — Hon SUE ELLERY: With respect, I know about the minister’s personal concerns. I am asking about the evidence-based policy. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: The evidence base was that SafeCare had two arms to its program. One was to do with children and the other was to do with the perpetrators. There is evidence that these programs work and there is evidence that they do not work, it just depends on what — Hon SUE ELLERY: That is what I am asking. Where is the evidence to show that they were not working? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: As the minister, I can sometimes make a decision, and my decision was to fund UnitingCare West $500 000 to put the money towards children who have been abused because that is where it is really needed. Clinical psychologists are there and anyone can go to them. [5.50 pm] Hon SUE ELLERY: So the minister is not able to point to any — The ACTING CHAIR: Order! Members, I know that I am relatively new at this, but it is probably appropriate that the questions be put one at a time rather than across the chamber in the way that they are being put at the moment. Is that not usually the case in these hearings? Hon SUE ELLERY: No-one was putting questions back to me. Anyway, I will continue. Given that I have not been able to be provided with any evidence, I refer again to the same dot point about a range of strategies to protect children and young people from abuse using evidence-based policy development. I refer also to the comment the minister has just made, in response to the question from Hon Alison Xamon, about the minister’s intention to include in mandatory reporting all forms of abuse against children. Can the minister identify the evidence-based research that demonstrates the benefits to children of expanding mandatory reporting to include all forms of abuse? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: I have the view, and so do many other people, that if a child is being neglected, it should be reported. In South Australia, mandatory reporting for cases of neglect has been in place since 1965. I believe that if a child is being neglected, or is being physically or mentally abused, and that is left unreported, that child is left in danger. I do not like children to be left in danger. Hon SUE ELLERY: Absolutely not, minister; no-one would suggest that for one moment. I respect the minister’s point of view on mandatory reporting. However, I am asking the minister to provide to me the evidence base that the minister will be relying upon to say to the Parliament that this is why we should bring in mandatory reporting. Where is the evidence to show that mandatory reporting will result in better outcomes for children? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: It is because there are so many children in Western Australia and in Australia who are being neglected, and that is well documented. The system that is used in South Australia is the one that I will probably be looking at, and have looked at, as the one to adopt in this state. However, the problem is that the system may become very overloaded. That is certainly evident from the Wood report about the Department of Community Services in New South Wales. What I am seeking to do in this state, and what the department is seeking to do and was already doing under the watch of the former minister, is divert. That means that if a call comes in about a child who is being neglected, it is hoped that that child will then be put into some sort of support system, or the child’s parents are put into some sort of support system—parental responsibility or whatever—that will help that child. I would really dearly love to see—I think we all would—a situation in which mandatory reporting occurs when a child is being physically abused or neglected so that the authorities can then put in place a system to ensure that that child does not continue to be neglected or abused.
E716 [ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
Hon SUE ELLERY: What resources will be provided to ensure that, once a call about a child has been made, we do not end up with a similar situation to the one with DOCS in New South Wales, whereby the majority of the children were never sighted by any agency to which they might have been referred? What work has been done to model the resources that will be required to expand mandatory reporting to the extent to which the minister wants to expand it? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: I do understand that. I am not going to sit here and say that it is all going to be rosy. We will need to look at that very carefully. But I am not going to allow our children to continue to be hurt and neglected and have no-one pick that up. Hon SUE ELLERY: No-one is suggesting that the minister would do that. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: I know the Leader of the Opposition is not suggesting that. I will say very clearly for Hansard that the former minister was not suggesting that we should leave children to be neglected. However, as the minister responsible, I am not going to watch our children continue to be neglected at a rate of knots that is alarming me greatly. Hon BRIAN ELLIS: Paragraph 2 on page 785 of the Budget Statements refers to responsible parenting. Can the minister please explain what preparations have been made to facilitate the use of responsible parenting orders under the Parental Support and Responsibility Act 2008? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: I am pleased with the progress that has been made to pave the way for the proper use of that act as a tool for agencies to engage with families and provide them with parenting assistance. As has been pointed out today, the role of parenting is absolutely crucial. Parents are responsible for managing their children’s behaviour, whether that involves persistent non-attendance at school, antisocial behaviour either at school, in the community or at home, or juvenile offending. The three key agencies—the Department for Child Protection, the Department of Education and Training and the Department of Corrective Services—have identified positions for designation as authorised officers under section 35 of the Parental Support and Responsibility Act, which will enable them to make responsible parenting agreements and orders and to request information from information-sharing agencies. That is critical. The information-sharing agencies are the Department for Child Protection, the Department of Education and Training, the Department of Education Services, the Department of Corrective Services, the Disability Services Commission, the Department of Health, the Department of Housing and the police department. The interagency implementation group is advising on and overseeing the implementation process. Although we have been talking about this process for a long time, it has only just begun in some places, such as Midland. Hon ALISON XAMON: I will follow up on the question asked by Hon Sue Ellery about the defunding of the SafeCare program. I am aware that the SafeCare program had a number of elements to it. It was not as simple as treating women and children or men; its whole-of-family approach to dealing with either sexual abuse or the risk of sexual abuse in the family was renowned. Can the minister advise whether any programs within her portfolio have been allocated funding that would take a whole-of-family approach to deal with sexual abuse, which would not necessarily be covered by a perpetrator simply being referred by a GP to a clinical psychologist? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: No, I have not. The SafeCare Young People’s program was given $133 000 in funding and the SafeCare Families program was given $92 000. I took the view that the money was better spent in the children’s area and that the perpetrators could be sent to a clinical psychologist. A lot of people in the community, including psychologists and people who are trained to deal with sexual abuse, were rather alarmed that perpetrators could be sent to SafeCare to undergo two years of psychological counselling for sexually abusing their little girl or little boy and be placed back into the family. There are two views. The member can read any of the literature she likes. There are those who would be horrified that people who insert their fingers into a little girl’s vagina or put their penis into a little girl’s mouth can receive two years of counselling and then be put back into the house in which the child is a voiceless little victim, and there are others who would agree with that. The member can read the two opposing views. I was faced with having to find savings because of the three per cent efficiency dividend and I had to make a decision about where the money would be best spent. UnitingCare West has been given $500 000 for all those little children out there who have already suffered. I took the view, in discussing it with the department and having that report that was done on SafeCare, that there were some concerns that the money would go to children who had already been abused knowing that there were clinical psychologists who do deal with perpetrators. [6.00 pm] Hon ALISON XAMON: But there is no whole-of-family approach to those families that so desperately want help. The simple answer is no. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: No. UnitingCare West actually does support the whole family and there are child sexual abuse therapy services—C-SATS—that do support the whole family. There are places where the whole family can get support.
[ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E717
Hon ALISON XAMON: But it is not being — The ACTING CHAIR: I ask the member to refrain from making comment. I am sure the minister will be happy to have a conversation with her outside the chamber, but this hearing is for asking questions about the estimates, and I would rather stick to that so that I can follow the rules that have been given to me as well. The Leader of the Opposition indicated that she had some further questions, but Hon Philip Gardiner has also indicated that he has some questions. Hon SUE ELLERY: I am writing out my questions to hand them in at the end. Hon PHILIP GARDINER: I refer to page 777 of the Budget Statements. My question is a bit about symbolism, but I recognise the seriousness of the child protection aspect of the department. There is roughly $500 million all told being spent. My question is: will the minister consider changing the name of her department? We have heard in part about the child protection aspect. We have also heard a lot about parental assistance and support and all those kinds of things. Would the minister consider changing her title to something like the “Minister for Parental and Children Development and Child Protection”? It would give a positive aspect to all the work, which I have heard this evening the minister is doing. However, “Minister for Child Protection” is a very adversarial name, and the name “community services” does not mean anything to me. However, it entails, from what I have read, a lot of micro-work in parental areas. The ACTING CHAIR: I am not sure that the member’s question is in order. Hon PHILIP GARDINER: Can I ask the minister for a brief response? The ACTING CHAIR: I leave it up to the minister. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: The department has changed its name over the years. It was formerly the Department for Family and Children’s Services, then the Department for Community Development and then it was split into two departments. It was split into two for good reason and renamed the Department for Child Protection and the Department for Communities. One department is for child protection and one is for community services so that the focus in the first department is on child protection and the focus in the second department is on the parenting role. The departments have two distinct roles and I would not consider changing the names at this time. However, I do understand what the member has said. Hon SUE ELLERY: Before I hand over my written question, I refer to page 786 under “Asset Investment Program”. I note that $1.1 million has been allocated to the intensive therapeutic unit but that there is no money in the out years. I also note from discussions in the estimates hearings in the other place that there is an intention to bring into Parliament, perhaps later this year, legislation to give effect to the intensive therapeutic centre. That centre will need more money than is allocated in the budget to do the work. That was certainly so when the previous government was first contemplating these changes, and when they were contemplated by the minister prior to me. It was to be an eight-bed facility. Things are marching on and I suspect that eight beds are probably not quite enough. I am wondering what planning has been done, based on the work that I know has already been done around it, and what the model would look like. What amount of money does the minister think will be needed to get that facility up and running? Does the minister believe it needs more than eight beds? I would appreciate any comment the minister can give me about that. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: Yes, the member is right: the Kath French Centre was initially allocated capital funding of $1.2 million. Recurrent funding of $900 000 is available to commence the facility. Additional recurrent funding has been requested to fully implement the interim secure centre—$2.57 million in 2009-10 and $2.644 million in 2010-11—and additional recurrent and capital funding between 2010 and 2011 will be required to expand the services. The plan is dependent on selling some of the assets that we have to build this very good therapeutic model of a secure care centre. The member is right that we do need more funding, and that will be dependent on the planning that we have done. I think it is about $25 million. I will hand over to the director general. Mr T. Murphy: As the member will appreciate, with planning an interim facility, our focus has largely been on that, and the capital funding we have for that is being utilised at the moment. The facility will be ready for use early next year, pending legislation. That will provide for eight beds. The way we are constructing it is five beds for boys, three beds for girls. We anticipate that ratio will be right, although it is reversible if need be. Concurrently, we have begun the most preliminary of planning for a 20-bed facility. Our preference would be to use the interim facility for either girls or boys, with probably still eight beds, and then build another facility on the same site, at a distance, with 12 beds. That would be a new 12-bed facility going up. With the way building costs and planning go, our estimate of the cost is around $8 million at this stage. However, it really has not been planned to a sufficient degree for us to be confident about that figure staying the same, but it is indicative. Hon SUE ELLERY: The Minister for Child Protection said that additional money has been requested. I remember when I was minister that there was a plan to sell certain of the properties that were on prime land. Has
E718 [ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] the minister requested additional money on top of what she expects to get from the sale of those properties? I just want the minister to clarify what she was saying. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: No, it has been fully expended on — Hon SUE ELLERY: On the basis of the sale of the existing properties. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: Yes, on the basis of the sale of the existing properties. The ACTING CHAIR: Are there any further questions? That being the case, everyone must be feeling a little bit hungry, I suppose. We were due to wrap this up at 6.15 pm, and I have either chaired it well or badly—I am not sure—but we have finished early. Hon KEN TRAVERS: What are you saying about the previous Chairs! The ACTING CHAIR: Just before closing, I would like to thank the Chair of our committee for giving me the opportunity to chair this session; I appreciate that. I thank all members for their indulgence, and if I made bad decisions, I am sorry; but if I made good ones, then great! I thank the minister and her advisers for coming along this evening. They are now discharged from their duties. I would like to remind everyone that we are due to resume at 7.15 pm. Meeting suspended from 6.08 to 7.15 pm Division 28: Education and Training, $4 340 083 000 — Hon Philip Gardiner, Deputy Chair. Hon Peter Collier, Minister for Training. Ms S.A. O’Neill, Director General. Mr P.J. McCaffrey, Deputy Director General. Mr R. Player, Deputy Director General, Training Mr J.W. Thom, Executive Director, Infrastructure. Ms M. Evans, Deputy Director General, Schools. [Witnesses took the oath or affirmation.] The DEPUTY CHAIR: This hearing is being held in public, although there is discretion available to the committee to hear evidence in private either of its own motion or at the witnesses’ request. If for some reason you wish to make a confidential statement during today’s proceedings, you should request that the evidence be taken in closed session before answering the question. Members are asked to sit towards the front of the chamber on the non-government benches where practicable so that witnesses will not have to turn their head to the back of the chamber when answering questions. It will greatly assist Hansard if when referring to the Budget Statements volumes or the consolidated account estimates, members give the page number, item, program, amount, and so on in preface to their questions. If supplementary information is to be provided, I ask your cooperation in ensuring that it is delivered to the committee’s clerk within five working days of receipt of the questions. An example of the required Hansard style for the documents has been provided to your advisers. The committee reminds agency representatives to respond to questions in a succinct manner and to limit the extent of personal observations. For the benefit of members and Hansard, I ask the minister to introduce his advisers to the committee, and for each adviser to please state their full name, contact address and the capacity in which they appear before the committee. [7.20 pm] [Witnesses Introduced.] The DEPUTY CHAIR: At this time, I would ask each of the witnesses whether they have read, understood and completed the “Information for Witnesses” form. The Witnesses: Yes. The DEPUTY CHAIR: Do all the witnesses fully understand the meaning and effect of the provisions of that document? The Witnesses: Yes. The DEPUTY CHAIR: Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich.
[ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E719
Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: I will start by getting some clarification of roles. I want to work out why technical and further education colleges are listed as being under the responsibility of the Minister for Training, whilst everything else in relation to training is actually listed as being under the responsibility of Minister Constable. I want to get some clarity on that because we have been trying to get this clarity for some time. Is it the case that schools, universities and vocational education in schools are the responsibility of Minister Constable and are covered in division 28, services 1 and 2? Hon PETER COLLIER: Yes, that is correct. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Is it the case that TAFE colleges and private providers of technical and further education are under the responsibility of Minister Collier and are covered in division 28, service 3 and also on pages 695 and 696 following division 52? Hon PETER COLLIER: Did the member say page 696? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Yes, under the heading “TAFE Colleges” there are two pages and an $11 million allocation. I just want clarity about what the minister is actually responsible for, because I have to try to deal — Hon PETER COLLIER: If the member directs her questions to me, I will answer them. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: I have just directed a question to the minister. Hon PETER COLLIER: Page 695 has the summary TAFE budget but it is in the main budget as well, and that is my responsibility. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Why were the TAFE colleges not included as part of division 28, service 3? The minister is saying they have been included, so they are covered in both areas. Why is the Minister for Training not responsible for vocational education and training in schools? Hon PETER COLLIER: Someone who is doing VET in school and is actually operating within the school and is enrolled at the school is the responsibility of the Minister for Education. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Who determines the policies for VET in schools? Is it the education minister or is it the training minister? Hon PETER COLLIER: If the VET is actually in the school, it is the responsibility of the Minister for Education, but if the VET has an off-school component, which may mean students have a placement within a TAFE college et cetera, it is a joint responsibility. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: But who has the responsibility for the development of and determining what programs are offered for VET school programs? Who makes the decision about whether the programs that are developed in fact operate at the school level? Whose responsibility does it become? Hon PETER COLLIER: That is under the School Education Act; if students are school-aged children, they are the responsibility of the Minister for Education. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: So essentially, is the determination of what VET programs should be run within schools the responsibility of the Minister for Education? Hon PETER COLLIER: That is correct. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: What proportion of the total number of vocational education and training students are in schools? The DEPUTY CHAIR: Is the honourable member referring now to the numbers in the document? If so, is there a page number? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: I will be. The DEPUTY CHAIR: Or is it clarity still? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: This is still clarity. I have a specific page number for the next question. This is the last one for which I need some clarity. Hon PETER COLLIER: I will ask Mr Player to give the member those figures. Mr R. Player: In 2008 there were 14 558 year 11 and 12 students participating in VET in schools programs in the public system, and another 5 320 from the independent and Catholic systems. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: I now want to quickly refer to division 28, and page 348 of the Budget Statements, under the Minister for Education. My question relates to the three per cent efficiency dividend in the technical and further education sector. Why is the information on the savings in the TAFE sector under the Minister for Education? I think the minister has explained that.
E720 [ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
Hon PETER COLLIER: Yes. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Does the minister support the Minister for Education applying the three per cent efficiency dividend to take $34.2 million out of the TAFE sector? Hon PETER COLLIER: The three per cent efficiency dividend, I have to point out at the outset, was something that was put forward by the previous government. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: But we would have done it differently. Hon PETER COLLIER: I know; but we matched that. There was that three per cent efficiency dividend. There has been no, dare I say it, effect on front-line services — Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: That is not true, because I have raised these in the house. The fact that the minister does not accept that is a different issue. It is not true because I have already cited examples where they have been impacted upon; for example, TAFE colleges. Hon PETER COLLIER: If the member could give us some examples of where front-line services have been impacted upon, we can respond to it. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Travel. Hon PETER COLLIER: Has the member got some specific examples? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: I have not got them with me but I have already given them to the house. We know that when some staff go on leave, their contracts are not being replaced. We already know, for example, that there have been cuts to travel. We know that that means that it is more difficult to service certain regional areas — Hon PETER COLLIER: What delivery — The DEPUTY CHAIR: Honourable member, can we hear the response now from the minister? Hon PETER COLLIER: We were talking about the delivery. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Now I am asking the questions, so I think we better get that sorted out! You just give me the answers. The DEPUTY CHAIR: Your call, minister. Hon PETER COLLIER: Sorry, what was the question again? The member waffled on a bit there. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Does the minister support the Minister for Education applying the three per cent efficiency dividend to take $34.2 million out of the TAFE sector? Hon PETER COLLIER: The member is talking about the grants, I take it? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Yes. Hon PETER COLLIER: I say at the outset that in terms of the funds that were taken out of TAFE from the grants the member is talking about — Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: I am talking about administration and operations, college-specific reforms, service delivery reforms and total savings. Hon PETER COLLIER: As I have said, we are very cognisant of the fact that we have a situation in which there is a three per cent efficiency dividend. I am very comfortable with the fact that front-line services were not impacted upon negatively in TAFE colleges. In fact, as I have said in the Parliament on a number of occasions, TAFE colleges are actually delighted at the moment because we have injected another just over $47 million in the form of a stimulus package that has given them a raft of opportunities to implement a number of new policies and initiatives to assist those who are adversely affected by the economic downturn. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Can I follow that line through, Mr Deputy Chairman? The DEPUTY CHAIR: Yes; the last one, honourable member. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Given that we have $34.2 million in savings from the efficiency dividend, together with the removal of the It Pays to Learn allowance for apprentices and trainees of $58.3 million, that means that $92.5 million has been taken out of training, to be replaced by $47.4 million. In anyone’s reasoning, in terms of the economics of that, quite clearly the minister is taking out twice as much as he is putting back. How can the minister claim for one minute that this is a fair deal for training and a fair deal for the people who rely on the training to be there for what they require? [7.30 pm]
[ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E721
Hon PETER COLLIER: We need to establish right at the start that the It Pays to Learn allowance was literally a payment; it was a grant. It was not necessarily for education, and that was one of the issues we had with the grant. It did not necessarily go towards training or education. We felt that there were better ways in which we could direct that funding, so that is exactly what we have done. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: So it was given to training providers or businesses. It was taken out of the hands of students and their families, who would have used it, for example, to assist apprentices to buy the things that they need to undertake their training. The government took the payment away from them and gave it to people who provide training services on a fee-for-service basis. That is what the government effectively did. Hon PETER COLLIER: I will just stand by what I said before. It is simply not the case that the money goes to fee-for-service operators. The $47 million literally went to the stimulus package to assist our TAFE colleges. To emphasise the point about where that money went, $3 million went to the expanded career development services; we have strengthened the Employment Directions Network at a cost of an additional $1.015 million; recognition of prior learning, more than $1.6 million; the critical response team, $630 000; and it goes on and on. They are all highly effective programs. To suggest that that money was ill-spent is just not correct. Hon LIZ BEHJAT: I refer to the first dot point on page 350 of the Budget Statements. The minister might recall that two nights ago—it already seems like last week—I gave my maiden speech to this house, and one of the subjects I spoke on was the value of teachers and how wonderful they really are. Since that time I have been contacted by a number of teachers who either heard my speech or have read it since. They have been told that the Premier’s Teacher of the Year Award is being cancelled under the three per cent efficiency dividend. Can the minister comment on that for me? Hon PETER COLLIER: I would be surprised if that were the case. I agree with the member, and I believe one of the great things about the Premier’s Teacher of the Year Award is that it provides the opportunity to recognise excellence. I have been to a number of Teacher of the Year Award ceremonies, last year as Minister for Training. The award now also covers the TAFE Lecturer of the Year Award. I had a bit of difficulty with that component because of the fact that the Lecturer of the Year and the Teacher of the Year Awards were in the same basket. They essentially compete against each other. They should be separate. As a former teacher, I also had difficulty with the fact that the award was increased from $25 000 to $100 000. I know that caused a lot of consternation amongst teachers. They thought that for one teacher to get $100 000 was not an appropriate distribution of funds. It would be better if it were more equitably distributed amongst a number of teachers. As I understand it, that is the case, but the Premier’s Teacher of the Year Award will continue. I will ask the director general to comment. Ms S.A. O’Neill: As the minister rightly pointed out, the funds and the program for the Premier’s Teacher of the Year Award will be reformed somewhat. We received a fair bit of feedback from the teachers themselves, who said that they would rather see more people recognised rather than a person recognised. Teachers talk to us—I am sure they talk to the honourable member too—about the importance of being recognised as part of the profession. It is important for us to realise that the awards are only one mechanism through which that would happen. It is an important one and a very public one. In addition, we also settled the teachers’ agreement, which recognises teachers’ professionalism. The awards program, which occurs once a year, is still in place; it is not being cancelled. The quantums are being reduced but it will allow people at the local level—there are local nomination processes—to be awarded smaller amounts of money as they go through the process. That will certainly allow more people to be recognised. Hon PETER COLLIER: I wish to pick up on that because it is a good point. The recognition of teachers is absolutely essential. The attitude of teachers has diminished quite considerably over recent years. We recognise that esteem within the teaching profession has declined appreciably over recent years; that is why we gave them a significant salary increase, as we did with technical and further education lecturers. TAFE lecturers have gone from being essentially amongst the worst paid in the nation to amongst the best paid as a result of an agreement that we reached with them earlier this year. They will get a further five per cent increase in September 2009 and there will be salary and structural adjustments for lecturers ranging up to four per cent from March 2010 and another four per cent in September 2010. This shows that the government recognises, appreciates and values the teaching profession. It has suffered enormously over recent years through a period of unsustained change. The Teacher of the Year Award will continue. Hon LIZ BEHJAT: I thank the minister for that answer. The teachers will be very happy when I tell them that. I refer to page 354 of budget paper No 2. I am looking at new primary schools. I am on the committee, but the school I am concerned about is in my electorate, so I have a particular interest. Hon PETER COLLIER: Which school is that?
E722 [ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
Hon LIZ BEHJAT: I am interested in Deanmore Primary School. When this school was proposed for construction, it was possible that it would be one of the first schools built using the public-private partnership model. Is that still under consideration? Hon PETER COLLIER: We went to the election promising to build a number of public schools under the PPP model. I understand that the department is looking at those models now. I went to a couple of conferences in the eastern states on the public-private partnership model. Most other states use that model, and use it very effectively. Schools are constructed very efficiently and promptly. As I said, they certainly work very effectively. The department is looking at some models at the moment. I went to Deanmore when I launched that policy, by coincidence, because I think the school needs to be rebuilt, and I am delighted that it is in the budget papers. It was considered to be one of those schools that would fall into that category. I will ask Mr McCaffrey to confirm this after I have finished. Given the time frame, I doubt that it will be. The government is committed to using the PPP model when constructing future schools. I am considering it with aspects of TAFE, not rebuilding TAFEs but building new TAFEs. A number of TAFE colleges are very much in need of major capital infrastructure development. I went to the south west TAFE a couple of months ago. It has a real need for a major automotive centre. That to me would be a perfect opportunity to perhaps consider a public-private partnership model, so I have discussed that with the department, and it is something we are looking at. I am very supportive of enhancing our TAFE colleges through a PPP model. For an answer specifically about a new Deanmore school and PPPs in general I will ask Mr McCaffrey to comment. [7.40 pm] Mr P.J. McCaffrey: I think the first thing I would like to mention is that it takes about two years from the time we announce a school to having it opened. In the case of Deanmore, we are planning to open the school as close to 2011 as we can. The other thing that is part of a PPP environment is that it has been shown in the other states that Treasury departments have a major role in how PPPs are progressed. It is only a rough guide, but about 60 per cent of the decision-making processes come through the Treasuries, because they are the ones that need to determine how these projects are financed. We have certainly been able to identify in our forward estimates the schools that we think would need to be built over the next four years. I heard the Treasurer the other day, at a forum for the commercial sector groups, encouraging them to get involved in working with the Treasury in progressing PPPs across the whole of the public sector. He specifically mentioned that he would expect that schools would be part of that process. Again, when we get to the point of confirming the schools for 2012, those decisions about how they will be financed will be negotiated with the Treasurer. Hon KEN TRAVERS: The minister never made it clear whether Deanmore will be under a PPP or not. Mr P.J. McCaffrey: I doubt it very much because it has been appropriated in our forward estimates as an injection of funds, so I would say that unless there is an attitude within the Department of Treasury and Finance about how they deal with the financing of these projects from a whole-of-government perspective, it is something I would certainly need to get some advice from Treasury on. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I might ask the minister if he recalls that he gave a commitment to the parents of the students at Deanmore that it would not be part of a PPP and can he now rule it out categorically and say that it will not be part of a PPP? Hon PETER COLLIER: It is a good question. As I said, I remember quite vividly the day we went there. We were excited. We had given the tick-off on 14-year schools and that those schools would be a combination of PPP models and conventional methods. At no stage did I say that Deanmore would be built by PPP. I said that it would certainly be considered. Hon KEN TRAVERS: My recollection is that the minister gave a commitment to the parents, after Labor had committed to building that school, that it would be built and that it would not be as part of the government’s PPP package. Hon PETER COLLIER: It would not, did the member say? Hon KEN TRAVERS: It would not. Hon PETER COLLIER: I thought the member said to me that I said it would be and that I had given a commitment that it would be. Hon KEN TRAVERS: No, that it would not be. I want to hear a commitment that it will not be part of a PPP. Hon PETER COLLIER: I cannot do that. I have been asked a question. It is up to the Minister for Education to do that. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Does the minister recall that he gave a commitment to those parents before the election that it would not be part of a PPP?
[ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E723
Hon PETER COLLIER: I must say at this stage that I doubt it very much. It is in the budget papers. We still have not worked on a model at this stage. Hon KEN TRAVERS: That is not what I am asking the minister. I am asking whether he recalls that he gave a commitment to those parents that it would not be part of a PPP. Hon PETER COLLIER: I honestly cannot recall whether or not I did, but what I will say to the member is that it would be highly unlikely—very remote indeed—that Deanmore would be part of a PPP model. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I am happy with that. Those were not the questions I was going to ask, but following on from them: has the department established a public sector comparator for the purposes of determining PPPs? Hon PETER COLLIER: That is done by Treasury, not the department. Hon KEN TRAVERS: The department would surely need to be involved in the development of it. Is the department aware of one being developed? Hon PETER COLLIER: I will ask Mr McCaffrey. Mr P.J. McCaffrey: Yes, it is a joint activity between the Treasury and the department. As I mentioned previously, it is a major function of the financing arm of any decision about a PPP. The public sector comparator has not been started, as such, although we would be providing the specifications and the requirements as part of our standard building brief as part of the assessment of a public sector comparator. I understand, if I may add, that from the experience of the other states, it is quite an involved, complicated and lengthy process. I am not aware of Treasury contacting us to ask us to formally get involved with the establishment of it at this time. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I refer to page 347, “Total Appropriations”. The figure for the 2008-09 budget is $3 326 235 000, but the actual figure is $3 269 130 000. Firstly, can the minister explain the difference; and, secondly, does the minister expect $3 269 130 000 to be the estimated actual figure at the end of the financial year? Also, has the minister drawn any money from the Treasurer’s advance authorisation account to fund that and is the agency having to use cash reserves to fund its operations between now and the end of the financial year? Hon PETER COLLIER: I will ask Mr McCaffrey to respond. Mr P.J. McCaffrey: I will take the member’s questions one by one. The member’s first question related to the gross figure in the appropriation. That has a number of elements. The increase is about $246.9 million. The components include the allocation for the Building Education Revolution of $115 million, provision for salary agreements as they were negotiated recently of $72 million, and the economic stimulus package, which is about $14.4 million. There is also an amount that has been transferred out of the capital works program. It is because of the nature of the work that is undertaken, such as roads, which are not really an asset in the context of our building, and there is $23.6 million that has been expensed into the recurrent budget. There is also an increase of $15.5 million for depreciation changes because the department’s assets were revalued last year. There is obviously a reduction of the three per cent efficiency dividend, which negates some of those major increases. The other part, which happens every year in our budget, is that when an adjustment is made in the midyear review, the final allocation is brought forward into our budget to meet the full year impact of those changes. I think the member will find that that gets pretty close to the $250 million. Hon KEN TRAVERS: The other part of the question was whether the agency has been required to draw on the Treasurer’s advance to fund the operations of the agency this year; and, if so, how much has been drawn and has the agency needed to use its cash reserves to fund the operation of the agency between now and the end of the financial year? Mr P.J. McCaffrey: I will go back to the second part of the member’s question first. Yes, we do have cash reserves that we will be using to balance our budget, as we do every year. Part of the reason is that a number of expenses are carried over from one year to the next. There are also some increases in funding that were not appropriated last year and were not adjusted as part of the midyear review. I would expect that part of the additional appropriation that we will be getting, which I think is in the order of about $20 million, relates to any expenditures that were agreed to and announced, and expected to be expended, after the midyear review. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Is that $20 million the amount that the agency intends to draw from the Treasurer’s advance? Mr P.J. McCaffrey: We do not draw from the Treasurer’s advance. The Treasurer determines how he will increase the appropriation to the department. It is a mechanism that the Department of Treasury and Finance uses, and I do not see the detail of that. It would have in its elements the reasons why the Treasurer’s advance needs to be increased, but I am not 100 per cent sure how that was done. [7.50 pm]
E724 [ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
Hon KEN TRAVERS: How much money has been allocated from Treasury under the Treasurer’s advance to top up the budget for this year? Mr P.J. McCaffrey: We are not told where the money is coming from. An adjustment is made to our budget for an appropriation increase. Hon KEN TRAVERS: How much was that this year? Mr P.J. McCaffrey: I think we were expecting approximately an extra $20 million. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Has that now been formally authorised by the Treasurer? Mr P.J. McCaffrey: Yes; I certainly hope so. We only have a couple of weeks to go. Hon KEN TRAVERS: How many vehicles are there in the department’s total fleet of vehicles? I am happy for the question to be taken on notice; I do not expect an answer today. Can the minister tell me whether he has identified how many vehicles he needs to get rid of to reduce the vehicle fleet by 10 per cent, and whether he has developed any strategies to achieve a 10 per cent reduction of the vehicle fleet? Hon PETER COLLIER: I will ask Mr McCaffrey to answer the second question, and we will take the first question on notice. Mr P.J. McCaffrey: We are aware that there is a policy change, and we have seen that there is an expectation of significant savings. The department has not received any official policy on how the reduction will be implemented. There will be implications for participants in the government motor vehicle scheme, and that is the important part of how we will be affected and how the reduction will be implemented across our department. We will obviously comply with the government’s policy and reduce our fleet. [Supplementary Information No H1.] Hon KEN TRAVERS: Mr McCaffrey says that he was aware of the policy but that he had not been notified. In what way was he aware of the policy if he had not been formally notified? Mr P.J. McCaffrey: Through the public statement that was made. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Media reports? Mr P.J. McCaffrey: That is correct. Hon ALYSSA HAYDEN: I refer to TAFE expenses under “Financial Statements” on page 357 of the Budget Statements. In “Training WA: Planning for the future 2009-2018”, the minister states that he wants TAFE colleges to have more autonomy. Will this incur additional costs; and, if so, how much? Hon PETER COLLIER: There will not be any additional costs, certainly not at this stage. Yes, I said that I wanted TAFE colleges to have more autonomy; it is something that I philosophically believe in. I will say, however, that it will be a gradual process and I am currently working with the department and TAFE colleges to create a framework for that. What will occur as we become more and more competitive—we are asking TAFE colleges to enter a more competitive environment—is that we will provide the opportunity for TAFE colleges to determine their own destiny. They know best what occurs within their institutions and because of that we have to say, “If you are going to be in control of your own destiny and be in a competitive environment, you need to have that responsibility.” At this stage I do not envisage that it will be an across-the-board move—certainly not initially. I envisage that the development of a more autonomous TAFE sector will come about through a couple of pilot TAFE colleges—TAFE colleges that are willing to take the new structure on board. I have emphasised that in “Training WA: Planning for the future 2009-2018”, and the State Training Board is very supportive of that move. As I said, I have very regular contact with our TAFE colleges and I have visited most TAFE colleges at least twice, apart from the Pilbara and Kimberley TAFE colleges. I have had unanimous approval for this initiative, but with regard to costings, we are still in the early stages. I imagine that within the medium term we will be looking at piloting a couple of TAFE colleges to provide them with the opportunity to make decisions for themselves. Hon ALISON XAMON: I understand that in September last year, the minister and Mr Frank Alban visited Bullsbrook District High School and promised the community and members that $30 million would be allocated for the rebuilding of that school. I am wondering why $10 million has been cut from that pre-election promise. An amount of $30 million had been promised to the community, and it has now gone down to $20 million. Hon PETER COLLIER: What page number is that? Hon ADELE FARINA: It is page 356. Hon ALISON XAMON: I thank the member very much, Hon PETER COLLIER: I am with the member now. I have to say that Bullsbook District High School is one of those schools which—as any member who has visited it would know—is evidently in need of replacement.
[ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E725
However, a couple of issues have arisen since that time, in particular the development of the primary school, which means that the necessity for a large scale capital expenditure is now not in the $30 million range. Mr Thom may be able to add to that. Mr J.W. Thom: With Bullsbrook, having looked at the recent works on the primary school side of the campus, the assessment in terms of value for money for accommodating the remainder of the school—the upper school— was, from the department’s point of view, doable within a $20 million envelope. Hon ALISON XAMON: I refer to pages 351 and 352, the heading “Services and Key Efficiency Indicators”, and the number of employees—full-time equivalents—for primary education, secondary education, and vocational education and training services. I note that the budget target for full-time equivalents has been increased from the 2008-09 budget for each of those areas. However, even though there has been an increase in the budget, it is lower than the estimated actual for this year. Can the minister explain where he expects that those cuts in FTEs will be made? Hon PETER COLLIER: I will ask Mr McCaffrey to respond to that. Mr P.J. McCaffrey: The thing to remember is that there has been a huge injection of funds into our salary budget for both the lecturers’ EBA and the teachers’ EBA. It is not exactly a corollary to say that because the dollar amounts have gone up and the numbers have gone down, there is a change, in that there are not necessarily any cuts. The only cuts that come into the department that would be related to FTEs are generally related to changes in the mix between secondary and primary teachers. That is because we have a different ratio—for 15 students in secondary, we need one teacher; for 30 students in primary, we need one teacher. There is a mix of variations. However, there is no connection between the number of FTEs and the growth in the dollars, because we need the dollars to pay teachers the higher salaries. [8.00 pm] Hon MATT BENSON-LIDHOLM: With the minister’s indulgence, I will change tack and talk about country hostels. On 2 April, I asked a couple of questions of the Minister for Education. In reference to the Esperance Residential College, I asked — Given that the college’s ablution block and dining room are considered inadequate for all students and that years 11 and 12 students are still in dormitory style accommodation, when will the government take steps to improve conditions for students at Esperance Residential College? The minister’s response on behalf of the Minister for Education to that question was — Capital works project priorities, which include consideration of improvements to Esperance Residential College, are reviewed annually as part of the budget process. I then asked whether there was any funding in the budget or the forward estimates for improvements to facilities at the Esperance Residential College; and, if so, what moneys had been allocated; and, if not, when students and parents could expect the current poor situation to change. I do not mind asking those questions again, minister. Hon PETER COLLIER: That is actually not in this division; it is in a separate division. Hon MATT BENSON-LIDHOLM: I understand where the minister is coming from. However, given the nature and breadth of the education and training division, I thought that was a fair and reasonable question to ask. Hon PETER COLLIER: It is. I will give a commitment to act on it if the member will take it on notice. [Supplementary Information No H2.] Hon MATT BENSON-LIDHOLM: Another area of interest is a staffing and human resources issue. I again seek the indulgence of the minister to read a bit of commentary. I refer the minister to the recent decision by the Department of Education and Training to move the former director of Rural and Remote Education, Mr Don Boyd, from that position. Mr Boyd’s three-year secondment to the Department of Education Services finished on 21 May. Mr Boyd, as many members know, is an outstanding educator and highly respected national expert in rural and remote education. As the former chairman of the Rural and Remote Education Advisory Council and the current deputy chairman, I consider the loss of Mr Boyd to people in the bush to be immense. A quick perusal of recent RREAC annual reports gives ample evidence of the big steps forward taken in recent years in rural and remote education, largely due to Mr Boyd’s efforts. Can the minister indicate if and when a replacement director will be found? I have a number of other questions in that context. Hon PETER COLLIER: Under the Public Sector Management Act, I cannot respond to individual cases but I will ask the director general to respond. Ms S.A. O’Neill: As the Minister for Training rightly pointed out, we are talking about an individual, Mr Don Boyd. He was on secondment to the Department of Education Services, which is provided for under a different
E726 [ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] division. Nonetheless, Mr Don Boyd is attached to the Department of Education and Training and for some years has been on secondment to the Department of Education Services to provide an advisory role to RREAC, as the member rightly pointed out. The department has a longstanding secondment policy in place. The member is questioning the flexibility of that policy. It is important to note from the outset Mr Boyd’s contribution to the RREAC committee and its members and to the country schools and education providers that are impacted on and influenced by RREAC. However, it is important also for the staff who are on secondment to provide contemporary advice to those committees. It should be acknowledged that Mr Boyd certainly is not the only person who can provide good advice to RREAC. Notwithstanding that, it is the department’ secondment policy, and we apply it fairly. Mr Boyd has been the beneficiary of more than the secondment policy allows. It is appropriate for employees who come back into the department to hold substantive positions, and we have applied that policy, as we would to other employees. In fact it has been more generous to Department of Education Services and to Mr Boyd in this regard, but that decision was taken on organisational need and conveyed to the Department of Education Services accordingly. The DEPUTY CHAIR: This will be the last question for Hon Matt Benson-Lidholm. Hon MATT BENSON-LIDHOLM: Can I follow up on that to tease things out a little further? I note that on Wednesday, 27 May, during estimates in the other place, the Minister for Education, in discussing the matter of Mr Boyd’s secondment termination, made mention of the fact that she would discuss the question asked by the member for Midland with the Director General of the Department of Education and Training. I want to know from the minister whether that discussion that was promised by the Minister for Education happened; and, if so, what were the outcomes of that discussion? I have a pretty good idea of the answer, but I need to pose that question formally. Ms S.A. O’Neill: As Mr Collier rightly points out, under the Public Sector Management Act, Minister Constable does not, and it is not appropriate for her to, involve herself in staffing matters. The question was put under a different division but she undertook nonetheless to ask me that question. We have not yet had that conversation. Hon ALISON XAMON: I refer to the line “Proportion of the Western Australian population aged 15 to 64 years enrolled …” on page 350 of the Budget Statements under “Outcomes and Key Effectiveness Indicators”. I note that no increase has been considered for the upcoming financial year, despite the fact that it is estimated that there will be higher unemployment and that more people are likely to want to go into retraining. Hon PETER COLLIER: I am sorry, what is the member actually referring to? Is the member talking about the indicators? Hon ALISON XAMON: Yes, I am. I note that no increase has been estimated, considering that there is likely to be increased job losses and a demand for training. Hon PETER COLLIER: I will ask the director general to respond. Ms S.A. O’Neill: If I can make sure I am answering the member’s question appropriately, is the member asking why the line item “Proportion of 15 to 64 years …” has flatlined there at eight per cent? Is that what the member is trying to ascertain? Hon ALISON XAMON: Yes. Ms S.A. O’Neill: It is represented also in the rest of this page. There is a lag. The 2008-09 estimated actuals are not finalised until the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ data comes in. So there are some figures that read across the line “8%, 8%, 8%”, because setting a target is dependent upon the ABS. It is therefore historical; this happens each year that there is a lag. However, my understanding from information that has just come in recently is that it will be set at 8.6 per cent and the initiatives under Training WA will add to that target and ensure that it is achieved. Hon ALISON XAMON: Can I confirm that the 8.6 per cent is likely to be greater than the final estimated actual for 2008-09? Effectively I am trying to figure out whether an increase has been calculated. Hon PETER COLLIER: Yes, the estimated actual is 8.6 per cent. Hon ALISON XAMON: I have just heard that it has not been finalised yet. So is the estimated actual 8.6 per cent for 2009-10? Ms S.A. O’Neill: At the time of publication the ABS data was not in, so that is why it is represented as eight per cent. I understand that now that data is in, the estimated actual will be 8.6 per cent. Hon ALISON XAMON: Will it be 8.6 per cent in 2009-10 as well? Hon PETER COLLIER: Yes. Hon ALISON XAMON: Or is it going to remain at eight per cent? Hon PETER COLLIER: Mr Player will respond to that.
[ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E727
Mr R. Player: As the director general said, it is 8.6 per cent. In fact our modelling of the projections that we have at the moment indicates, as depicted in Training WA, that it will be rolled out to 9.1 per cent by 2012. That is our goal. Hon ALISON XAMON: By 2012? Mr R. Player: Yes. Hon ALISON XAMON: I am really trying to clarify this. Mr R. Player: That is the trajectory. [8.10 pm] Hon ALISON XAMON: But for 2009-10 effectively no increase has been considered? Hon PETER COLLIER: Yes, that is correct. Hon ALISON XAMON: Yes, there is no increase? The DEPUTY CHAIR: The answer to that question then is? Hon PETER COLLIER: We can only go on the base data, but of course there will be every attempt to increase that level. But as I said, yes, that is the figure at this stage. Hon ALISON XAMON: I have a second question and I refer to the three per cent efficiency dividend listed on page 348. My specific question is in relation to central office administration operations. I know there is obviously a great desire to put more full-time equivalents back into the schools, but I would like to know where those efficiency dividend cuts are being made within the central office; in which departments and areas? Hon PETER COLLIER: I can go through it, but I think the most appropriate person to answer that is the director general. Ms S.A. O’Neill: In terms of central office administration and operations, in the first instance we have already applied a five per cent central office staffing reduction. That is across every directorate; education, training and corporate services. In 2010-11 we will apply an additional five per cent reduction across central and district office, meaning education and district offices, so that will be five per cent and then five per cent. Additionally—I have said that the corporate executive has already put this in place—there will be a 10 per cent central and district office operating budget reduction. Therefore, across the hundreds of cost centres that are applied in the central office in particular there will be a 10 per cent cut on contingency budgets. Hon ALISON XAMON: I have a further question pertaining to that answer. There will be across-the-board cuts; there will be no particular areas that are subject to cuts, such as the complaints unit? Is the director general saying that no-one will be quarantined; they will be flat, across-the-board cuts, no matter what? Ms S.A. O’Neill: We started from a general position of across-the-board cuts, but there are some areas that are directly linked to delivery of, for example, election commitments or program commitments, so there has been some variation in the application of that measure in areas where we have particular commitments and targets to meet. Hon ALISON XAMON: I would like more detail about where those cuts have occurred, but I am happy to put that on notice and have that information provided later, if that suits, Mr Deputy Chairman. The DEPUTY CHAIR: That is fine. Hon PETER COLLIER: I am sorry, the information requested in that question is virtually impossible to provide. It covers a broad cross-section of areas and departments and it would be impractical to try to provide that sort of information. The DEPUTY CHAIR: On that basis, I will have to rule, for the time being, that that information cannot be provided. Hon ALISON XAMON: Sorry, I do not necessarily accept that. The DEPUTY CHAIR: I think we have gone as far as we can and I suspect that it is the role of the minister and the executive to respond to this question. Hon PETER COLLIER: To try to accommodate the honourable member we can do it by division, if she is happy with that. Hon ALISON XAMON: I am happy with that. [Supplementary Information No H3.] The DEPUTY CHAIR: I give the call to Hon Kate Doust.
E728 [ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
Hon KATE DOUST: I refer to page 351 under the heading of “Services and Key Efficiency Indicators” for both primary education and secondary education. My question relates to the fact that we are all aware that electricity prices will increase substantially for householders over the next year and into future years. I know that the Minister for Energy will appreciate that, but many people may not have thought about the impact that the increases in electricity costs will have on schools. Firstly, is it true that secondary schools in the metropolitan area could see their bills go up by in excess of $200 000; and, secondly, is the minister able to give an assurance that schools will receive an additional allocation of funds to completely cover the electricity increases and ensure that that money is not taken away from already-slashed school budgets. Hon PETER COLLIER: Yes, there has been an electricity increase. There was the 10 per cent and the 25 per cent and, dependent on the particular tariffs, there will be equivalent increases across the board. Inevitably, that will have an impact and, dare I say, put some stresses and strains on educational institutions, sporting institutions and local governments. We are conscious of that and have tried to do all we possibly can as a government to get to the point where we can assist those most in need. As you will be aware, the government increased hardship allowances by more than $12 million to help those most in need. However, the member is asking specifically about schools. Yes, it will put a burden on those schools. The department has a utilities management program to assist schools with such utility increases as these. I will ask Mr McCaffrey to give more of an explanation of that program. Hon KATE DOUST: Given that these price increases were flagged before the budget was finalised, is there accommodation in this budget to deal with those increases? If so can the minister show me where that is? Hon PETER COLLIER: No; there is no accommodation. Mr McCaffrey will explain the utilities management program Mr P.J. McCaffrey: We have been working with schools on our utilities management program as far back, I think, as 1996. It has a number of components. We provide schools with the funding required to meet their usage. We also provide them with funds to retrofit schools to make usage of utility costs more effective and efficient. We have always adjusted budgets on the growth in usage. I guess a good example of that is when an additional building is provided to the school or the structure of the school receives design technology. Yes, the minister is correct in saying there will be an impact on school utility costs but bear in mind different levels and different rates apply to different areas. A team works under me whose task it is to work with schools to measure their utility usage and requirements. We would not put schools in any position in which they could not meet their electricity costs. Hon KATE DOUST: Can I have a response to the first part of my question? Hon PETER COLLIER: As the member will be aware, we have contributed another $6.5 million to the solar schools program. That has been extended so that non-government schools are now eligible. That means that more than 500 schools are now eligible to apply for funding. That, in essence, will provide opportunities to schools to assist them in reducing their electricity usage and, at the same time, assist in the education of the benefits of renewable energy. That is another benefit to schools. Hon KATE DOUST: Can I have a response to my first question? The DEPUTY CHAIR: I am sorry, member; I will have to keep going. Hon KATE DOUST: Mr Deputy Chair, they did not actually answer that first part of the question. The DEPUTY CHAIR: Will you repeat the first part of the question? Hon KATE DOUST: Is it true that secondary schools in the metropolitan area could see their bills go up by in excess of $20 000? A yes or no will be fine. Hon PETER COLLIER: I cannot in all authority give a yes or no to that answer. I do not know whether a school’s electricity tariff will go up by $20 000. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: You should have known that before you put the prices up. Mr P.J. McCaffrey: The value would depend on the size of the schools and the types of buildings in the school. There would certainly be an increase but we would not know what that would be at this stage. Hon KATE DOUST: We might come back and ask that next year. Can we take that question on notice? The DEPUTY CHAIR: Can we take the question on notice? Hon PETER COLLIER: The schools have different demands. Is the member talking about a senior school, a district high or a primary school? Hon KATE DOUST: A metropolitan school.
[ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E729
Hon PETER COLLIER: The number of students in metropolitan high schools ranges significantly. Some have thousands and some have fewer, so it will be very difficult. Can the member give a specific school so that we can make some comparisons? Hon KATE DOUST: How about Comet Bay school? [8.20 pm] Hon PETER COLLIER: Does the member mean the impact of the increase? Hon KATE DOUST: As an example. Hon PETER COLLIER: The comparative increase. That will obviously take a bit of time because the increases do not come in until 1 July. Hon KATE DOUST: That is fine; I will wait. Hon PETER COLLIER: Therefore, perhaps by the end of the year we might honour that commitment. Hon KATE DOUST: That will be fine. [Supplementary Information No H4.] Hon HELEN BULLOCK: I refer to the first dot point under the asset investment program heading on page 352 of budget paper No 2. My question is in three parts: Firstly, which primary schools are earmarked for closure over the next four years? Please provide a schedule, if the minister has one. Secondly, will any schools be sold off under the government savings measures as highlighted on page 13 of the Budget Overview, which states that savings of $7.6 billion over the next five years will include the sale of surplus government land? Thirdly, can the minister provide a list of education department land that has been earmarked for sale? Hon PETER COLLIER: I thank the member for the question. I cannot answer the first question at this stage but we will take it on notice. [Supplementary Information No H5.] Hon PETER COLLIER: That is the primary schools for closure in four years. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: And high schools. Hon PETER COLLIER: Sorry, I have just been advised that there is none on the list. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: What about high schools? Hon PETER COLLIER: Was it primary schools? Hon HELEN BULLOCK: Primary schools. Hon PETER COLLIER: There is no list of primary schools for closure, but there may be an issue with amalgamations, so I think it would be best and safest if we were to still take the question on notice. I will get Mr McCaffrey to respond to parts two and three of the member’s question. Mr P.J. McCaffrey: It is linked to the question about amalgamations. We went through a process about two or three years ago when we were asked by Treasury to identify all surplus land, and as part of that process there were, as I say, some amalgamations in Greenwood, Kinlock, Ferndale—those types of areas. We identified, based on the values at that time, what we would expect to be able to take into the territorial revenue of state Treasury and it was about $116 million over five years. We are tracking behind schedule on that, although those funds had been appropriated by the department to complete works in the replacement schools and other works. The main reason for that are the delays in clearing it through the government’s property asset clearing house, so there is about $116 million based on the last evaluation we did. Hon PETER COLLIER: Sorry, what was the third part of the member’s question? Hon HELEN BULLOCK: The list of education department land that has been earmarked for sale. Hon PETER COLLIER: We will take that part of the question on notice as well. [Supplementary Information No H6.] Hon ADELE FARINA: I refer to the new works listed on pages 355 and 356 and I note no funding has been allocated for West Busselton Primary School and the much-needed upgrade works at that school. Does the government intend to close West Busselton Primary School; and, if not, when will the government fund the much-needed upgrade works for that school? Hon PETER COLLIER: I thank the honourable member for the question. I have been advised that there is no plan to close the school, but I will ask the director general to pass comment on the upgrade or potential upgrade.
E730 [ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
Ms S.A. O’Neill: My understanding is that there is no funding in the forward estimates for the upgrade, but I think it is important to note that the billion-dollar Building the Education Revolution program money will see every school in this state have a maintenance injection, particularly primary schools. Every primary school will receive money for upgrades of different sorts and there is a competitive process for secondary schools. So — Hon ADELE FARINA: Is that federal government funding? Hon PETER COLLIER: I will ask Mr Thom to comment on the categories. Hon ADELE FARINA: Can I just have clarification whether the director general’s comments referred to federal government funding? Hon PETER COLLIER: Yes, they did. Mr J.W. Thom: There are three streams to the Building the Education Revolution—Primary Schools For the 21st Century, Science and Language Centres For 21st Century Secondary Schools, and the National School Pride program. Each of those streams carries different funding entitlements under the commonwealth’s requirements. For Primary Schools For the 21st Century, Western Australian public schools have an allocation of something in the order of just over $1 billion to cover that; one-off. A school’s entitlement is determined by the number of enrolments in each particular school. In the case of Primary Schools For the 21st Century, a school, for example, with up to 50 students has an indicative funding cap of $250 000; a school with between 51 and 150 students has an indicative funding cap of $850 000; a school that has between 151 and 300 students, $2 million; a school that has between 301 and 400 students, $2.5 million; and schools with a student population in excess of 401, $3 million. Hon ADELE FARINA: That is all very interesting but it does not actually answer my question. My question is: will West Busselton Primary School get funding for the upgrades that it needs; when can it expect to receive that funding; and how much is it going to get? Hon PETER COLLIER: No; it is not in the forward estimates. Hon LIZ BEHJAT: I refer to page 352 of the Budget Statements, the third dot point under “Asset Investment Program” “New Secondary Schools”. I declare a vested interest here as I drive my son to Ashdale Primary School every day. Looking at the Ashdale College due for completion mid-2009, which is two weeks away—is that on schedule to take place by the end of June, or is there a bit of a blow-out there? Mr J.W. Thom: My latest advice from Building Management and Works is that it will be ready for students to move onto the new site from the beginning of semester two this year. Hon LIZ BEHJAT: That is very exciting. Thank you. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: I cannot find a reference point to this in the budget, but I refer to the 267 schools that have education assistants at least one FTE above their formula. How many of them are in the metropolitan region; how many in regional and rural WA; how many of those 267 schools will have two or more FTEs above their formula but, most importantly, will those schools lose their education assistants; and ,if so, when? Hon PETER COLLIER: I will ask the director general to respond. Ms S.A. O’Neill: Can I clarify that in terms of the 267 schools this is in relation to the education assistants whom we have said are at schools above the formula that, as part of the three per cent — Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Yes. Ms S.A. O’Neill: We have a situation where, over many years, schools have had education assistants assigned to them through various deployment practices; for example, at a school level an education assistant is appointed to a student with disabilities and subsequently that student with disabilities moves. Under the current deployment processes, that education assistant is assigned to the school permanently. We have 450 surplus education assistants who are above formula. Some of those are fractional; they are not all full time. In relation to those education assistants, now we need to deploy them to vacancies. We have other vacancies; for example, where a student with disabilities goes to a new school where there is no education assistant. The 450 surplus is spread across the system. They will be deployed in accordance with the Public Sector Management Act to vacancies that now exist in the system. We will be doing that over a staged arrangement. We will be working with those individuals. No-one will lose their job, and we will work with them to ensure that they are deployed to areas that meet their work entitlements, their factional arrangements and the skill sets that they have. I think we have projected that, across the four years, the 450 will be placed. I will check with Mr McCaffrey. [8.30 pm] Mr P.J. McCaffrey: That is correct.
[ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E731
Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: This question follows on from an earlier question, and it is in relation to school closures. There is no reference to it in the budget, but that is because the budget is skint on some of this detail now. I understand the Ngurrawaana Remote Community School is being closed. The principal has advised the school community that it will close at the end of his term. I also seek information about a care school called Sowilo that is currently due for registration but is at risk of not having its registration renewed. The school communities in both those cases are very concerned at the possible outcomes. Hon PETER COLLIER: I will deal with Sowilo. I am very supportive of the care schools, but that is a different division. The Department of Education Services has responsibility for that area. I will ask the director general to comment in a moment. Sowilo is a non-government school. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: I understand that. The school had to find somewhere to go, but apparently it could not secure a facility so it is at risk. Hon PETER COLLIER: I am aware of that, and I am aware of the various care schools. The government gave a significant increase in funding to care schools in the budget of over $2 million, because they perform a role that is absolutely essential for the disengaged children. I will ask the director general to comment on the remote school. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Can the minister give a commitment that he will not close Sowilo, and that it will remain in operation, given the minister’s support for care schools? Hon PETER COLLIER: It is a private school. I have a lot to do with Corridors College in Midland. I think it is a wonderful institution. I think what these care schools do for the disengaged kids is fantastic. In the lead-up to the election I was emphatic that we needed to increase funding for those care schools, and we did, by over $2 million. They are getting a lot more than they ever got before. The bulk of their funding comes from the federal government, so the member might like to have a chat to Julia Gillard. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: It is more about the registration, rather than the funding. Hon PETER COLLIER: That is correct, but I cannot give that commitment because I do not have that capacity. I refer the question about the remote school to the director general. Ms S.A. O’Neill: Is the member asking whether the remote school is closing? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Yes. Ms S.A. O’Neill: I do not have that information with me. I am not aware that it is closing, but as the member is aware, in those remote schools, with the fluctuation in enrolment—some of them are annexed to other schools— the students leave and attend other remote schools so we do sometimes, as a result, shift the staff. They need to be fairly mobile in the remote teaching service. I am not aware that the school is closing, but I am happy to clarify that for the member. [8.35 pm] Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: They not only removed the staff, but also removed the building, so it must be closing. Can the minister please check that and give us a definitive answer on what is going on? [Supplementary Information No H7.] Hon KEN TRAVERS: I have two final questions. I refer to page 350 and to the department’s budget targets for 2009-10. How does the department go about setting its budget targets, particularly in the area of achieving national minimum standards? Hon PETER COLLIER: I thank the member for the question. I will ask the director general to respond. Ms S.A. O’Neill: The targets that are set for the public schooling system as they are represented in the budget papers are based on the rates that are already achieved—for example, students achieving national minimum standards. This year we are unable to make the comparison between the 2007-08 actuals and the 2008-09 budget and estimated actuals because it is the difference between the Western Australian literacy and numeracy assessment testing, which came to a conclusion, and the new national testing. They are two different testing methodologies. If the member has tried to compare those two figures, they are not able to be compared, which I understand is in the footnote. To go to the heart of the member’s question, the students’ achievement that we have across the system is negotiated with Treasury, but internally we would then project growth in each of those areas—reading, writing and numeracy—based on what we perceive to be a reasonable achievement of higher set targets. We also have discussions with the national bodies that are involved in the testing and marking. At the end of the day, the projections of increases are always relatively conservative. Different students are being compared from year to year. It is not a 3, 5, 7 comparison. They are year 3s against year 3s, so they are two different groups. We
E732 [ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] undertake quite an in-depth analysis of the trajectory and the initiatives that we have in place, but the targets are set relatively conservatively. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I find it interesting that we set a target on what we are already achieving rather a target on what we want to achieve, which is why I was asking the question because it seemed to be just a correlation. I refer to the parking levy for vehicles in the City of Perth. Has the department identified what that will add to its costs in the 2009-10 year in terms of the parking that it has in the City of Perth? Has the department already identified how much that will add to its budget and has it allowed for that increase in parking costs in its budget for 2009-10? Mr P.J. McCaffrey: The majority of our staff work at 151 Royal Street. We have quite an expansive parking space underneath. It would be only an exception when parking is paid for. One does not come to mind immediately. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Does the department not pay the parking levy on its parking bays? Mr P.J. McCaffrey: No. It is part of our rent and outgoings that we pay to Jones Lang LaSalle, but that is not part of the City of Perth’s parking arrangement. The only other one that I can think of immediately would be our shared service centre in Bennett Street. Four or five government vehicles are in that building, and the cost of parking is paid for by the department. Apart from that, I am not aware of any significant central parking facilities. If the increase did go up by $3 a day, it would not be a great amount, but I have not worked it out. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I ask the minister to take that on notice. I think he will find that it might be part of the department’s outgoings, but if it has commercial parking spaces within the Perth parking management area, someone is going to be paying that levy. Hon PETER COLLIER: We can take that on notice. [Supplementary Information No H8.] Hon PETER COLLIER: The director general would like to add something to the first part of the member’s question. [8.40 pm] Ms S.A. O’Neill: If I could go back to targets, the member raises a good point, which is the difference between aspirational targets and targets for the purpose of the budget papers. Perhaps if I may just clarify it, we certainly encourage schools to set aspirational targets. For example, while we might be heading for a target of 87.6 or 88 per cent of year 3 students achieving the reading benchmark, we would obviously want 100 per cent of students to achieve a national minimum standard. I guess the point I am making is that, of course, we endorse the member’s comments about aspirational targets. The purpose, and as the targets are expressed in the budget papers, as required through that process, is a slightly different one. Of course, we want to set targets that not only stretch us, but that we can achieve. Yes, of course, aspirational targets are really what we want schools to be focusing on. The DEPUTY CHAIR: We have three questioners and we have two minutes for each one. We want to get through the three. Hon HELEN BULLOCK: I refer to division 28, page 348 and to “Economic Audit”. The question has five parts. The first part is: what is the review of transition support for secondary students? The DEPUTY CHAIR: This is not a long question, is it? Hon HELEN BULLOCK: It is a very short question. Hon PETER COLLIER: If the member wishes to ask the five questions, we will answer as many as we can and take the rest on notice. Hon HELEN BULLOCK: Part two is: why have savings been committed over the forward estimates and does this mean that it is ongoing? Part three is: does this indicate that the government will move year 7 students into high school and so there is no need for transition support? Part four is: is the review of transition support for secondary students the only economic audit stage 1 outcome for education and training? Part five is: if no to part four, what are the other economic stage 1 outcomes in education and training? The DEPUTY CHAIR: Would the minister like to take that all on notice? Hon PETER COLLIER: We can certainly answer part of it very quickly in one minute. Ms S.A. O’Neill: When the papers talk about the review of transition support—if I could make it clear—we are not talking about the transition from primary to secondary; we are not talking about year 7s. That is the answer to that part. The transition being referred to here is students as they are going to various pathways. As the member will know, under the new legislation students can be in school, they can be in training, they can be in
[ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E733 employment and they can be in apprenticeships, so the department has had over many years considerable resources in place to assist with those transitions; for example, participation coordinators, EV coordinators and EDNs, and schools have their own year coordinators. What we are being asked to do there is have a look at the possibility of duplication to see if there is any means by which we can make sure that the officers involved are not undertaking the same activity, because it has grown up over time. What the budget papers are really pointing to there is the expectation that we will review the activity across the whole transition program and ensure that we are working in the most efficient way possible and that the savings required are the figures that are represented there. At this stage of the economic audit, that is the only program that we have put in place that is required of us. Hon PETER COLLIER: We may need to take the rest on notice. The DEPUTY CHAIR: If the remainder of that question could be handed to the minister on notice. [Supplementary Information No H9.] Hon KATE DOUST: My question, which will be short, is this: I refer to the department’s asset investment program on page 352 and ask what budget amount has been allocated in this coming year or in the forward estimates for building upgrades at Morley Senior High School, Dianella Heights Primary School or Camboon Primary School in Noranda? Hon PETER COLLIER: If they are not listed in the budget papers, they will not be receiving improvement. Hon KATE DOUST: In either this year or the forward years? Hon PETER COLLIER: No, they are not. Hon KATE DOUST: So that is a no. Hon PETER COLLIER: Yes. Hon JOCK FERGUSON: During the past few days the minister in question time and various other places has been espousing the virtues of the State Training Program, and quite rightly so in my view. Where in the budget is there any accommodation for the state training program? Hon PETER COLLIER: It is built into the department’s budget. Hon JOCK FERGUSON: Is it possible to see how it is separated and how it is applied? Hon PETER COLLIER: I have no problem telling the member how much it is. I can get that information for him. Hon JOCK FERGUSON: I would appreciate that. Does that include funding for the new industry training advisory body or whatever it is called? Did the government supply that funding? Hon PETER COLLIER: It is a separate line item within the department’s budget, but we are happy to provide that information for the member. Hon JOCK FERGUSON: Has the minister supplied funding for the ITAB process? Hon PETER COLLIER: Yes, we have. I am meeting with them all individually, and funding them. The DEPUTY CHAIR: I think there might be some questions that are outstanding. If there are any further supplementary questions, they can be provided to the committee’s clerk. I thank everyone for a very good discussion; I thank the minister and members. [8.50 pm] Division 52: Office of Energy, $44 308 000 — Hon Giz Watson, Chair. Hon Peter Collier, Minister for Energy. Mr J. Banks, Chief Executive Officer/Coordinator of Energy. Ms T. Williams, Chief Financial Officer. Ms S. In’t Veld, Managing Director, Verve Energy. Mr W. Borovac, Chief Financial Officer, Verve Energy. Mr T. Narvaez, General Manager, Strategy and Business Development, Verve Energy. Mr D. Aberle, Managing Director, Western Power. Mr M. Peacock, Chief Financial Officer, Western Power. Mr M. De Laeter, General Manager, Customer Services, Western Power.
E734 [ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
The CHAIR: On behalf of the Legislative Council Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations, I welcome you to today’s hearing. Before we begin, I must ask you to take either the oath or affirmation. [Witnesses took the oath.] The CHAIR: This hearing is being held in public although there is discretion available to the committee to hear evidence in private either of its own motion or at witness request. If for some reason you wish to make a confidential statement during today’s proceedings, you should request that the evidence be taken in closed session before answering the question. Government agencies and departments have an important role and duty in assisting Parliament to scrutinise the budget papers on behalf of the people of Western Australia. The committee values that assistance. Members are asked to sit towards the front of the chamber on the non-government benches where practicable so that witnesses will not have to turn their head to the back of the chamber when answering questions. It will greatly assist Hansard if when referring to the Budget Statements volumes or the consolidated account estimates, members give the page number, item, program, amount, and so on in preface to their questions. If supplementary information is to be provided, I ask your cooperation in ensuring that it is delivered to the committee’s clerk within five working days of receipt of the questions. An example of the required Hansard style for the documents has been provided to your advisers, minister. The committee reminds agency representatives to respond to questions in a succinct manner and to limit the extent of personal observations. For the benefit of members and Hansard, I ask the minister to introduce his advisers to the committee, and for each adviser to please state their full name, contact address and the capacity in which they appear before the committee. [Witnesses Introduced.] The CHAIR: At this time, I would ask each of the witnesses whether they have read, understood and completed the “Information for Witnesses” form. The Witnesses: Yes. The CHAIR: Do all the witnesses fully understand the meaning and effect of the provisions of that document? The Witnesses: Yes. The CHAIR: I now need to table answers provided to some questions asked on notice by Hon Robin Chapple. Those answers are now tabled and therefore publicly available. Hon KATE DOUST: My first question is directed to Western Power. I refer to page 693 of the Budget Statements. I seek your indulgence, Madam Chair, because I have an extensive list of questions on this matter. I refer to the government’s decision to cancel, or defer, the 330-kilovolt transmission line to Geraldton. When did the government become aware of the cost increase for that project? What is the cost increase made up of, and was the scope of the project changed at all? That would be post the change of government. Assuming that Western Power’s original estimate was arrived at in a professional and considered manner, why did its advice to the government change so radically in such a short time? What was the allocated funding for this project from the 2008-09 budget reallocated to? I will ask a final question to give the minister an opportunity to answer my questions; I have more questions to ask. If this project has been deferred, as the minister continues to state, what is the estimated time frame for its construction? Will it be one year, five years or 20 years? If the minister is able to provide information up to that point, I have a lot more questions to ask on that. [9.00 pm] Hon PETER COLLIER: I will provide an answer to the honourable member and perhaps hand it to Mr Aberle to fill in some of the gaps. I certainly became aware of the cost blow-out earlier this year. That was of concern to me, to the government and particularly to Treasury. Essentially, the increase was around 134 per cent, which was from around $295 million to $680 million. The government felt that that increase was excessive and that it was prudent for the government to determine whether it was the most cost-effective and efficient means to either construct the line or provide alternative methods of providing power to the mid-west. That is why we instituted a review of the line, which includes the Western Australian Office of Energy, Western Power, the Department of State Development and the Department of Treasury and Finance. They are looking at the 330-kilovolt line concept and will report to me in June. We will then determine where to go with regard to the line. I will ask Mr Aberle to respond to the matter of the cost increases and whether the original estimates of the scope had changed. At this stage there is nothing in the budget for the funding for what may have been the anticipated line. We are waiting until we see what happens to the access agreement, the draft report of which will be handled down very shortly. The final report comes down in October and the government will make a decision. The
[ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E735 recommendation will go to the expenditure review committee and then to cabinet and the government will then decide how to proceed. I ask Mr Aberle to comment on the increase, the make-up of the increase, whether the scope had changed and why there was such a deviation from the original estimate. Mr D. Aberle: Excuse me, my voice is a bit croaky but it will loosen up once I get going. Basically, several components contributed to the cost uplift. The figure that was put in the previous budget had all contingencies stripped from it at the request of Treasury. It was a very bare bones estimate. It had been compiled sometime prior to the submission. These projects run over quite some time—three or four years. We now use an estimating process that has A0, A1, A2 phases that progressively refine the cost. It was an early estimate that had the contingency stripped out of it. Subsequently, we added that back in. Some scope change recognised that the wind loading on some of the towers would need to be higher. A slight adjustment was made to some of the route and to what would be required for wash-down facilities regarding access to the line. Those scope changes made a difference to the cost. There was certainly some significant cost uplift related to the movement in the cost of the commodities used, such as steel, aluminium and copper. There was a cost uplift for labour charges because, as the member would be aware, throughout that period there was a significant uplift in the price of labour. A very significant component of the cost also came from the amount that was allocated to cover movement in forex. That obviously varies depending on the value of the Australian dollar against overseas currencies. An estimate is made that assumes a particular trajectory of that value. That, of course, changes depending on what is happening in the global sphere. So these are some of the major contributors to that movement. Hon KATE DOUST: I want to get the response to the other parts of the question about the allocated funds from the last budget. What has happened to those funds? To where have they been reallocated? If this project has indeed been deferred, when will it proceed? Hon PETER COLLIER: I ask Mr Aberle to respond to that. Mr D. Aberle: In moving to the subsequent budget from the one in which it was originally included, each year we look at a priority for our expenditure, bearing in mind that 30 per cent of the network is more than 40 years old. Our first priority is taking care of issues of public safety and issues of refurbishing the network. We work our way backwards from that to issues of reliability and issues of connection. Clearly building something like this is a connection issue. Given that there was a constrained budget, we basically said we would do those kinds of things that I just mentioned as a priority, and there is quite a range of those that are essentially about the network refurbishment and up-build, and we deferred expenditure that would be on new connections as a lower priority. Hon KATE DOUST: Based on information Mr Aberle has provided, he was talking about the figure—the original stripped-down figure—that was budgeted for the 330-kilovolt line. Does that imply that, regardless of who had won the election, the 330-kilovolt line would not have proceeded because the figures were dodgy? The money would not have been there for it and we would still have the increase in real terms; is that what the minister is saying? Hon PETER COLLIER: No, that is not what I am saying. Hon KATE DOUST: Is the minister saying that there was always going to be a problem with this? Hon PETER COLLIER: No. I am not sure about the “dodgy” figures. Hon KATE DOUST: We could use any other word about the figures not being kosher. Hon PETER COLLIER: I imagine, given the cost blow-out from what was effectively midway through 2008 to January 2009, had the election result been different and the Labor government returned, more than likely it would have been faced with an identical problem and it probably would have made the decision we have made in terms of reassessing it. Hon KATE DOUST: The minister must admit that it is a very unusual situation to go from having a budget tabled last May that looked like it was all going to proceed and then come six months later, regardless of the change of government, it is not proceeding. Hon PETER COLLIER: Yes. I would prefer it not to be that way. Hon KATE DOUST: Does the minister not think that is a very strange situation? Hon PETER COLLIER: Yes, I would prefer it not to be that way, I have to be honest. I am very conscious of—dare I say it?—the exciting challenges in the mid-west, particularly in the mining area with Oakajee and the development of Geraldton itself. We are going to have to look at a way or ways in which we can address that issue. I like to think personally as energy minister that the line will be built. I like to think that we can get there. Hon KATE DOUST: Perhaps the question is: when are you going to build it? Hon PETER COLLIER: I will wait until I get the review back at the end of this month. As I said, it is a very prompt review and we are very cognisant of—dare I say it?—the immediacy of the challenges in the mid-west
E736 [ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] region and that something does need to be done. As I said, it is a situation I would prefer not to be in. I would like to think we could have had the tick-off on the line and progressed it as a matter of priority, but we are not in that situation at the moment. Hon KATE DOUST: In relation to that review, will the report or the review be made public? Hon PETER COLLIER: I would imagine so. I apologise; it is a cabinet process. I apologise; I am still getting used to it. Hon KATE DOUST: So we will not see that review or the detail of the review? Hon PETER COLLIER: No. Hon KATE DOUST: In relation to that review, given that many different entities—not just the town of Geraldton but also mining companies, iron ore companies, renewable energy projects and a range of other entities—will be impacted on by this line not proceeding at this time, is the government actually engaging with all those various players to get their feedback into this review? [9.10 pm] Hon PETER COLLIER: Absolutely. As the member would well be aware, and I appreciate the member’s contribution to the debate, it is an issue that is causing a considerable amount of uncertainty and a considerable amount of anxiety, particularly in the mid-west region. It is an issue that will not go away easily, and it cannot go away until we come up with a solution to ensure that the mid-west region of Western Australia has adequate, safe, reliable electricity supplies. The CHAIR: I might ask if another member has a question, but I will return to Hon Kate Doust. I give Hon Liz Behjat the call. Hon LIZ BEHJAT: I refer to budget paper No 2, volume 3, at page 680, and to the heading “Significant Issues Impacting the Agency”. I have a quick question: again, we are all familiar with the North Metropolitan Region— I think five-sixths of the region is in this place; Hon Ed Dermer is the only one out there looking after the region tonight! Hon KATE DOUST: It is in good hands! Hon LIZ BEHJAT: It is indeed, I am sure! My question is about the future of the power program that converts older residential areas to underground power. The majority of the North Metropolitan Region is new and has underground power, but there are parts that are still quite old. The Budget Statements do not give much detail about it. What will be happening with the underground power program, minister? Hon PETER COLLIER: Yes, I advocated very strongly for the continuation of the underground power program in the lead-up to the compilation of the budget. The member is quite correct; parts of the North Metropolitan Region are very old and the electricity poles and wires are ageing. The underground power program has been very, very well received by the community at large. I will perhaps ask Mr Aberle to comment on this in a moment, but the decision to move to underground power is essentially up to the individual communities. We have committed another $20 million to the underground power program: 25 per cent from Western Power; 25 per cent from the government; and 50 per cent from the local communities. It does cause some issues, and the member knows that there was an issue in Withers in Bunbury, in that the local community—depending on whom one talks to and at what time of the day one talks to them— rejected the underground power program. It is a selection process that is beyond reproach, and there are simply no problems for communities that would like to access the underground power program. Yes, it is going ahead; we have made a further allocation for round 5. I will ask Mr Banks to comment. Mr J. Banks: I think all I can really add is that, yes, the government is keen to extend into round 5 of the program, and we are currently completing round 4. Applications for expressions of interest for round 5 will be released later this year, and we have a competitive bid round process that is managed by a steering committee. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: I want to return to one of the questions that the minister has already answered about feed-in tariffs. What new information has been received about these applications to connect that was not available—or was unexpected—when the budget was signed off on in mid-April? Hon PETER COLLIER: What do you mean—in terms of why we made the decision? Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: Yes, in terms of why the decision was made. Hon PETER COLLIER: It was a difficult decision. I will say at the outset that I am supportive of the feed-in tariff, as I have stated over and again. We debated a motion moved by Hon Paul Llewellyn. I understand where the member is coming from on this. It is a valid point. With the feed-in tariff, as I am sure you are well aware, as
[ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E737 was the member’s former colleague Hon Paul Llewellyn, essentially, people are recognised for what they feed into the grid. We based our election commitment on the previous government’s election commitment of $13.5 million for a 60c gross feed-in tariff, which was a very generous offer on the part of the previous government. We matched it. I was quite comfortable going along with that. Certainly, as an incoming energy minister and someone with little understanding of feed-in tariffs in the early days, I thought it was very generous and I was very supportive of it. I will not get too bogged down in my reply. When I went for my first MCE meeting, it became most evident that every other ministerial representative was virtually mocking me for that gross feed-in tariff. We then had to decide whether we were still going ahead with it. Of course, we were. It became evident to me a few months ago that the applications for the feed-in tariff were exceeding the $13.5 million. In fact, we had more applications than could cope with the $13.5 million. It was meant to feed in 10 megawatts, but the $13.5 million would feed in only five megawatts. We undertook a laborious process. I met the Treasurer and the Premier and we went through the options. We could have announced the gross feed-in tariff on the Monday after it was approved by cabinet. I would have had to close the feed-in tariff the day I announced it and around 2 000 people would have missed out from the applications we had received. So we decided to introduce a rebate household solar energy scheme and give those applicants, from the election date to 2 June, a rebate on their PV system. As of 1 July we would then recognise those people and everyone since then and introduce a comprehensive net feed-in tariff. That means thousands more Western Australians will have access to a feed-in tariff. We are going to introduce a feed-in tariff. The people who installed a PV system from 6 September will get the rebate plus be eligible for the net feed-in tariff. I understand that Victoria’s scheme is the most generous at 60c net, I think. There are a number of different models. At the moment, the Office of Energy is looking at the best system. As I said, I have had long discussions with Hon Paul Llewellyn about this. He has given me some options. As I said to Jason Banks yesterday, I want to make sure we have, dare I say it, the best in Australia. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: This question might need to be answered on notice. Can I please have details of the applications to connect month-by-month to both Synergy and Horizon Power since the Liberal-National promise to introduce feed-in tariffs? If there is no unexpected spike post mid-April, I will need to understand that. Why could you not have responded to the unprecedented demand with additional post-budget funding for an expanded gross feed-in tariff scheme, given you have done it elsewhere, apropos Oakajee and other places? Hon PETER COLLIER: That is a good point. We will take the first question on notice. [Supplementary Information No I1] [9.20 pm] Hon PETER COLLIER: Personally, I think we are better off with the net feed-in tariff. The feed-in tariffs have their detractors; that is, it is an inefficient way to put investment into renewable energy. That sounds like an oxymoron but it is not. I am sure that the honourable member understands that. I feel that a feed-in tariff goes beyond what we are doing in terms of how much we are feeding into the grid. A feed-in tariff in itself does an enormous amount in engaging the community in renewable energy, and that is the good part about it. It is the same with the solar schools program; apart from the net effect — Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: Minister, the question was quite simple: why could the minister not put in some post- budget funding? Hon PETER COLLIER: Because I just do not think it is the most efficient use of money; I genuinely do not. We would still have to spend literally tens and tens of millions of dollars on a gross feed-in tariff—imagine that sort of investment in other renewable energy sources! As I said, that is why I feel so strongly about it. We are much better off having as many people involved as we possibly can and the best way to do that is to have a net feed-in tariff, and we will be doing that from 1 July next year. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: Why did the Premier announce the closure of the gross feed-in tariff before the minister did? Hon PETER COLLIER: I think it was a slip of the tongue in estimates. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: Okay. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Ooh, did he let it out of the bag? Hon KATE DOUST: Did he tell the minister he was doing it before the announcement? Hon KEN TRAVERS: Was it a thought bubble that then became a policy? Hon PETER COLLIER: No, I can assure members: not at all. That is not the case. We made the decision and the Premier articulated the views that we all felt. I think he probably just got engaged with the banter of estimates, but I can assure members the decision was made before the Premier made the announcement, dare I say it, in estimates.
E738 [ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: In one of his answers the minister stated that in agreeing to expand the renewable energy target at the Council of Australian Governments in April this year, the Premier called for funding support from the Prime Minister to help manage the impact of the expanded scheme on Western Australia. Why was it not important enough for the state to allocate budgetary money for that? Hon PETER COLLIER: I think we have a lot happening in renewable energy. We provided — Hon KATE DOUST: Not in the mid-west, you haven’t! Hon PETER COLLIER: As I said, we provided more than $6 million for the solar schools program, which means independent Catholic schools are now eligible for that scheme. The Minister for Environment and I allocated more than $12 million of lead-funding to Carnegie Corporation for wave energy in the south. I will perhaps ask Shirley In’t Veld to comment about renewable energy in Verve Energy, but I will say that a number of those renewable energy projects are in their infancy. It sounds like a cliché but I am excited at the prospect of renewable energy—I really am. I went to Narrogin—I will ask Shirley In’t Veld to comment in a moment because I could talk all day! Suffice to say, I think we are providing funding for renewable energy at this stage, taking into account the Carnegie investment, the solar schools program investment, the $13.5 million for the household solar energy rebate and our commitment to a gross feed-in tariff. Ms S. In’t Veld: I reinforce the minister’s comments about the amount of time, effort and money we are putting into a number of different renewable energy projects. We are looking at a number of wind farm projects and I will ask my general manager of business development and strategy to provide a bit of detail on that. We are also actively pursuing biomass projects, looking at an advanced solar thermal project and we are well down the track with the wind farm project. I ask Mr Narvaez to give members a bit of detail on exactly where we are at with the wind farm projects. Mr T. Narvaez: We are looking at between 110 and 150 megawatts across three wind farms. They include Grasmere, an expansion of the Albany wind farm; Mumbida in the north country; and Milyeannup. Again, they total between 110 and 150 megawatts. We have a committed team of about 12 people who are working full-time on renewable projects, not only wind farms but also integrated wood processing, solar and the future prospects of renewable technology, so we are well and truly committed. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: In relation to the question I asked about asset investment program part 4, the minister stated that there were no renewable energy projects not funded or subsidised as part of the budget estimates and forward estimates. Hon PETER COLLIER: Yes. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: The minister said that Verve Energy was unable to find a way to spend more than $3.5 million over four years on sustainable energy assets. I know that there are renewable energy projects that need that sort of funding base. The minister said there is no more than $3.5 million over four years for sustainable assets. Hon PETER COLLIER: I will ask Shirley to respond to that directly. Ms S. In’t Veld: To some extent we are constrained by the resources available and the amount of time it takes just to do the feasibility study on these projects. It is a time-related issue. I will ask Wally Borovac, our chief financial officer, to elaborate on the timing, with backup from Mr Narvaez if necessary. Mr W. Borovac: In relation to renewable projects, our major commitment is to develop the three wind farms that Mr Narvaez spoke about earlier. We have $50 million committed over the next two years, which will be funded through equity injection from the government. The $50 million is contingent upon developing a commercial return on those wind farms as well, which again is prefaced by a feasibility study and a commercial off-take arrangement. The $50 million leverages joint venture partners, as well as other types of finance, into the development of those wind farms. So the answer to the question is that there is $50 million over the next two years—$25 million in 2009-10, and $25 million in 2010-11. Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN: Apropos the $13.5 million that the minister mentioned was allocated for the gross feed-in tariff, will that same sum apply to the proposed net feed-in tariff, or is there some additional or lesser sum? How is the money to be applied? Hon PETER COLLIER: As I mentioned to Hon Robin Chapple, that funding will go directly to rebate those householders who have installed, or applied to install, a photovoltaic system, from 6 September 2008—the election date—to 2 June 2009, when we made the announcement. That $13.5 million will be distributed amongst those applicants, who number around 4 000. The size of their rebate will depend on the size of the photovoltaic system that they install. Then, as I said, those householders will also be eligible for the net feed-in tariff. As I said, while it will take them longer to pay off the capital cost of the system, they will still be able to pay it off through the rebate and the net feed-in tariff.
[ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E739
Hon PHILIP GARDINER: I refer to the second dot point on page 689 of the Budget Statements, under the heading “Horizon Power”. Hon PETER COLLIER: No. Hon PHILIP GARDINER: Sorry; my fault. I will wait. The CHAIR: The member wants to wait to ask the question? Hon PETER COLLIER: He cannot ask it. Advisers from Horizon Power are not here. Hon PHILIP GARDINER: Can I just try the question because it might be in a general context anyway. My question relates to the solar power for Marble Bar and Nullagine. It will provide 35 per cent of total generation for those two places. What is the constraint on the 35 per cent? Is it just that the capital cost cannot be funded, or does it come down to the cost of producing the power, solar versus diesel? I presume diesel is already there, and that is what the rest of the power station has to be, but is there a differential cost that makes solar power uneconomic? Hon PETER COLLIER: I will ask Jason Banks to respond. I have no problems getting back to the member with a more extensive response if necessary. Mr J. Banks: My understanding of the constraints around the contribution from the solar have to do with the profile of the generation from the solar. Obviously, it generates throughout the day, but they will be running diesel sets in periods in which the solar energy is not generating. It is a result of taking those sorts of load factors from those sorts of facilities. Hon PHILIP GARDINER: If a geothermal hole in the ground was used to store the steam or whatever it was during the day so that it could be released at night to be used, is that a possibility in either of those places, or is that just dreaming about technology? Hon PETER COLLIER: It is a nice dream, but I think it is a long way down the track. I will ask Jason Banks to respond. Mr J. Banks: That is probably the key to unlocking the full potential of renewable energy. If we can crack the issues around energy storage and recovery in an efficient way, that will unlock those sorts of opportunities. There are phase change possibilities for energy storage. There are pump storage opportunities, where renewables are used to pump water, for example, up an incline and then it is released to recover the energy. If we could find efficient ways to store renewables, then the potential for their greater penetration would be increased. Hon PETER COLLIER: That is what Griffin is doing, or looking at doing. Hon KATE DOUST: I want to come back and talk about the 330-kilovolt line to Geraldton. I do not understand how Western Power could get it so wrong. I say that because I understand that there are some very experienced people there who have been building these types of lines for many years. I want to go through a couple of other points and then move on to another aspect of Western Power. In a submission given to the Economic Regulation Authority on the 330-kilovolt line to the mid-west, Western Power stated that without the proposed improvement it would be unable to meet natural load growth, demand for mining and industrial load, and connection of power stations in the mid-west region. There was a significant risk that some of the development opportunities in the mid-west region may not proceed if the proposed improvement to the transmission line is not delivered by November 2010. Is that still the view of Western Power? Mr D. Aberle: The November 2010 date was in relation to one of the projects in the mid-west that was at that time expecting to require some 80 megawatts by that date. That is no longer the case. It has indicated slippage in its program, so the short answer is no. Hon KATE DOUST: Is that the reason there is nothing in the forward estimates for the 330-kilovolt line, which indicates to everyone who sees it that, rather than being deferred, the line has been cancelled? Even though the review is due down at some point, by the time a decision is made about that, it may not be in time for next year’s budget or the year after. Mr D. Aberle: What is actually being indicated in the budget is that crystallising what is actually going ahead in the forward years will be dependent on the outcome of the determination of the regulator. All we actually have is the amount of expenditure for next year. Beyond that, it is contingent at least on the outcome of the determination of the regulator, and it was made clear that the opportunity was there for Western Power to come back with submissions around particular projects—for example, that line and the south west bulk. Hon KATE DOUST: I have a lot of other questions on that, but we may not get to them tonight, so I will put them on notice. Following on from that, as we already understand that there are several generation projects that will not proceed because the 330-kilovolt line is not proceeding, and given that the Independent Market Operator’s report found that the south west integrated system should have sufficient capacity to meet demand
E740 [ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] until 2011, and probably until 2014-15 if some of those projects were included, will the minister be asking the IMO to revise the report in light of the cancellation of the 330-kilovolt line? Hon PETER COLLIER: I will be meeting with the IMO in the next couple of weeks. The member is quite correct. The statement of opportunities from 2008 predicted a shortfall in 2011. With the decisions made by the government for the high-efficiency gas turbines in Muja, we will meet our targets for that in the 2011-12 summer. I do not think there are any issues there at this stage. We can never predict anything. The thing that is most important to the government is a reliable electricity supply and that is why we made the commitment to spend over $260 million for the HEGTs. Hon KATE DOUST: I would like to ask more questions about that but I will move on. I refer to page 693 and Western Power’s asset investment program. What is the status of Western Power’s proposed access arrangement revisions? Why has Western Power not complied with a request by the ERA to provide specific documents or information to help it assess its proposal? When will Western Power comply with this request? Does the minister acknowledge that since the process was suspended by the ERA on 26 March, it is unacceptable that Western Power is yet to comply with its request? Hon PETER COLLIER: I am aware that there are some issues with Western Power and whether it complied with the regulator’s request. I will ask Mr Aberle to respond to that. Mr D. Aberle: We went to considerable lengths to agree with the regulator prior to the submission about what level of information it would require. We had an agreement with it so we were surprised when, after four months, we received a notice out of the blue saying that we had not given enough information. We have had subsequent conversations with the regulator. It is inexperienced in this process, as are we. It was looking for information in the form that is required going forward. That was not the way projects were framed or set up historically. It is looking for more information about that. We have provided what it has asked for. I met with the regulator as recently as yesterday to confirm that we are expecting it to give a draft determination before the end of this month on the basis of the information that is available. Hon KATE DOUST: I now turn to Verve Energy and page 692. What dividends are forecast will be delivered into general revenue from Verve in the forward estimates? Has the government done any costings on a re-merger between Verve and Synergy? Does the government know if any jobs will be lost in a re-merger between Verve and Synergy? When will the government receive the report into a possible re-merge? Will the report be made public; and, if not, why not? Who is writing the report? What consultation is the government undertaking as part of compiling this report? Hon PETER COLLIER: I will provide the dividends first. From Verve, for 2009-10, $8.7 million; for 2010-11, $36.7 million; for 2011-12, $58.8 million; and for 2012-13, $67.6 million. What was part two of the question? Hon KATE DOUST: Has the government done any costings on a re-merger between Verve and Synergy? [9.40 pm] Hon PETER COLLIER: If I do not answer any component of the member’s question, she should let me know and I will try to do the whole lot. There has been no review or investigation into the re-merger of Verve and Synergy. There has been a review into the financial situation of Verve. That has been done by Mr Peter Oates; he is writing it. I anticipate his report will be produced very shortly; I imagine within the next couple of months. Do not hold me to that, but I would be disappointed if it were much longer than that. In two, possibly three months, it will be public. I think it is important that it is public. One thing with this portfolio that has captured the public attention is the financial plight of Verve, which has of course turned around quite considerably over the past 12 months. A lot of that has to do with the increase in tariffs. What Mr Oates is doing is looking at the financial situation to ensure that we are doing our best as a government to provide the opportunity for Verve to be a going, viable, successful generator. In terms of the public consultation, Mr Oates has consulted widely. I know he has consulted with the CCI and the CME and has met with most relevant government departments. I cannot at this stage provide the member with a full list of those he has accessed. I do not have any problems with providing that information for the member at a later time. As I have said, I talk with Peter regularly. I had a long chat with him today. He is an extremely learned man who understands the energy market in Western Australia probably as well as anyone. I am confident that as a result of his review into Verve it will come up with a very productive outcome, some recommendations and some suggestions. The CHAIR: I think there was some supplementary information required to complete the answer to the question. Is that correct? Hon PETER COLLIER: Just whom he consulted with, I think. [Supplementary Information No I2.] Hon MAX TRENORDEN: I want to talk about the Office of Energy. I do not want to be too long because I think these questions should be more from the opposition than people on my side of the house. I would like to
[ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E741 talk about page 684 and the solar hot water heater incentive scheme and also what we have already discussed, the feed-in tariff. My perception is that that program has got to the stage where people who purchased and got rebates for their water heaters are now finding that some of them are wearing out. They are making applications for a second bite, but cannot get it and, therefore, are going back to using electricity and so forth, which is defeating the purpose of the original program. That applies particularly to pensioners and people on a low income. The program has been in place for a little while now. Is anyone looking at the fact that these people cannot get their second hot water system and are going back to using electricity? Hon PETER COLLIER: I know that we have provided additional funding for the program. As to whether any research has been done, I understand the member’s question — Hon MAX TRENORDEN: I am saying that people who make a second application are being denied. Hon PETER COLLIER: I will ask Mr Banks to answer. Mr J. Banks: I am unaware of applications being denied on the basis that people have received a previous rebate. Hon MAX TRENORDEN: Does the program allow for it? If people currently have a solar hot water system that breaks down, can they apply for a rebate for the next one? I do not think they can under the program. Mr J. Banks: If I may clarify the position, the commonwealth program that is operating is linked to the replacement of electric with solar, so under that program I would assume that people cannot, given the fact that it needs to be a direct exchange from electric to solar. Our program is limited to gas-boosted solar hot water systems. I would probably like to take the question on notice just to confirm that, but it has not been raised with me that we are refusing applications on the basis that people have received a previous rebate. Hon PETER COLLIER: It is a good question. Is Hon Max Trenorden aware of anyone in that situation? Hon MAX TRENORDEN: Yes. Hon PETER COLLIER: I would like to know as well, so we will find out. Hon MAX TRENORDEN: I am a big fan of the feed-in tariff, even though a lot of money is involved for only five to 10 megawatts. Has similar work been done in Western Australia as was done in the United States on the effect on the peaking process? I know five or 10 megawatts will not help very much in the peaking process, but I remind the minister of what he said before about encouraging people to use solar panels and engage in the process. Hon PETER COLLIER: I agree. That is why I am such a supporter of it. It goes beyond how much is fed into the grid. The benefits of the feed-in tariff go beyond that. If the government wants to take people with it, it has to empower people in the community. We cannot tell them; they have to do this. If the government told everyone they had to have a solar hot water system and they had to pay for it; we would have a civil war! It does not work that way. The government needs to empower people to be part of the process. The solar school scheme is exactly the same. We are engaging the kids in renewable energy projects. We can empower people by providing an incentive to put in a PV system. That benefits enormously the whole renewable energy argument. We were going to have to close the scheme before we even opened it, frankly. Hon MAX TRENORDEN: That is a message in itself, is it not? Hon PETER COLLIER: That is right. If we had opened it, about 2 000 people would have missed out. We would have been under-funded at $13.5 million. I was very keen for this decision to be made. My view was that we should not let people miss out on the feed-in tariff if they wanted to be part of the process. We would have had had to do that, or else go to the budget in very difficult economic circumstances when everything had been cut back to ask for tens of millions of dollars more. We had Buckley’s of doing that. The right decision has been made. The people who put in PV systems from 6 September will get the rebates, as well as being eligible for the feed-in tariff. We will also engage and empower thousands and thousands more Western Australians by allowing them to partake in a feed-in tariff system. The CHAIR: I need to identify the previous supplementary question. [Supplementary Information No I3.] The CHAIR: Members, I am aware we are slightly over time, but we did start a little late. Do other members have questions? Hon KATE DOUST: I briefly want to come back to the 330-kilovolt line before I move on to another area. Does the minister acknowledge that by not progressing the 330-kilovolt line, several renewable energy projects will not proceed? If so, what will this do for the government’s target for renewable energy? Hon PETER COLLIER: I would not like to speculate on that at this stage. As I said, we are only talking about a matter of weeks now, and we will have a clear idea, from the recommendations, of where we will go. I would
E742 [ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] not like to put any more uncertainty into the mid-west than already exists as a result of this. I am disappointed that the line is not going ahead. Hon KATE DOUST: The government will not be able to do anything for a minimum of 12 months or longer anyway in terms of kick-starting it. You are looking at the long haul, even if you make a decision to proceed. Hon PETER COLLIER: I prefer to wait until I get the review back and then government will make a decision as to where it goes with that line. Hon KATE DOUST: I want to turn back to Verve Energy on page 692 and I refer to the $488.8 million allocation for capital works on Verve’s fossil fuel plant portfolio. Why has the government chosen to invest in the new gas turbines in Kwinana, when the Independent Market Operator recently found that there appeared to be sufficient capacity projected to the south west interconnected system to comfortably meet projected demand until 2014-15 period? The second part of my question is: given the decision to bring on line the gas turbines in Kwinana and the recommissioning of Muja A and B, will the minister make a commitment to tame Verve’s capacity to cap? [9.50 pm] Hon PETER COLLIER: I say at the outset that the Independent Market Operator predictions referred to by the member actually include the high efficiency gas turbines. The statement of opportunities from 2008 actually said that there would be a shortfall. There is also the retirement of Kwinana A coming up in August 2011. That in itself presented a problem. That is why we had to look at recouping the loss of generation. That was the first part. What was the second part? Hon KATE DOUST: The second part was: given the decision to bring online the gas turbines in Kwinana, and the recommissioning of Muja A and B, will the minister make a commitment to retain Verve’s capacity cap? Hon PETER COLLIER: At this stage we have no intention of changing the capacity cap. Muja A and B are also part of the IMO prediction for the summer of 2011-12. Hon KATE DOUST: Does the minister have full confidence in the IMO to signal generation capacity opportunities and have the market respond to them? Hon PETER COLLIER: All I can say at this stage is that one can never predict what happens; I am finding that this is such an unpredictable portfolio. Hon KATE DOUST: Does that mean that the minister does not think that the IMO has that capacity? Hon PETER COLLIER: No, I am saying that we have an ageing generation portfolio. We are doing as much as we possibly can to ensure that we have a safe, secure and reliable electricity system. We have done that through the HEGTs and Muja A and B. We are doing as much as we can to pump investment into renewable options. Hon KATE DOUST: Did the minister consider whether this project could have been delivered by the private sector rather than through government funding? Hon PETER COLLIER: Which project does the member mean? Hon KATE DOUST: Muja A and B. Hon PETER COLLIER: It is being funded by a private company. Hon KATE DOUST: But not totally. Hon PETER COLLIER: Yes, it is funded 100 per cent by Inalco Energy. Verve is providing the plant infrastructure. It is totally funded by the joint venture between Verve and Inalco, Vinalco Energy. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: I refer to the last question from my colleague. Hon PETER COLLIER: About HEGTs? Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: No, about the state government’s total commitment to renewable energy. What annual percentage of renewable energy would the government like to see introduced? Hon PETER COLLIER: Successive governments have made commitments to meeting the national target of 20 per cent by 2020. Our contribution is about 15 per cent or 16 per cent. That is the ideal target we would like to meet. We will do all that we possibly can. I will be honest with the member: we have to be careful that we do not get to a point at which our only renewable energy is wind, because that in itself will present enormous problems. We have to look at other options. Wave power is one, which is why we put $12 million into Carnegie Corporation. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: Solar voltaics and photovoltaics. Hon PETER COLLIER: Absolutely.
[ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E743
Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: There are also others. Looking at that commitment, what is the state’s annual percentage increase to 2020 in renewable energy? Where are we currently as a percentage? Hon PETER COLLIER: It is around five per cent? Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: As high as that? Hon PETER COLLIER: Yes, it is. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: How are we going to achieve an increase each year? What are the incremental increases each year to meet the 20 per cent target by 2020? Hon PETER COLLIER: I am genuinely of the opinion that I do not know! I do not know if there is a prescribed annual increase, and I do not know if we can actually do that, to be honest. There are so many different variables with renewable energy and so many different options. There are exciting things that we can look at. We could easily say, “Let’s build a wind farm every year to get to our 15 per cent by 2020”. That would be catastrophic, quite frankly. I am not saying that I am against wind farms; I am saying that we cannot put our whole portfolio into wind farms. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: I have not said that. Hon PETER COLLIER: I understand, but I am saying that we can get to a point at which we can look at other options. Wave power is one such option; solar thermal; geothermal; and biomass, which I know Verve is looking at. Mr J. Banks: It is national target. The scheme involves the opportunity for banking, so I guess the actually staging and timing of investments will be determined by the market. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: Okay. Following on from that—this is what I am trying to get to—what will be the government’s financial commitment in future budgets? Hon PETER COLLIER: I am very good friends with the Treasurer, and I would like to think that I can ask him to write an open cheque—I do not mean to be flippant about this—but all I can say is that at the moment — Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: So the minister does not even have a request that he is taking to the Treasurer? Hon PETER COLLIER: I am in regular conversation with the Treasurer, and I am in regular conversation with each of my corporations, and with industry. As I have said—I keep saying it—we have just provided the $12 million for wave power with the Carnegie project. I will continue to look at options. But, yes, if we are to be forward thinking, we need to have our goals in front of us. The member is right. If we have a national goal of 20 per cent and we have to get our 15 per cent, that is a massive target that we need to meet. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: I am hoping that the minister will be able to explain how he is going to do that. Hon PETER COLLIER: I certainly cannot do that here and now, but I can assure the member that that is something that must be a priority. I have regular conversations, obviously, with the corporation and with Jason, and we are talking about issues of intermittency with wind, et cetera, so we need to look at other options. When we asked for applications for the lead funding, we had some wonderful applications there. They in themselves are not going to contribute much, I have to say, in terms of providing a significant contribution to our 15 per cent, but that should not in any way, shape or form diminish their right or privilege or the opportunity that is provided by those initiatives to give it a go. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: I could wax lyrical about the benefits, but can we just get some idea—I ask this on notice—of the government’s intentions for renewable energy to meet the 20 per cent by 2020 requirement? Hon PETER COLLIER: Yes. I have no problems with taking that question. I just do not know whether I am going to be able to give the member a prescribed annual amount. I just do not think that is going to be possible. But I do not have a problem with taking that question. [Supplementary Information No I4.] The CHAIR: I will give the final question to Hon Kate Doust, and we will then call it a night. Hon KATE DOUST: Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a number of other questions, and I suppose I will have to put those on notice at the end. The CHAIR: Certainly. Any member who has further questions can submit them. Hon KATE DOUST: My last question tonight is for Western Power. I refer to page 693. I refer also to the Liberal Party’s election policy that a Liberal government will construct a natural gas pipeline from Bunbury to Albany, via Bridgetown and Manjimup, to develop a secure, reliable and safe energy supply for the future economic and social growth of the region. What work is being done to progress this pipeline project? The policy document states that the likely capital cost of this project will be $225 million. Is this still the estimated cost, or
E744 [ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — Thursday, 18 June 2009] has this changed? The policy document states also that construction is expected to begin in this term of government. Is this still the case? Can the minister outline what funding has been allocated in this year’s budget to progress this project, and what has been included in the forward estimates for its construction? Hon PETER COLLIER: I thank the member for the question. This is actually the responsibility of the Minister for State Development, the Premier. I am not sure how we can deal with this—whether the member should put the question on notice to the Premier — Hon KATE DOUST: There is actually an allocation in the Western Power budget, is there not? Hon PETER COLLIER: Yes, but the responsibility lies with the Premier and Minister for State Development. Hon KEN TRAVERS: How do you know what goes on in your government? Everyone has a different responsibility! Hon PETER COLLIER: I do not mind giving a response. I do not mind taking responsibility — The CHAIR: Does the minister take carriage of that question? Hon PETER COLLIER: Yes. The CHAIR: Thank you very much, minister, for accommodating that. [Supplementary Information No I5.] The CHAIR: Members, minister and advisers, thank you very much for your time this evening. If there are further questions, it would be very useful if members could please provide them to us before they go home. Committee adjourned at 9.59 pm ______
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION — STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS Information that is publicly available is not included in the Supplementary Information. The information presented below appears essentially as provided to the committee.
DIVISION 11: WA HEALTH —
[Supplementary Information No C1.]
Question: Hon Sue Ellery: Still on page 170 of the Budget Statements, I wish to ask a question about full-time equivalents. I will start with page 170. For each of the 14 services there is an FTE figure, but for convenience I will use page 170 as the reference point. In February this year the Treasurer made a public announcement about a cap on public sector full-time equivalent positions. The information on FTE numbers that the department provided to the subcommittee was that there were about 31 000 at that point. The cap imposed by the Treasurer, based on the 2008-09 budget figure, was around 29 000. I have not done the sums to find out whether the department is over the 31 000 that it had in March, but my question is: will the department be able to meet the Treasurer’s cap; and, if so, how will it do that? If it is not going to be able to meet the Treasurer’s cap, how will that issue be resolved? Answer: The Department of Health has developed a methodology that incorporates the 3% efficiency FTE reduction requirement, while maintaining growth in clinical FTE. The reductions that need to be achieved by 30 June 2009 (316 FTE) are also integrated into the Budget FTE projection model to ensure the starting point for the financial year is appropriate.
[Supplementary Information No C2.]
Question: Hon Alison Xamon: I refer to the asset investment program for mental health services shown on page 179 of the Budget Statements. How many inpatient mental health beds are currently available in the east metropolitan region? Are there any plans to increase this number; and, if so, where? I will give an idea of where I am going with this as well. I also want to know how many inpatient mental health beds will be located at the new Swan health campus, and when they will he available. I realise that that is four different questions, but they all point in a similar direction. Answer: (1) As at midnight 22 June 2009, there were a total of 77 mental health inpatient beds in the East Metropolitan Region (electoral boundary). Breakdown as follows: • Armadale – 40 (32 Adult, 8 Older Adult) • Swan Valley Centre – 37 (25 Adult, 12 Older Adult) (2) There are plans to establish 15 additional mental health inpatient beds in the Midland campus. (3) See (2) above. The commissioning date is not yet known.
[Supplementary Information No C3.]
Question: Hon Sue Ellery: I refer to page 174, service 8, “Prevention, Promotion and Protection”. I am interested in communicable disease control, in particular the incidence of sexually transmitted infections in children. The minister may need to take this on notice, but I am interested in knowing, for the period 1 January 2009 to I May 2009, how many children under the age of 14 have been notified with a sexually transmitted infection; the breakdown of those children by age; the nature of the disease; the ethnicity of the child; and the regions from which those notifications have come.
E746 [ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
Answer: Figure 1 - Number of children notified with chlamydia in WA from 01-01-09 to 01-05-09 by region, Aboriginality and age group:
Region Aboriginality Age group (Years) 0-11 12-13 Total Goldfields Aboriginal 0 0 0 non-Aboriginal 0 0 0 Great Southern Aboriginal 0 0 0 non-Aboriginal 0 0 0 Kimberley Aboriginal 0 2 2 non-Aboriginal 0 0 0 Midwest Aboriginal 0 0 0 non-Aboriginal 0 0 0 North Metropolitan Aboriginal 0 0 0 non-Aboriginal 0 1 1 Pilbara Aboriginal 2 0 2 non-Aboriginal 0 0 0 South Metropolitan Aboriginal 0 2 2 non-Aboriginal 0 1 1 South West Aboriginal 0 0 0 non-Aboriginal 0 0 0 Wheatbelt Aboriginal 0 1 1 non-Aboriginal 0 0 0 Other Aboriginal 0 0 0 non-Aboriginal 0 0 0 Unknown Aboriginal 0 0 0 non-Aboriginal 0 0 0 WA (Total) Aboriginal 2 5 7 non-Aboriginal 0 2 2
Notes: 1. "Children" refers to separate infection/notification events requiring a response. In this period in the Kimberley region, 1 Aboriginal child in the 12-13 age group was notified with a gonorrhoea co-infection and 1 Aboriginal child in the 12-13 age group was notified with a gonorrhoea and infectious syphilis co-infection; in the South Metropolitan region, 1 Aboriginal child in the 12-13 age group was notified with a gonorrhoea co-infection. No children were notified with chlamydia on more than one occasion during this period. 2. Data extracted by ODOO 23-06-09.
Figure 2 - Number of children notified with gonorrhoea in WA from 01-01-09 to 01-05-09 by region, Aboriginality and age group:
Region Aboriginality Age group (Years) 0-11 12-13 Total Goldfields Aboriginal 0 0 0 non-Aboriginal 0 0 0 Great Southern Aboriginal 0 0 0 non-Aboriginal 0 0 0 Kimberley Aboriginal 0 3 3 non-Aboriginal 0 0 0 Midwest Aboriginal 0 1 1 non-Aboriginal 0 0 0 North Metropolitan Aboriginal 0 0 0 non-Aboriginal 0 1 1 Pilbara Aboriginal 0 0 0 non-Aboriginal 0 0 0 Region Aboriginality Age group (Years)
[ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E747
0-11 12-13 Total South Metropolitan Aboriginal 0 1 1 non-Aboriginal 0 0 0 South West Aboriginal 0 0 0 non-Aboriginal 0 0 0 Wheatbelt Aboriginal 0 0 0 non-Aboriginal 0 0 0 Other Aboriginal 0 0 0 non-Aboriginal 0 0 0 Unknown Aboriginal 0 0 0 non-Aboriginal 0 0 0 WA (Total) Aboriginal 0 5 5 non-Aboriginal 0 0 0
Notes: 1. "Children" refers to separate infection/notification events requiring a response. During this period in the Kimberley region, 1 Aboriginal child in the 12-13 age group was notified with a chlamydia co-infection and 1 Aboriginal child in the 12-13 age group was notified with a chlamydia and infectious syphilis co-infection; in the South Metropolitan region, 1 Aboriginal child in the 12-13 age group was notified with a chlamydia co-infection. No children were notified with gonorrhoea on more than one occasion during this period. 2. Data extracted by ODOO 23-06-09.
Figure 3 - Number of children notified with infectious syphilis in WA from 01-01-09 to 01-05-09 by region, Aboriginality and age group:
Region Aboriginality Age group (Years) 0-11 12-13 Total Goldfields Aboriginal 0 0 0 non-Aboriginal 0 0 0 Great Southern Aboriginal 0 0 0 non-Aboriginal 0 0 0 Kimberley Aboriginal 0 1 1 non-Aboriginal 0 0 0 Midwest Aboriginal 0 0 0 non-Aboriginal 0 0 0 North Metropolitan Aboriginal 0 0 0 non-Aboriginal 0 0 0 Pilbara Aboriginal 0 0 0 non-Aboriginal 0 0 0 South Metropolitan Aboriginal 0 0 0 non-Aboriginal 0 0 0 South West Aboriginal 0 0 0 non-Aboriginal 0 0 0 Wheatbelt Aboriginal 0 0 0 non-Aboriginal 0 0 0 Other Aboriginal 0 0 0 non-Aboriginal 0 0 0 Unknown Aboriginal 0 0 0 non-Aboriginal 0 0 0 WA (Total) Aboriginal 0 1 1 non-Aboriginal 0 0 0 Notes: 1. "Children" refers to separate infection/notification events requiring a response. During this period in the Kimberley region, 1 Aboriginal child in the 12-13 age group was notified with a chlamydia and gonorrhoea co-infection. No children were notified with infectious syphilis on more than one occasion during this period. 2. Data extracted by ODOO 23-06-09. [Supplementary Information No C4.] Question: Hon Alison Xamon asked: what is the demand for the community midwifery program?
E748 [ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
Answer: In 2007-2008, there were 242 births followed by an increase to 264 births for the period 2008-2009. The projected activity for 2009-2010 is between 350-370 births with an anticipated activity figure of 480-500 births per year by June 2011.
[Supplementary Information No C5.] Question: Hon Ken Travers: It is noted on page 161 of the Budget Statements that the estimated actual total appropriations provided to deliver services in 2008-09 was $4.066 billion. The minister’s answer earlier referred to the additional money over and above last year’s budget estimates. I assume that is the figure that is also referred to in budget paper No 3 at page 229, where it is indicated that the Department of Health intends to receive an additional $42.2 million out of the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill 2009 for delivery of services, and an additional $45.7 million as a contribution to the hospital fund; therefore, there is a total allocation from the Treasurer’s advance of $189.9 million for this year. It is my understanding that as of 14 May the Department of Health had already drawn down $176.2 million of that funding. Answer: The $187.9 million Treasurer’s Advance (made up of $42.2 million Item 71 and $145.7 million Item 72) has been fully drawn down. The Department expects to draw down $450,000 from the Treasurer’s Advance before the end of the financial year attributable to additional revenue associated with pre-RiskCover Medico-Legal costs.
[Supplementary Information No C6.] Question: Hon Ed Dermer: My question relates to the home-based hospital programs mentioned on page 171 of the Budget Statements. The descriptive paragraph concludes with the sentence — Programs include ‘Hospital in the Home’ (HITH), ‘Rehabilitation in the Home’ (RITH) and Mental Health in the Home’ (MITH), and are provided by Area Health Services and contracted non-government providers. This question might be best taken on notice, but I am interested in finding out the actual allocation of funds to each of the separate programs, and also the details about the different services provided under each of the programs. Answer: Home-based hospital programs describe care services that are provided under the numerous home-based hospital care programs implemented by WA Health. They provide short-term acute services in the patient’s home for conditions that traditionally required hospital admission and inpatient treatment. Care is based on daily home visits by nurses, clinicians or allied health professionals, with medical governance usually by a hospital-based doctor. Patients who may receive these services include those who can be safely cared for without constant monitoring. ‘Hospital in the Home’ (HITH) is a recognised method of providing acute medical care for some patients in their home environment whom, in the absence of this care option, would require hospital accommodation. It is a genuine substitute for inpatient care where there is adequate capacity for emergency care or intervention and the care is supervised by a medical officer. Some medical conditions within the scope of the program include cellulitis, dehydration, deep vein thrombosis, post operative wound care and infectious diseases requiring drug therapies. ‘Rehabilitation in the Home’ (RITH) provides a similar viable alternative to in-patient rehabilitation for suitable patients in their own homes providing services such as physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech pathology and dietetics for medical conditions including post operative and elective joint rehabilitation, and stroke. Mental Health in the Home (MITH) is similar to HITH and aims to reduce the utilisation of hospital beds by providing acute mental health care in the patient's home. The patient benefits from the choice of care in a familiar and comfortable environment, and maintains their daily living skills. Currently the MITH program is limited to people aged 18-65, residing in the Subiaco, Mirrabooka and Osborne Park areas, who are mentally unwell and require voluntary hospital admission; are willing to participate in MITH; who have stable accommodation/support network, and for whom the local mental health clinic can provide a minimum of one medical appointment per week. For both Government Budget Statements (GBS) and Annual Reporting Key Performance Indicators, Service 3 “Home based hospital programs” includes HITH, MITH and RITH programs provided by the Metropolitan Health Service (MHS), and similar HITH services provided by the non-government sector, principally the Silver Chain Nursing Association, under contract to the Department of Health (DOH). In 2008-09, GBS Estimated Actual under Service 3, MHS (including the Child and Adolescent Health Service) estimates $23.3 million expenditure providing 80,155 care days with $17.8 million for HITH providing 52,257 care days, $5.2 million for RITH providing 27,112 care days and $300,000 providing 786 MITH care days. An
[ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E749 amount of $828,000 in corporate overheads has also been applied to Service 3 for total expenditure of $24.1 million. For 2009-10, GBS Budget Target under Service 3, MHS projects $24.6 million expenditure with $18.8 million for HITH, $5.5 million for RITH and $300,000 for MITH providing similar activity volumes as in 2008-09. Application of corporate overheads brings the total budget target to $25.4 million. In 2009-10, GBS Budget Target under Service 3 for DOH is $22.3 million, providing 72,685 care days. Application of a proportion of corporate overheads provides a total of $22.5 million. This expenditure is substantially increased over expenditure and activity estimated for 2008-09 with the addition of $16.2 million of the “Friend in Need Emergency” (FINE) program funding. The balance of the “FINE” funding has been applied to Service 10 for transition care in the MHS.
[Supplementary Information No C7.] Question: Hon Sue Ellery: What is the total of the electricity bill for the whole of Health for the current year and how much is the department predicting these bills to increase? Answer:
Electricity Annual Cost Total Increase Increase $ $ % 2008-09 (projected) 25,281,707 2009-10 34,951,974 9,670,267 38.3% 2010-11 38,197,651 3,245,677 9.3% 2011-12 40,983,778 2,786,127 7.3% 2012-13 44,073,853 3,090,075 7.5% Please note that these are estimates only.
Questions Submitted — Vol 1, Page 161-162 – Major Policy Decisions
Hon Giz Watson asked: (1) Please provide further details as to the commitment, staffing and timeframe for the Office of Commissioner for Mental Health and Wellbeing. (2) Regarding the Review of Mental Health Services, please provide details as to who is conducting the review and its timeframe. (3) What community consultation is included in the review process? (4) In what way is the review addressing the cost effectiveness of prevention and early intervention? (5) How will the 3% efficiency dividend affect the Health Corporate Network? (6) Is it planned to decentralise the services of the Health Corporate Network?
Answer: (1) The Liberal-National Government is committed to appointing an independent WA Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner. Draft drafting instructions to prepare a Bill to establish this position have been provided to the Minister for Mental Health and the Parliamentary Secretary for feedback. The Bill will be tabled in the spring session of Parliament. Detailed staffing requirements are under consideration. (2) The review of mental health services is a component of the work being conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers to assist WA Health in the development of a State Mental Health Policy and Mental Health Strategic Plan 2010-2020. Many activities are being undertaken as part of the review of services including extensive and comprehensive consultations with key stakeholders, policy and document reviews, site assessments, validation of previous consultations, gap analysis qualitative and quantitative data analysis. The review will provide a detailed understanding of current services, the needs of consumers and carers, the
E750 [ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
identification of service gaps, and current and future needs. By October 2009, this work will be synthesised into a draft baseline of current services report and will inform the ongoing development of the Policy and the Strategic Plan. (3) Extensive and comprehensive consultations will be undertaken with key stakeholders (consumers and their carers, government, non government agencies, the private health sector and the community). The methodology for consultations will be a mix of workshops, focus groups, community forums, online surveys, online submissions open to any person in the community, telephone interviews of current consumers and surveys of particularly vulnerable groups like the homeless. (4) The review will not specifically determine the cost effectiveness of prevention and early intervention in Western Australia; rather the PricewaterhouseCoopers Advisory Panel constituted as part of the review will provide advice and guidance on evidence-based models for prevention and early intervention. (5) Health Corporate Network has developed strategies to achieve the 3% efficiency dividend, as with all other WA Health areas. Successful implementation of these strategies will not adversely affect the services provided by HCN. (6) No.
Page 164 – Indigenous Health (1) In total, how much funding is allocated per capita for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples? (2) What proportion of the total funding allocation for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples is allocated to: a. Preventative care? b. Primary care? c. Secondary care? d. Tertiary care? (3) What proportion of he above is allocated to: a. Urban (please define) areas? b. Rural (please define) areas? c. Remote (please define) areas? (4) What progress will be made in 2009-10 to close the gap in salary parity between doctors in Western Australian Aboriginal health services and those in country health services?
Answer: 1. WA Health does not allocate a budget specifically for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Based on the most recent published figures from the Expenditure on health for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples 2004-05, WA’s figures for total expenditure per person for Indigenous and non- Indigenous people 2004/05 is $3,844 Indigenous and $1,369 non-indigenous. (see table below):
[ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E751
2. WA Health does not allocate a budget specifically for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Page 164 of the Budget Papers discusses the COAG Indigenous Reform agenda, which is detailed below: a. The Implementation Plans for the COAG National Partnership Agreements on Closing the Gap in Indigenous Health Outcomes (2009-2013) and Element 3 of the Indigenous Early Childhood Development (2009-2014) have not yet been approved. The Closing the Gap proposals are grouped in five priority areas – to be delivered in metropolitan, rural and remote communities – and include the following proposals for funding over 4 years: • ‘Tackling smoking’, which will provide $6.95m for tobacco control and smoking prevention programs. • ‘Primary Care that Delivers’, a suite of large and small scale supports and interventions totalling $35.35 Million. • ‘Fixing the Gaps and Improving the Patient Journey’, allocating $20.58 Million to reducing preventable adverse outcomes in acute and community settings, increasing self- management of chronic conditions, and linking people with the right care at the right time. • ‘Making Indigenous Health Everyone’s Business’, in which the Department of Health will commit $9.78 Million to collaborate with Corrective Services on improving Aboriginal people’s health in custodial settings and following release. • ‘Healthy Transition to Adulthood’, which provides $44.78 Million for chronic disease (including mental ill health) prevention and early intervention to be addressed early in the life course. Element 3 of the Indigenous Early Childhood Development National Partnership Agreement – to which the WA Government has committed $11.25 Million over 5 years – aims to increase access to, and use of, maternal and child health services by Aboriginal families. The Implementation Plan for this Agreement proposes measures to reduce infant mortality – one of COAG’S six Closing the Gap targets – and improve family health and wellbeing, an essential component of better life outcomes.
E752 [ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
It is noted that the current reorientation of WA’s health system towards prevention, and improvements in linking the continuum of care, often make it difficult to distinguish prevention and the other sectors of health care. b. Total national expenditure per person on primary health services for Indigenous and non- Indigenous people for 2004-05 period is $2,223 Indigenous and $1,747 non-Indigenous. (see table below) Table A2.3 (continued): Estimated state and territory (a) expenditure per person for Indigenous and non- Indigenous people, by program, 2004-05 ($) Service NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas NT Australia Dental Indigenous 98 32 37 27 77 6 61 57 Non-Indigenous 20 21 32 27 33 58 40 26 Research Indigenous 9 43 6 9 21 2 21 12 Non-Indigenous 10 15 7 9 8 3 7 10 Health administration n.e.c. Indigenous — — 23 61 152 76 259 60 Non-Indigenous — — 10 61 130 78 91 24 Total Indigenous 2,618 2,701 2,546 3,844 4,011 891 5,461 3,148 Non-Indigenous 1,456 1,327 1,108 1,369 1,567 1,285 1,629 1,361 (a) ACT per person figures are not calculated, as the expenditure numbers for the ACT include substantial expenditures for NSW residents. Thus the ACT population is not the appropriate denominator. (b) Admitted patient expenditure adjusted for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples under-identification, except for Tasmania. see Tabnle3.3 Appendix 3. Source:AIHW health expenditure database c. Total national expenditure per person on secondary/tertiary health services for Indigenous and non-Indigenous people for 2004-05 period is $2, 248 Indigenous and $2,073 non-Indigenous. d. Figures included in answer c above. (3) WA Health does not allocate a budget specifically for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. No further information is available. (4) The Department of Health does not fund Western Australian Aboriginal Health Services doctor’s salaries. The Department purchases programs that provide a specific service. There are no details within those programs that prescribe amounts for doctors’ salaries. Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations (ACCHOs) obtain funding from a variety of sources and as autonomous organisations make their own decisions about how their funding is used.
Page 165 – Managing Unplanned Care (1) Please provide details of any obstacles and difficulties in the implementation of the Four Hour Rule? (2) Please provide details as to the Friend in Need/Silver Chain (Public Hospital Admittance) program? (3) What areas of unmet primary need have been identified in WA? (4) Where is it planned to establish 20 General Practices with extended late night or 24 hour opening hours? Answer: 1. The key difficulty at this early point is ensuring that people's expectations both within and outside the hospital setting are informed and managed. The Clinical Services Redesign methodology means that the first six months of the process involves detailed process mapping, data analysis and development of suitable solutions. The temptation can be for staff and the general public to assume that hospitals will 'leap' to immediate solutions without this important preparatory work, and that changes in practice and/or movement toward the target will happen immediately. Communications strategies have been put in place locally and centrally to address this issue.
[ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E753
2. The Friend In Need – Emergency (FINE) scheme aims to deliver care and support to people in need enabling them to remain in their own home, hostel or nursing home, rather than present to an emergency department or be admitted into hospital. The FINE scheme will be metropolitan based and will enhance and align with the work of hospital outreach programs including Hospital In The Home (HITH), Rehabilitation In The Home (RITH) and the Residential Care Line (RCL). The FINE scheme aligns with the Four Hour Rule program by enhancing the capacity of community based care enabling safe and effective care for patients and their carers in their own home. The FINE scheme was initiated in 2008/09 on an expectation of being fully operational in 2009/10 and it will report against three interlinked components: 1. community based non-inpatient acute and complex care. 2. a strengthened network of care coordination (case management). 3. community based flexible care packages. The configuration of service for 2009/10 is as follows: • $16,932,500 to Silver Chain Nursing Association targeting increased capacity of Hospital At The Home (HATH), Post Acute Nursing (PAC) and community nursing, as well as strengthening medical/clinical governance to enable enhanced service delivery that aligns with the intent of diverting patients from the emergency department by delivering better and more timely care “at home”. • $2,567,500 to Community Care programs in the community that focus on chronic disease. • $800,000 to Community Flexible Care Packages as an expansion of the current Home Care Package program managed through North and South Metropolitan Area Health Services. • $1,657,720 to Emergency Department Care Coordination Teams - as pivotal clinical linkage points with the FINE scheme community services. • $4,342,280 to Complex Care Coordination - community focused, targeting the aim of establishing a network of "complex care coordinators" who will work with patients and carers who are at a higher end of functional decline, and whose care and support needs in the community are complex. • $200,000 to Training and Education aimed at a sustainable and system wide training program in relation to complex care coordination and the FINE scheme. • $300,000 to Quality and Evaluation aimed at developing a robust quality and evaluation framework and process. • $200,000 to program administration and management. As a system wide project the FINE scheme is to be administered through the Department of Health. 3. Outer metropolitan and all regional areas are identified as areas of unmet primary care need. 4. The Grants to After Hours General Practice Program Expression of Interest (EOI) will close on 17 June 2009. The Expression of Interest assessment will use a qualitative criterion weighting score of 20% to those who can demonstrate they will provide a service in an area of demonstrated need as above.
Page 167 – Significant issues impacting the agency – Workforce 1. What is the allocation for increasing number of sexual health physicians, junior medical staff and nurse practitioner positions in 2009-10? 2. With annual funding at this rate, when do you estimate that full implementation of the broad objective and recommendations of the Sexually Transmitted Infections Model of Care will be achieved? Answer: 1. Sexual Health Physicians There are currently no plans to increase the numbers of sexual health physicians beyond current levels. Junior Medical Staff The Federal Government has increased medical student places throughout Australia with WA having an increase of 100 students at the University of Western Australia and 80 at the University of Notre Dame, phased in over a three year period. The State Government has committed to provide internships for all WA medical graduates from 2006 onwards. First year junior doctor numbers will continue to expand each year from a base of 205 in 2008/09 to 302 in 2015/16.
E754 [ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
Year 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Interns 205 247 278 285 275 284 299 302 A junior doctor (Interns and Resident Medial Officers) business case is currently being developed. The business case will propose a framework that combines alternative and traditional methods of clinical training to ensure that the WA medical workforce of the future can continue to provide high quality, sustainable healthcare to the WA community. This Business Case will examine the financial, clinical training and clinical service implications of the planned increases in Western Australian medical graduates. When implemented, the funding of this proposal will ensure that medical graduates from Western Australian universities will receive the highest quality medical training in a wider range of settings than ever before. Nurse Practitioners WA Country Health Services has a target of creating 25 Nurse Practitioner positions by 2010. Four positions are filled (Kalumburu, Marble Bar, Nullagine and Bremmer Bay). Two Nurse Practitioners are due to commence in Albany in June 2009. 2. The Sexually Transmitted Disease Model of Care will be assessed against the broad objectives to identify the strategies which are cost neutral for implementation over the next 12 months. The creation of Advanced Sexual Health Nurses in WA is predicated on the reform of the Poisons Act that would allow for trained and accredited nurses to complete a sexual health history and examination, and initiate treatment based on approved clinical guidelines and protocols.
Page 176 – Community Mental Health 1. Regarding Community Mental Health Care: What resources are now being allocated to addressing the mental health issues of men who are willing to ask for help with violence and potential offending, who would in the past have gone to Safecare, an organisation that recently had its men’s program de- funded? 2. What community agencies are currently providing community mental health services, please provide names, number of mental health patients and funding details per service? Please provide details of the age groups these community organisations cater to? 3. How many people are on the waiting list for each of these services? 4. What public and community mental health services are provided in the Rockingham/Kwinana area? 5. How many people are on the waiting list for accessing public and community services in the Rockingham/Kwinana area? Answer: 1. Public community mental health services (including specialised forensic services) are available for people seeking help with violence and potential offending issues. The Department of Health has never funded Safecare. 2. See Table 1 below:
Table 1: Community Mental Health - Page 176. Non government organisations funded to provide psychosocial mental health services - 2007/08 Number of Agency Funding consumers
WOMEN'S HEALTHWORKS $96,000 18
DISABILITY IN THE ARTS (DADA) $104,152 27
SOUTHERN CROSS CARE (WA) INCORPORATED $280,399 50
VINCENTCARE $7,461 8 Did not operate ARAFMI MENTAL HEALTH CAREERS & FRIENDS service in 2007-08 ASSOCIATION $50,479 2 due to lack of staff THE RICHMOND FELLOWSHIP OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA INCORPORATED $105,218 84
[ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E755
DAUGHTERS OF CHARITY SERVICES (RUAH INREACH) $2,629,646 412 WA BAPTIST HOSP & HOMES TRUST INC (BAPTISTCARE) $377,648 101
HILLS COMMUNITY SUPPORT GROUP $171,637 55
PERTH HOME CARE SERVICES $485,976 83
BUNBURY PATHWAYS 92 INC $232,122 170
MENTAL ILLNESS FELLOWSHIP OF WA $446,764 1,658 Support to one person with complex mental SOUTH METROPOLITAN PERSONNEL $36,597 1 health needs
G.R.O.W. (W.A.) $490,252 1,740
SHARE AND CARE INC. $84,303 56
EVEN KEEL (MANIC DEPRESSIVE ASSOC.) $75,771 344
ALBANY HALFWAY HOUSE ASSC $264,287 123
JUNE OCONNOR CENTRE $786,037 726
PILBARA HOME CARE INC. $64,172 50 SCHIZOPHRENIA FELLOWSHIP OF ALBANY & DISTRICTS $141,097 45
A.T.U.L. (AIDS TO USEFUL LIVING) $89,431 40
55 CENTRAL INC (FORMERLY ACRAH) $59,832 32
HOME HEALTH P/L T/AS TENDERCARE $575,314 265
SALVATION ARMY WA (PROPERTY TRUST) $120,220 64
BAY OF ISLES COMMUNITY OUTREACH INC. $121,659 58
SUPPORT-IN-SITE INC $53,391 110
MIDWEST COMMUNITY LIVING CENTRE $13,697 12 WOMEN'S HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED $101,123 84
LAMP INC $108,989 122
GOLDFIELDS MENTAL HEALTH ACTION GROUP $59,832 19 Youth specific PERTH INNER CITY YOUTH SERVICE $50,202 8 service
ACCESS HOUSING ASSOCIATION INC $125,824 85
TOTAL $8,409,532 6,652
Note: Perth Inner City Youth Service is a specific service provided to young people. All other agencies provide services to adults, youth and older people
3. This information is not available to the Mental Health Division through contract reporting requirements. 4. Community mental health services: (Non-government organisation provider): The Daughter of Charity (RUAH) provides community mental health services in the Rockingham/Kwinana area. Public community mental health services: The Peel and Rockingham Kwinana (PaRK) Mental Health Service provides the following public mental health services to people in the Rockingham Kwinana area: Rockingham Kwinana Child & Adolescent Mental Health Service Rockingham Kwinana Mental Health Service (Adult) PaRK Older Adult Mental Health Service
E756 [ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
5. Non government organisations: This information is not available to the Mental Health Division through contract reporting requirements. Public community mental health services: At midday on 11 June 2009 there were 32 people on the general waitlist for accessing public community mental health services in the Rockingham Kwinana area. Urgent referrals are prioritised and seen as soon as possible. People on the waitlist are monitored and if problems escalate, they can be seen urgently.
Page 184 – Income Statement – Expenses – Employee Benefits 1. The Budget paper assumes a steady increase in the cost of employee benefits over time. What assumptions are being made about increases in the number of health employees as a result of the workforce recruitment and retention strategies as set out at page 167? 2. Regarding the staffing of RPH and Fiona Stanley Hospital in particular, can you expand on this?
Answer: 1. The workforce recruitment and retention strategies contained on page 167 will lead to the overall increase in FTEs as set out on page 184 (2008-09 estimated actual 31,104 growing to 31,419 in 2009- 10) which, in part, reflect the increase in employee benefits set out on the same page (2008-09 estimated actual $2.84 billion growing to $3.0billion in 2009-10). 2. The completion of Fiona Stanley Hospital and the impact of retaining RPH is outside of the forward estimates.
Additional Questions — Questions: Hon Ken Travers asked: 1. As of the last date you reported to Treasury on your finances: Answer: 31 May 2009 1.1 Can you please identify all accounts held by your agency? Answer: Please refer to Appendix 1. 1.2 How much cash is held in each of these accounts? Answer: Total cash as at 31 May 2009 is $450.436 million. Please refer to Appendix 1. 1.3 How much of this cash is restricted or subject to approval or control? Answer: The amount of cash that is restricted or subject to approval is $145.573 million. 1.4 As of this date, what is your estimated annual average cash as a percentage of your appropriation? Answer: As at 31 May 2009 ($000) Total Appropriation 4,239,710# Total Cash 450,436* Cash as a per cent of appropriation 10.6% # Total Appropriation represents appropriation from all sources expected for 2008-09 as published in the 2009-10 Budget Papers. * Includes restricted cash.
2. As of the last date you internally monitored each account your agency has: Answer: 23 June 2009. 2.1 How much cash is held in each of these accounts? Answer: Total cash as at 23 June 2009 is $445.182 million. Please refer to Appendix 1. 2.2 How much of this cash is restricted or subject to approval or control? Answer: The amount of cash that is restricted or subject to approval is $222.864 million. 2.3 As of this date, what is your estimated annual average cash as a percentage of your appropriation?
[ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E757
Answer: As at 23 June 2009 ($000) Total Appropriation 4,239,710# Total Cash 445,182* Cash as a per cent of appropriation 10.5%
# Total Appropriation represents appropriation from all sources expected for 2008-09 as published in the 2009-10 Budget Papers * Includes restricted cash 3. Please provide, for each question below, what you expect to be the figures as of 30 June 2009? 3.1 How much cash is held in each of these accounts? 3.2 How much of this cash is restricted or subject to approval or control? 3.3 As of this date, what is your estimated annual average cash as a percentage of your appropriation? Answer: WA Health will provide this additional detail when the financial year end close of accounts has been completed. Question: Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich asked: 4. I refer to the Government’s aspiration for savings of $7.6 billion over five years across government as outlined on page 13 of the budget overview and ask — 4.1 Is your agency redirecting any capital works expenditure — if so can you provide details including value? Answer: The Government's capital works audit has realised a $3 billion saving in capital works expenditure across the forward estimates period (to 2012-13) through the identification of projects that have been either deferred or cancelled. The table on page 127 of Budget Paper No.3 - Economic and Fiscal Outlook identifies the distribution of these savings by agency. WA Health's contribution to the savings total is $400.7 million. The table on p138 of Budget Paper No.3 - Economic and Fiscal Outlook identifies the specific health infrastructure projects that contributed to the achievement of the savings target. 4.2 Is the agency selling surplus government land or assets, and if so can the Minister provide a list of land or assets earmarked for sale? Answer: The Department of Health has estimated asset sales generating revenue of $1.8 million over the next 2 years from the sale of surplus assets. Surplus assets currently earmarked for sale are listed below: Portion of Bridgetown Hospital site Dwellingup Nursing Post Old Morawa Hospital site Portion of Whitby Falls Hospital site Old Pemberton Hospital site Staff Housing Pinjarra (67 Congdon Ave) Staff Housing Port Hedland (Lot 76 The Esplanade) Old Port Hedland Hospital site Portion of York Hospital site 4.3 Is the agency proposing to privatize any of its function or contract out any of its services — if so, which ones? Answer: There are no immediate or approved plans to privatise any functions or contract out any services that are not already privatised or contracted out. 4.4 Is the agency intending to reduce staff numbers over the next 4 years and if so what ceiling has the agency set and how many staff will be shed? Answer: Please refer to Budget Statements Budget Paper No. 2 Volume 1 p.184 footnote C: “The full-time equivalent (FTE) for 2007-08 Actual, 2008-09 Estimated Actual and the 2009-10 Estimate are 29,180, 31,104, and 31,419 respectively.” 4.5 Is the agency aware of the Government’s new responsible public sector wages policy — if so, what is it? Answer: Yes. The Public Sector Wages policy is set out in detail in the document published under that title by the Department of Commerce on 31 March 2009.
E758 [ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
5 I refer to page 179 - The asset investment program facilitates remodelling and development of health infrastructure consistent with Governments aims, objectives .and priorities for health reform. The planned capital expenditure for 2009-10 is $572 million. I ask in respect of the South Metropolitan Area Health Service: Modifications at Royal Perth Hospital, to ensure that these key facilities remain clinically appropriate pending relocation and/or redevelopment. 5.1 What is the future of the RPH: steering committee, given that Dr Phillip Montgomery has resigned as Chair? Answer: Please refer to the Director General's evidence to the Committee indicating a continuing need for the committee to involve key stake holders in future planning for the Royal Perth Hospital Precinct. 5.2 Why did Dr Montgomery resign? Answer: Dr Montgomery retired from the WA Health State Public Service. 5.3 Who will replace Dr Phillip Montgomery as Chair? Answer: A replacement for Dr Montgomery as chair of the Royal Perth Precinct Committee has not yet been finalised. 5.4 What does this resignation mean for the RPH redevelopment? Answer: Planning for the redevelopment of Royal Perth Hospital will continue. 5.5 What is the steering committee looking at and when will its work be complete? Answer: The role of the Royal Perth Precinct Committee is to provide advice and recommendations to the Government on the redevelopment of the RPH precinct, which covers five inner city blocks. 5.6. Why has this not been listed under election commitments given that this was a core Liberal promise? Answer: Establishment of the Royal Perth Precinct Committee was not an election commitment; it was announced by the Minister for Health on 22 October 2008. In relation to the re-development of Royal Perth Hospital more generally, the allocation of $20 million for planning and site works to support the transformation of Royal Perth Hospital into a 400 bed facility was identified as an election commitment allocation on pages 92- 93 of the 2008-09 Mid Year Financial Projections Statement published by the Department of Treasury and Finance in December 2008. The allocation is also indicated on page 138 of Budget Paper No.3 - Economic and Fiscal Outlook as a policy decision taken between the 2008/09 Budget and 2008/09 Mid Year Review that the asset investment program. 5.7 What modifications will be done at RPH and at what cost? Answer: Health capital works program contains $9.825 million in holding funds for Royal Perth Hospital. $6.089 million is estimated to be spent to 30 June 2009 on a range of projects including the Burns/Trauma Unit Development and the Relocation of Podiatry and Diabetes Clinics. Of the remaining funds $1.347 million has been allocated to the Breast Clinic Redevelopment, leaving $2.389 million available for minor works modifications determined on a priority needs basis. 5.8 Is it the intent of Government to relocate the hospital or redevelop it? 5.9 If the intent is to relocate it — where will it be relocated and how much is allocated for this relocation? 5.10 If the intent is to redevelop it — what will be redeveloped and how much is allocated for this? Answer 5.8 - 5.10: The Government’s intention is to retain Royal Perth Hospital in its current location. Clinical services planning is underway to determine the range of services that will be provided by RPH into the future. 5.11 I refer to the government’s decision to retain RPH as a tertiary hospital and a major trauma facility and the fact that this will result in significant cost implications for the health system and I ask: 5.12 What are the significant cost implications for the health system? 5.13 If you do not know the answer to this question — how can we have any confidence in the integrity of this budget? 5.14 What will be the cost to the health system in 2013-14 from operating the 400-bed RPH trauma facility and the commissioning of the new 643-bed Fiona Stanley Hospital? 5.15 If the minister does not know the cost then how could this health budget have been prepared? Answer 5.11 -5.15: I refer to the Director General’s evidence to the Committee to the effect that the planning process for the future of Royal Perth Hospital will determine recurrent cost implications.
[ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E759
Appendix 1 Bank Accounts Account Name Balance as at Balance as at 31/05/2009 23/06/2009 Dental Health Service Ops 73,660 101,218 EMHS Specialist Accounting 41,109 318,620 Health Department Operating 234,455,957 272,708,649 Information Health Alliance 4,463,376 4,973,475 King Edward Memorial Hosp 64,403 111,551 MHSB Operating Acct 4,442,927 20,808,708 Next Step Specialist Drug 2,356,341 1,543,575 Pathwest Lab Medic 2,244,303 876,918 Peel Health Serv Ops 14,132 8,715 QEII Medical Trust 62,239 75,891 Sir Charles Gairdner Hosp 1,376,965 3,777,768 Sir Charles Gairdner Hosp 82,119 82,298 SMHS Operating Account 675,738 1,819,385 WCHS Operating Account 419,176 419,126 WACHS Perth 12,854,185 29,283,926 Goldfields South East Health 441,114 372,577 WA Country Health Service Great Southern Health Region 2,289,467 739,088 Kimberley Health Region 340,840 588,919 WACHS - Midwest Operating Account 255,684 181,444 WACHS Pilbara Gascoyne Health 1,320,580 2,141,992 WA Country Health Service - South West Summary 1,249,914 1,464,232 WACHS Wheatbelt Region 2,142,041 934,790 EMAHS SPAS 1,100,000 - EMAHS SPAS 1,000,000 1,000,000 EMAHS SPAS 3,200,000 3,200,000 EMAHS SPAS 1,500,000 - EMAHS SPAS 2,500,000 - EMAHS SPAS 2,000,000 - EMAHS SPAS 2,700,000 - EMAHS SPAS 1,050,000 1,050,000 EMAHS SPAS 1,300,000 1,300,000 EMAHS SPAS 2,000,000 2,000,000 EMAHS SPAS 1,350,000 1,350,000 EMAHS SPAS 2,000,000 2,000,000 EMAHS SPAS 2,500,000 2,500,000 EMAHS SPAS 1,000,000 1,000,000 SMAHS SPAS 2,500,000 2,500,000 SMAHS OPERATING 27,700,000 - SMAHS OPERATING 20,950,000 - SMAHS SPAS 1,300,000 1,300,000 SMAHS SPAS 1,000,000 - SMAHS SPAS 1,000,000 - SMAHS SPAS 700,000 700,000 SMAHS SPAS 1,500,000 1,500,000 SMAHS SPAS 1,575,000 1,575,000 NMAHS QEII 35,000 1,485,000 NMAHS QEII 1,496,000 1,000,000 PATHWEST 9,475,000 11,300,000 DENTAL 1,775,000 425,000 CAHS OPERATING 13,900,000 14,550,000 CAHS SPAS 1,750,000 1,750,000 CAHS SPAS 1,000,000 1,000,000 CAHS SPAS 900,000 900,000
E760 [ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
Account Name Balance as at Balance as at 31/05/2009 23/06/2009 CAHS SPAS 1,000,000 1,000,000 CAHS SPAS 950,000 950,000 CAHS SPAS 1,800,000 1,800,000 CAHS SPAS 1,200,000 1,200,000 CAHS SPAS 700,000 700,000 CAHS SPAS 850,000 850,000 CAHS SPAS 1,000,000 1,000,000 CAHS SPAS 600,000 600,000 NMAHS OPERATING/SPAS 35,675,000 22,175,000 NMAHS OPERATING/SPAS 17,875,000 12,825,000 WACHS GSER DONATIONS 83,535 83,535 WACHS GREAT SOUTHERN HEALTH REGION DONATIONS AND BEQUEST 483,458 483,458 WEST KIMBERLEY HEALTH SERVICE BEQUESTS AND DONATIONS 359,575 359,575 DONATIONS ACCOUNT 840,424 840,424 WACHS PILBARA BEQUESTS & DONATIONS 288,732 288,732 AUGUSTA DISTRICT HOSPITAL 66,265 66,265 BOYUP BROOK & DIST SOLD MEM HOSP PATIENTS GENERAL DONATIONS 7,342 7,342 TRUST A/C BOYUP BROOK & DIST SOLD MEM HOSP PATIENTS GENERAL 16,830 16,830 DONATIONSTRUST A/C BRIDGETOWN DISTRICT HOSPITAL BOARD GENERAL DONATIONS TRUST 9,733 9,733 FUND BRIDGETOWN DISTRICT HOSPITAL BOARD GENERAL DONATIONS TRUST 10,838 10,838 FUND INTERST BUNBURY HEALTH BOARD 128,525 128,525 BUSSELTON COMMUNITY HEALTH & DEVELOPMENT CENTRE BEQUESTS & 8,669 8,669 DONS BUSSELTON DISTRICT HOSPITAL BEQUESTS AND DONATIONS 65,344 65,344 COLLIE HEALTH SERVICE BEQUESTS AND DONATIONS 94,269 94,269 DONNYBROOK/BALINGUP HEALTH SERVICE BOARD BEQUESTS AND 8,758 8,758 DONATIONS HARVEY DISTRICT HOSPITAL BOARD GENERAL DONATIONS A/C 11,484 11,484 PERMANENT CARE HARVEY DISTRICT HOSPITAL GENERAL DONATIONS 51,698 51,698 MARGARET RIVER DISTRICT HOSPITAL BEQUESTS AND DONATIONS TRUST 28,381 28,381 ACCOUNT NANNUP DISTGRICT HOSP HOSPITAL SERVICE ACCOUNT 14,861 14,861 NANNUP DISTRICT HOSP HOSPITAL SERVICE ACCOUNT 14,861 14,861 NANNUP DISTRICT HOSP HOSPITAL SERVICE ACCOUNT 23,977 23,977 PEMBERTON HOSPITAL BOARD 3,307 3,307 WDH COMFORTS FUND ACCOUNT 9,136 9,136 YARLOOP HOSITAL BOARD DON’T A/C CASH MANAGEMENT 69,340 69,340 POPULATION HEALTH EASTERN 591 591 BRUCE ROCK HOSPITAL 3,239 3,239 COMMUNITY HEALTH 1,274 1,274 NORTHAM HOSPITAL 100,515 100,515 YORK HEALTH SERVICE 43,122 43,122 BEVERLEY HEALTH SERVICE 227,554 227,554 MOORA HEALTH SERVICE 9,203 9,203 CUNDERDIN HEALTH SERVIC 3,697 3,697 DALWALLINU HEALTH SERVICE 18,819 18,819 WONGAN HILLS HEALTH SERVICE 3,683 3,683 WYALKATCHEM HEALTH SERVICE 1,692 1,692 GOOMALLING HEALTH SERVICE 100 100
[ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E761
Account Name Balance as at Balance as at 31/05/2009 23/06/2009 QUAIRADING HEALTH SERVICE TERM DEPOSIT 36,184 36,184 QUAIRADING HEALTH SERVICE 9,913 9,913 MERREDIN HEALTH SERVICE 5,356 5,356 L BARBARY TRUST 111,167 111,167 SOUTHERN CROSS HOSPITAL 7,811 7,811 KELLERBERRIN HEALTH SERVICE 15,235 15,235 KUNUNOPPIN HEALTH SERVICE 1,256 1,256 NAREMBEEN HEALTH SERVICE 1,798 1,798 NARROGIN HEALTH SERVICE 498 498 LAKE GRACE HEALTH SERVICE 3,219 3,219 BODDINGTON HEALTH SERVICE 1,148 1,148 CORRIGIN HEALTH SERVICE 6,284 6,284 KONDININ HEALTH SERVICE 17,582 17,582 PINGELLY HEALTH SERVICE 13,491 13,491 WICKEPIN HEALTH SERVICE 3,742 3,742 WILLIAMS HEALTH SERVICE 16,456 16,456 Total 450,436,242 445,181,835 DIVISION 13: MINES AND PETROLEUM —
[Supplementary Information No. F1]. Hon Robin Chapple asked: There was no identification of FTE allocation for, say, May 2008 in relation to appropriations expenses and cash assets. Is there such an FTE allocation? Answer: 855 FTE’s
[Supplementary Information No. F2. ] Hon Robin Chapple asked: how many additional staff since 1999, 2000 and 2001 were there for each of the department’s functions?” Answer: As a consequence of significant internal and external restructures and organisational changes over the past 10 years it is not possible to identify how many additional staff relate to each of the Department’s functions.
[Supplementary Information No. F3. ] Hon Robin Chapple asked: for each of those functions, what new staff have been allocated since 1999, 2000 and 2001? Answer: As a consequence of significant internal and external restructures and organisational changes over the past 10 years it is not possible to identify how many new staff have been allocated to the Department’s functions.
Vol 1, from page 203 – Appropriations, Expenses and Cash Assets — Hon Robin Chapple asked: Regarding note (a) I ask, how do the staffing levels of the new Department of Mines and Petroleum compare to the similar entity of the late 90s and early 2000s? Similarly, how do the new staffing levels of the Department of State Development compare to the similar entity of the late 90s and early 2000s? (we acknowledge that State Development is not specifically being discussed on this hearing day, but the responsible Minister in the Legislative Council is also the Leader of the House and we presume the Leader was heavily involved in the reorganisation of these departments) Answer: 1. 1999/2000 602 Department of Minerals and Energy 2000/2001 602 Department of Minerals and Energy May 2009 771 Department of Mines and Petroleum 2. DSD FTE information:
E762 [ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
• DSD FTE ceiling - 165 • DSD FTE as at March 2009 - 157 DRD FTE information: • DRD 1998/99 FTE - 108.9 • DRD 1999/00 FTE - 101.48 • DRD 2000/01 FTE - 102.99 It should be noted that there is little value in comparing the former entity with the Department of State Development which carries out a significantly broader role for the State, including responsibility for promoting and attracting international investment in strategic resources and industrial projects, and supporting the growth of Western Australia's export industries through the WA Global Network (Perth and overseas trade offices). The FTE figure for this area of the Department of State Development is 47.9 as at March 2009. The former Department of Resources Development's role was solely to facilitate the development of the State's resources.
Vol 1, from page 205 – Significant Issues Impacting the Agency Regarding the comment, “the Department is involved in national programs to both identify suitable sites and promote greenhouse capture from industry for geological storage,” I ask: 3. What sums of money are proposed to be spent in the budget estimates and the forward estimates on the identification of sites of potential suitability for carbon capture and storage (CCS)? 4. What sums of money are proposed to be spent in the budget estimates and forward estimates on the promotion of CCS with industry? 5. What projects (other than of course the Gorgon proposal) during the budget estimates and forward estimates period are expected to respond to the above moves by the Departments and actually use CCS? How much carbon dioxide is estimated to be sequestered during that time period? What will be the net emissions (after CCS) associated with the projects that will be using CCS? Regarding the comment “The Department continues to ensure that it is in a strong position to respond to State and Commonwealth initiatives to expand conservation estates and evaluate land access issues,” I ask: 6. From the 07/08 period onwards, how often has the Department or its predecessor agency’s ‘response’ involved support for those proposed new conservation areas? How often, therefore, has the Department or its predecessor opposed proposed new conservation areas? Which proposed new conservation areas were opposed? 7. Which currently proposed new conservation areas does the new Department currently oppose? What sums of money are proposed to be spent in the budget estimates and forward estimates on monitoring developments with those proposed new conservation areas, and making submissions in response to either internal government or public consultation processes regarding those proposed new conservation areas? 8. What funding, if any, has been allocated to the bilateral agreement regarding the Dampier Archipelago national heritage listed area? Regarding the comment, “The department aims to ensure that Western Australia’s undeveloped resources are recognised to achieve a balanced approach between the future development of the State and the need to protect the State’s environment,” I ask: 9. How is the new Department of Mines and Petroleum now structured in terms of environmental regulation services? How many full-time equivalent staff are dedicated to that function? Are all positions currently filled, and if not, why not? Please provide an overview of the staff positions, their responsibilities, and the key professional skill sets of the incumbent staff persons in those roles. 10. How will the new Department regulate the exploration for and mining of uranium? Which lines items relate to potential infrastructure for, future assessment of, and compliance functions regarding the exploration for and mining of uranium? Which other State agencies will have a role in any or all stages of the processes of exploring for and mining uranium, including occupational health and safety? Will the Department or any other State agency be incurring any costs associated with the possible regulatory involvement of either or both SA and NT agencies in relation to their possible handling of our uranium ore leading up to its exporting? Answer:
[ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E763
3. The Department of Mines and Petroleum proposes to spend approximately $680,000 on the identification of sites of potential suitability for carbon capture and storage (CCS) in 2009/2010 and currently proposes to spend approximately $230,000 in future years. 4. The sums of money referred to in the response to question 3, above, are all designed to promote CCS opportunities in Western Australia to industry. 5. No projects are likely to utilize CCS technologies until 2013/2015, however, it is expected some projects will have completed front end engineering and design and be in the construction phase. 6. The Department of Mines and Petroleum would require further time to provide the relevant statistics. In general, the Department's response to proposed conservation areas is based on an assessment of the threats to conservation values from multiple land use and the opportunity cost of lost access to the State's resources endowment in the area. It has generally suggested revised boundary configurations or opposed new conservation areas where high conservation values have not been demonstrated and high prospectivity is known. The Department opposed blanket conservation area status for purchased pastoral leases and an ad hoc proposal for a Camden Sound Marine Park. 7. The Department of Mines and Petroleum has opposed blanket conservation area status for purchased pastoral leases and is requiring further information on the proposed Camden Sound Marine Park. Participating in land use planning for the State, including providing advice in relation to the consideration of new conservation areas, is an integral part of the agency's role. The only specific funding allocation is $670,000 in relation to responding to applications presented to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure to vary the use of specific parcels of land. 8. No funding has been allocated. 9. The Environment Division comprises four branches: Native Vegetation; Minerals; Petroleum; and Strategic Policy. These branches are supported by a small Business Development area. There are 50 full-time equivalent staff in the Division providing environmental regulatory services. One position is currently vacant, with recruitment and selection in process. The operational requirements of environment regulation staff in relation to the mining and petroleum industries is to monitor, assess and inspect the environmental impact/s of resource industry operations. This includes: • setting and certifying compliance with environmental conditions during exploration and production for the mining and petroleum industries; and • liaising with industry and the community on mining and the environment Environmental regulatory staff require the following: • Bachelor of Environmental Science or equivalent (Specified Callings) • Experience in conducting assessments for compliance against legislative requirements and commitments contained in approved environment documentation • Certification as Auditors and Inspectors under the Petroleum and Mining Acts • Native Vegetation regulatory staff also requires certification as Auditors under the Environment Protection Act. 10. In the first instance exploration will be managed by assessment and approval of a radiation management plan for programs of work followed by monitoring of results, rehabilitation and safety issues. Mining regulation will draw on the experience of the Northern Territory and South Australia supported by a policy framework and guidelines. The line items are at page 207 of the budget papers under 1: Resource Regulation – total cost of service. Regulation will be coordinated with other agencies such as the Health Department (Radiation Health Branch), the Department of Environment and Conservation and Environment Protection Agency. There are no estimates of costs that may arise should either South Australia or the Northern Territory become involved.
Hon Ken Travers asked: 1. As of the last date you reported to the Treasury on your finances: 1.1 Can you please identify all accounts held by your agency?
E764 [ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
1.2 How much cash is held in each of these accounts? 1.3 How much of this cash is restricted or subject to approval or control? 1.4 As of this date, what is your estimated annual average cash as a percentage of your appropriation? 2. As of the last date you internally monitored each account your agency has: 2.1 How much cash is held in each of these accounts? 2.2 How much of this cash is restricted or subject to approval or control? 2.3 As of this date, what is your estimated annual average cash as a percentage of your appropriation? 3. Please provide, for each question below, what you expect to be the figures as of 30 June 2009: 3.1 How much cash is held in each of these accounts? 3.2 How much of this cash is restricted or subject to approval or control? 3.3 As of this date, what is your estimated annual average cash as a percentage of your appropriation? 4. I refer to the Government’s aspiration for savings of $7.6 billion over five years across government as outlined on page 13 of the budget overview and ask- 4.1 Is your agency redirecting any capital works expenditure – if so can you provide details including value? 4.2 Is the agency selling surplus government land or assets, and if so can the Minister provide a list of land or assets earmarked for sale? 4.3 Is the agency proposing to privatize any of its function or contract out any of its services – if so, which ones? 4.4 Is the agency intending to reduce staff numbers over the next 4 years and if so what ceiling has the agency set and how many staff with be shed? 4.5 Is the agency aware of the Government’s new responsible public sector wages policy – if so, what is it? Answer: 1.1 Commonwealth Bank Operating Account, WA Government Banking Centre. 1.2 $54,349,007.49 (Includes Administered Funds). 1.3 $47,102,857.90 (Includes Administered Funds). 1.4 Based on the amounts stated above cash represents 6.62%. 2.1 $19,733,328.05 (Includes Administered Funds). 2.2 $16,730,104.55 (Includes Administered Funds). 2.3 Based on the amounts stated above cash represents 2.74%. 3.1 $28,747,000.00 (Includes Administered Funds). 3.2 $17,250,000.00 (Includes Administered Funds). 3.3 Based on the amounts stated above cash represents 10.51%. 4.1 No 4.2 No 4.3 No 4.4 No 4.5 Yes, in accordance with the Government’s Public Sector Wages Policy 2009.
[ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E765
DIVISION 28: EDUCATION AND TRAINING —
[Supplementary Information No H1.] Hon Ken Travers asked: how many vehicles are there in the department’s total fleet of vehicles? Answer: As at 19 June 2009, the Department had 527 passenger and light commercial vehicles that were leased through the Department of Treasury and Finance StateFleet arrangement. This figure does not include owned vehicles which are generally buses and located at schools.
[Supplementary Information No H2.] Hon Matt Benson-Lidholm asked: was there any funding in the budget or the forward estimates for improvements to facilities at the Esperance Residential College; and, if so, what moneys had been allocated; and, if not, when can students and parents expect the current poor situation to change? Answer: No funds have been allocated in the budget or forward estimates specifically for improvements to the Esperance Residential College. The closure of the Ravensthorpe Nickel Mine in 2008 has reduced demand by approximately 10 students and slightly eased the enrolment pressure on the facility. The Country High School Hostels Authority is reviewing its asset plan for this facility in the light of the immediate enrolment outlook and is preparing a report for my consideration.
[Supplementary Information No H3.] Hon Alison Xamon asked: in relation to central office administration operations, where, by division, were the three per cent efficiency dividend cuts being made? Answer:
Title of Administration or Operation Function $ Amount Cut over Forward Estimates $000, Staff Reductions 46 000 Workforce Policy 1 343 Policy and Accountability 5 139 School Administration 936 Training 1 285 Finance 906 Grants and Subsidies 4 000 Facilities and Services 3 586 Shared Service Centre 1 600 Technical Infrastructure Reforms 12 000 Corporate communications 1 631 Total 78 426
[Supplementary Information No H4.] Hon Kate Doust asked: is it true that secondary schools in the metropolitan area could see their bills go up by in excess of $20 000? Specifically, provide a comparative increase for Comet Bay Primary School, by the end of the year. Answer: The level of increase will depend on the size of the school. The estimated increase for Comet Bay Primary School is $6115 for a full year.
[Supplementary Information No H5.] Hon Helen Bullock asked: which primary schools are earmarked for closure over the next four years? Please provide a schedule, if the Minister has one. Answer: There is no schedule of primary schools earmarked for closure or amalgamation over the next four years.
E766 [ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
[Supplementary Information No H6.] Hon Helen Bullock asked for a list of education department land that has been earmarked for sale. Answer:
ESTIMATED REVENUE FROM LAND SALES Location Estimated Reason for Sale Value $000 Albany SHS – part only 300 000 Surplus land being disposed of. Alexander Heights PS Site 5 070 000 Vacant site surplus to educational needs. Endangered flora species onsite. Balcatta SHS – part only 500 000 Land excision of surplus land. Blackmore PS 7 250 000 Amalgamation of Blackmore PS and Girrawheen PS on the Girrawheen PS site (Hudson Park PS) Camberwarra PS 8 000 000 Amalgamation of Camberwarra and Craigie PS on the Craigie PS site (Craigie Heights PS) Carine TAFE 24 000 000 Surplus to TAFE needs. City Beach HS – part only 8 700 000 Closed at the end of 2005. Students relocated largely to Shenton College and Churchlands SHS. Disposal process commenced. Coolbellup PS 7 000 000 Amalgamation of Coolbellup, North Lake and Koorilla Primary Schools. New school built (Coolbellup Community School) on Len Packham Reserve. Opened May 2006. Craigie HS 15 200 000 Craigie Senior High School closed at the end of 2003 due to declining enrolments. Students relocated to Belridge, Padbury and Duncraig SHS's. East Greenwood PS 7 500 000 Amalgamation of Allenswood PS and East Greenwood PS on the Allenswood PS site. Ferndale PS 5 000 000 Amalgamation of Lynwood PS, Kinlock PS and Ferndale PS on the Lynwood PS site (Bannister Creek PS) Hainsworth PS 7 250 000 Amalgamation of Hainsworth PS and Montrose PS on the Montrose PS site (Roseworth PS) Harvey Land Sales – part only 1 860 000 Relocation of Agriculture College to Wokalup site. Karratha HS – part only 6 000 000 Relocation of Karratha HS on the TAFE site Kinlock PS 5 000 000 Amalgamation of Lynwood PS, Kinlock PS and Ferndale PS on the Lynwood PS site (Bannister Creek PS Koorilla PS 6 400 000 Amalgamation of Coolbellup, North Lake and Koorilla Primary Schools. New school built (Coolbellup Community School) on Len Packham Reserve. Opened May 2006. Manjimup PS 1 300 000 Manjimup Primary school relocated and rebuilt on Senior high school site. Midland PS 2 200 000 Closed at the end of 2005. Students relocated to Midvale, Woodbridge, Swan View and Clayton View primary schools and Moortidj Noongar Community College. Mount Lawley TAFE 6 500 000 Relocation of programs to other campuses of Central TAFE North Lake PS 6 600 000 Amalgamation of Coolbellup, North Lake and Koorilla Primary Schools. New school built (Coolbellup Community School) on Len Packham Reserve. Opened May 2006. Orana PS 1 400 000 Surplus to Departmental needs Rocky Gully PS – part only 500 000 School closed at the end of the 2003 school year. Students relocated to Frankland and Mount Barker Primary Schools. Shark Bay PS 860 000 Surplus to Departmental needs, new school built on other site Subiaco Oil & Gas 8 600 000 Surplus TAFE site Swanbourne Primary School - part 3 000 000 Balance of primary school not sold to Land only Tambrey PS Excision – part only 2 500 000 Excision of excess land. Waikiki HS Site (Western Power Site) 1 700 000 Surplus land, two lot subdivision. One lot being purchased by Western Power for substation. Balance to be redeveloped for residential. Wattleup PS 3 600 000 School closed at the end of the 2005 school year due to declining enrolments. Students relocated to a number of metropolitan schools
[ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E767
West Armadale 3 150 000 Surplus site due to identification of more appropriate site Westminster JPS 3 000 000 Surplus land being disposed of. - Total Revenue 159 940 000
[Supplementary Information No H7.] Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich asked: is the Ngurrawaana Remote Community School closing? Answer: No.
[Supplementary Information No H8.] Hon Ken Travers asked: has the department identified whether the parking levy for vehicles in the City of Perth would add to its costs in the 2009/10 year in terms of the parking that it had in the City of Perth; and has the department already identified how much that would add to its budget and had it allowed for that increase in parking costs in its budget for 2009/10? Answer: No allowance has been made in the 2009/10 budget, as the cost is yet to be determined.
[Supplementary Information No H9.] Hon Helen Bullock asked, in relation to division 28, page 348 and to “Economic Audit”, the following: (i) What is the review of transition support for secondary students? (ii) Why have savings been committed over the forward estimates and does this mean that it is ongoing? (iii) Does this indicate that the government will move year 7 students into high school and so there is no need for transition support? (iv) Is the review of transition support for secondary students the only economic audit stage 1 outcome for education and training? (v) If no to part four, what are the other economic stage 1 outcomes in education and training? Answer: (i) This is the review of the various programs that provide support for students moving from school to work or further education. (ii) The savings will be realised over the forward estimates because the benefits will be sustained. (iii) No. This does not relate to Year 7 students. (iv) Yes (v) Not applicable
Additional Questions — Hon Ken Travers asked: 1. As of the last date you reported to Treasury on your finances: 1.1 Can you please identify all accounts held by your agency? 1.2 How much cash is held in each of these accounts? 1.3 How much of this cash is restricted or subject to approval or control? 1.4 As of this date, what is your estimated annual average cash as a percentage of your appropriation? 2. As of the last date you internally monitored each account your agency has: 2.1 How much cash is held in each of these accounts? 2.2 How much of this cash is restricted or subject to approval or control? 2.3 As of this date, what is your estimated annual average cash as a percentage of your appropriation?
E768 [ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
3. Please provide, for each question below, what you expect to be the figures as of 30 June 2009? 3.1 How much cash is held in each of these accounts? 3.2 How much of this cash is restricted or subject to approval or control? 3.3 As of this date, what is your estimated annual average cash as a percentage of your appropriation? Answer: 1.1 The Department of Education and Training has: • an operating account, • an interest bearing account, • school bank accounts and • an account at Treasury for the 27th pay. 1.2 As at 31 May 2009 the balances were: Operating Account $200,295,699 Interest Bearing Account $19,123,388 School Bank Accounts $207,673,715 Treasury 27th Pay Account $22,489,999 1.3 The amount of restricted cash as at 31 May 2009 was $94,235,155. 1.4 The Department does not calculate or use an estimated annual average cash balance. The cash balances of the Department are managed through analysis of current cash balances, restricted cash and the estimated timing and amount of receipts and payments, which is used to determine when cash needs to be drawn down from the Treasury bank account. 2.1 See answer to question 1.2 2.2 See answer to question 1.3 2.3 See answer to question 1.4. 3.1 Operating Account $101,757,000 Interest Bearing Account $34,684,000 School Bank Accounts $190,000,000 Treasury 27th Pay Account $34,080,000 3.2 The estimated amount of restricted cash as at 30 June 2009 is $103,080,000 3.3 The Department does not calculate or use an estimated annual average cash balance. The cash balances of the Department are responsibly managed through careful analysis of current cash balances, restricted cash and the estimated timing and amount of receipts and payments, which is used to determine when cash needs to be drawn down from the Treasury bank account.
Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich asked: 4. I refer to the Government’s aspiration for savings of $7.6 billion over five years across government as outlined on page 13 of the budget overview and ask – 4.1 Is your agency redirecting any capital works expenditure - if so can you provide details including value? 4.2 Is the agency selling surplus government land or assets, and if so can the Minister provide a list of land or assets earmarked for sale? 4.3 Is the agency proposing to privatize any of its function or contract out any of its services - if so, which ones? 4.4 Is the agency intending to reduce staff numbers over the next 4 years and if so what ceiling has the agency set and how many staff with be shed? 4.5 Is the agency aware of the Government’s new responsible public sector wages policy - if so, what is it? 5. I refer to Division 28 page 348 under the Minister for Education and Training – 3% efficiency dividend in the education sector and ask;
[ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E769
5.1 I refer to Central Office Administration and Operations cut amounting to $78.4 m over the forward estimates and ask for a breakdown of those savings. 5.2 I refer to the cut to Education and Training support programs amounting to $172.8 m over the forward estimates and ask for a breakdown of those savings. 5.3 I refer to the cut to State - wide Schooling Provision Reforms amounting to $52.75 m over the forward estimates and ask for a breakdown of those savings. 6. I refer to division 28 - p347 under election commitments and ask In respect to your election commitments – better behaviour in public schools can the Minister advise - 6.1 How much funding will be allocated to the Behavior Management and Discipline (BM&D) strategy in 2009-2010? 6.2 How much funding will be allocated to the Behavior Management and Discipline (BM&D) strategy over the forward estimates? 6.3 Please provide the suspension data for all districts for the following years 7. I refer to Criminal screening of the existing education workforce and ask; 7.1 How much funding has been allocated in the 2009-2010 budget to functions associated with Criminal screening requirements of the Working with Children (Criminal Record Checking) Act 2004 which came into effect on 1 January 2006? 7.2 Are there any teachers or persons working in public or private schools that have not been screened as per the requirements of the Working with Children (Criminal Record Checking) Act 2004 which came into effect on 1 January 2006? 7.3 Has the department considered screening for other offences such as such as armed robbery, fraud, stealing and if not why not? 7.4 How many people who have been screened and who are working with children in state schools have been subsequently found to have allegations of inappropriate behaviour made against them? 7.4.1 How many of these have been charged? 7.4.2 How many of these have been convicted? 7.5 Since 2006 how many people working with children in state schools have been moved out of direct contact with children and placed elsewhere within the state education system pending investigations, inquiry outcomes or potential charges? 8. I refer to Division 28 page 348 under the Minister for Education and Training – under the section Economic Audit and ask – 8.1 What is the Review of Transition support for secondary students? 8.2 Why have savings been committed over the forward estimates and does this mean that it is ongoing? 8.3 Does this indicate that the government will move year 7 students into high school and so there is no need for transition support? 8.4 Is the Review of Transition support for secondary student s the only Economic Audit stage 1 outcome for Education and Training? 8.5 If no to 8.4 what are the other Economic stage 1 outcomes in education and training? 9. I refer to the 267 schools that have education assistants at least 1 FTE above their formula derived establishment derived and ask – 9.1 How many of the 267 schools that have education assistants at least 1 FTE above their formula derived establishment are in the; 9.1.1 Metropolitan region 9.1.2 Regional and rural WA 9.2 How many of the 267 schools that have education assistants at least 1 FTE above their formula derived establishment have two or more FTE above their formula? 9.2.1 Please list those schools and their current education assistant establishment. 9.3 Will all the schools that have education assistants at least 1 FTE above their formula derived establishment lose their FTE; and
E770 [ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
9.4 If so within what timeframe? 10. I refer to the $419 million or (11.4%) increase in Education and Training and ask – 10.1 What is the government’s current wages policy? 10.2 How much of the $419 million was for improved wages and conditions of teachers? 10.3 How much of the (11.4%) was for improved wages and conditions of teachers? 10.4 What percentage of the education budget was allocated to improved wages and conditions of teachers in – i) 2001 -2002 ii) 2002-2003 iii) 2003 -2004 iv) 2004 -2005 v) 2005 -2006 vi) 2006 -2007 vii) 2007 -2008 viii) 2008 -2009 10.5 What percentage of the education budget is projected to be allocated to improved wages and conditions of teachers over the forward estimates? i) 2009 -2010 ii) 2010 -2011 iii) 2011 -2012 iv) 2012 -2013 11. What are the administrative arrangements within the Department of Education and Training (DET) for reporting to each of the Ministers; are there separate dedicated senior management teams for each? 12. How regularly does each Minister meet with the Director General of DET? 13. Referring to page 348 what is the total saved over the next three years by removing the ‘It Pays to Learn’ allowance of $200 for school students and $400 for TAFE students; is it $58 million dollars ($58,325,000)? 14. Of the $58.3 million, what is the amount saved from the school aspect and the TAFE aspect of the scheme? 15. Also on page 348 is the funding for the Economic Stimulus Package for Training over the next three years of $47.3 million dollars achieved by ceasing the ‘It Pays to Learn’ scheme? 16. Where in the budget papers are the details of the constituent parts of the Economic Stimulus Package for Training? 17. Does the Economic Stimulus Package for Training include any direct financial assistance to trainees to replace the $400 ‘It Pays to Learn’ scheme? 18. Why is there a reduction in VET full time equivalent (FTE) staff numbers from 746 in the 2008-09 budget to a target of 688 for 2009-10 – a cut of 58 FTE? (Page 352) 19. What are the positions designated to be cut and how many TAFE workers will be affected? 20. How does the relatively stable VET budget over the forward estimates allow for the rapid growth in TAFE enrolments, running at a 17 per cent increase over the past year? (Page 352) 21. Why is there no provision to address the Auditor General’s finding in November 2008 that seven of WA’s ten TAFEs are in deficit? 22. Where in the Division 28 is there reference to the $10 million temporary workers’ compensation premium rebate for apprentices and trainees over the next two years; does this fall under the Ministerial responsibility of the Minister for Training or another Minister? 23. Why is the $10 million temporary workers’ compensation premium rebate narrow in application, covering only first year apprentices and trainees enrolled in Certificate III and above qualifications?
[ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E771
24. What support is there for apprentices and trainees not covered by the $10 million temporary workers’ compensation premium rebate over the next two years? 25. Where in the Division 28 is there reference to the $100 million small business payroll tax rebate over the next two years; does this fall under the ministerial responsibility of the Minister for Training or another Minister? 26. Does the $100 million small business payroll tax rebate include an incentive for employers to keep existing apprentices and trainees in work and to create new places; if not why not? 27. I refer to p352 under asset investment program dot point 1 and ask – 27.1 Which primary schools are earmarked for closure over the next 4 years – please provide a schedule. 27.2 Will any schools be sold off under the governments savings measures as highlighted in the budget overview page 13 where it states that savings of $7.6 billion over the next 5years will include “the sale of surplus government land’ 27.3 Can the Minister provide a list of education department land that has been earmarked for sale? 28. How much money is in the budget is allocated to managing underperforming teachers in accordance with Managing Unsatisfactory and substandard performance of teaching staff and school administrators, Policy and Procedures 2001? 29. Given the current 3 stage process for managing under performing teachers, how many teachers are there in each of the three categories in primary and secondary schools 30. How many teachers are there in each of the three categories in metropolitan and regional schools - 31. I refer to Training WA Planning for the future 2009-10 and the allocation of $47.7 million 31.1 Where in the Division 28 budget papers is reference to the $47.4 million training stimulus referred to in the Minister for Training’s press release of May 14? 31.2 Where in the Division 28 budget papers is reference to the ($17.6 million to Introduce course fee exemptions to help unemployed people into training? 31.3 Where in the Division 28 budget papers is reference to the ($10.6 million) to introduce a rebate on workers' compensation premiums for employers of first year Certificate III and above apprentices and trainees to encourage employers to invest in training? 31.4 Where in the Division 28 budget papers is reference to the ($3.0 million) to provide greater access for all Western Australians to career development services? 31.5 Where in the Division 28 budget papers is reference to the ($1.0 million). To provide additional funding to strengthen the Employment Directions Network to provide free career advice? 31.6 Where in the Division 28 budget papers is reference to the ($755 000) for the introduction of the 50% fee concessions for students to have their skills formally recognised through Recognition of Prior Learning and free recognition services for unemployed people? 31.7 Where in the Division 28 budget papers is reference to ($1.6 million for the eestablishment of a team to facilitate Recognition of Prior Learning? 31.8 Where in the Division 28 budget papers is reference to ($4.1 million) to run marketing and awareness campaigns to inform individuals and employers about training options during the economic downturn? 31.9 Where in the Division 28 budget papers is reference to ($5.7 million) to provide Certificate I foundation training to an additional 1500 Western Australians? 31.10 Where in the Division 28 budget papers is reference to ($2.1 million) to provide advice ands support for small business? 32. Is it the case that schools, Universities and Vocational Education and Training (VET) in schools are the responsibility of Minister Constable and are covered in Division 28:1 and 28:2? 33. Is it the case that TAFE colleges and private providers of technical and further education are under the responsibility of Minister Collier and are covered in Division 28:3 and also at pages 695 and 696 following Division 52?
E772 [ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
34. Why were the TAFE Colleges not included as part of 28:3? 35. Why is the Minister for Training not responsible for VET in schools? 36. Does the Minister for Education have responsibility for which VET programs are run in schools and also for the content of those programs? 37. What is the proportion of the total number of VET students who are in schools? 38. Is the regulation of training providers by the Department of Education Services (DES), Division 29 page 368, the responsibility of Minister Constable or Minister Collier? 39. Why has the Government departed from the previous practice of making one Minister responsible for Education and Training; are there added administrative costs as a result of this arrangement? 40. What are the administrative arrangements within the Department of Education and Training (DET) for reporting to each of the Ministers; are there separate dedicated senior management teams for each? 41. How regularly does each Minister meet with the Director General of DET? 42. Referring to page 348 what is the total saved over the next three years by removing the ‘It Pays to Learn’ allowance of $200 for school students and $400 for TAFE students; is it $58 million dollars ($58,325,000)? 43. Of the $58.3 million, what is the amount saved from the school aspect and the TAFE aspect of the scheme? 44. Also on page 348 is the funding for the Economic Stimulus Package for Training over the next three years of $47.3 million dollars achieved by ceasing the ‘It Pays to Learn’ scheme? 45. Where in the budget papers are the details of the constituent parts of the Economic Stimulus Package for Training? 46. Does the Economic Stimulus Package for Training include any direct financial assistance to trainees to replace the $400 ‘It Pays to Learn’ scheme? 47. Why is there a reduction in VET full time equivalent (FTE) staff numbers from 746 in the 2008-09 budget to a target of 688 for 2009-10 – a cut of 58 FTE? (Page 352) 48. What are the positions designated to be cut and how many TAFE workers will be affected? 49. How does the relatively stable VET budget over the forward estimates allow for the rapid growth in TAFE enrolments, running at a 17 per cent increase over the past year? (Page 352) 50. Why is there no provision to address the Auditor General’s finding in November 2008 that seven of WA’s ten TAFEs are in deficit? 51. Where in the Division 28 is there reference to the $10 million temporary workers’ compensation premium rebate for apprentices and trainees over the next two years; does this fall under the Ministerial responsibility of the Minister for Training or another Minister? 52. Why is the $10 million temporary workers’ compensation premium rebate narrow in application, covering only first year apprentices and trainees enrolled in Certificate III and above qualifications? 53. What support is there for apprentices and trainees not covered by the $10 million temporary workers’ compensation premium rebate over the next two years? 54. Where in the Division 28 is there reference to the $100 million small business payroll tax rebate over the next two years; does this fall under the ministerial responsibility of the Minister for Training or another Minister? 55. Does the $100 million small business payroll tax rebate include an incentive for employers to keep existing apprentices and trainees in work and to create new places; if not why not? 56. I refer to page 60 of the budget papers titled Details of Controlled Grants and Subsidies for Contracts and Agreements for the Delivery of Training and Employment Services by: TAFE Colleges; Curtin VET Centre; Kalgoorlie and Western Australian, Academy of Performing Arts. The total allocation for 2009-10 is $395,547 56.1 Can the minister provide me with a breakdown of the Training and Employment Services that will be funded in TAFE colleges? 56.2 Can the minister provide me with a breakdown of the Training and Employment Services that will be funded in Curtin VET centre?
[ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E773
57. I refer to page 348 under Economic Stimulus Package – Training, for which there are no details in this budget so therefore I will refer to pages 5 and 6 of the document Training WA – Planning for the Future 2009 - 2018 57.1 Which courses will be exempt from fees? 57.2 What term of unemployment must be reached to gain exemption from fees? 57.3 Is this fee exemption going to be targeted to all areas of training including apprenticeship and traineeships? 57.4 If not why not? 57.5 List the areas of training where this exemption shall apply. 57.6 Why is this rebate not offered to all apprentices and trainees, including those undertaking Certificate 1 and Certificate II courses? 57.7 How much will the Rebate be? 57.8 How will the Rebate be applied? 57.9 Will there be a payback scheme if the employer were to discontinue with the employment of Certificate III apprentice? 57.10 How many Certificate III are to be assisted by this initiative in 2009-10? 57.11 How will this team be made up? 57.12 Who will be involved as members of this team? 57.13 Where will this team be based? 57.14 How will this unit be made up? 57.15 Who will be involved as members of this unit? 57.16 What will happen to this unit when the economy strengthens? 57.17 Where will this unit be based? 57.18 What initiatives are going to be developed? 57.19 When will these initiatives be effective from? 57.20 What is the Minister doing to assist out of work apprentices and trainees? 57.21 What is the minister doing to assist electrical trade’s apprentices and trainees to complete their trades? 57.22 Will this team be a part of the West Coast Small Business Institute at West Coast TAFE? 57.23 If not, Why not? 57.24 If not, where will this team be based? 57.25 Who will be involved as members of this team? 57.26 Page 1 of the Training WA document states 17 000 extra places in this certificate. What proportion of that 17 000 is through the Productivity Places Program? 57.27 What training courses will be covered by the vouchers? 57.28 What costs will the training vouchers cover? 57.29 Will the vouchers be available for the whole of the course or only certain portions? 57.30 When will this be implemented? 57.31 What conditions will be imposed for small business to gain these vouchers? 57.32 How long will this program be in operation? 57.33 How much are the publicly allocated funds? 57.34 Who will the initiative be aimed at? 57.35 Who is in receipt of the funds at this time? 57.36 How will the initiative be implemented?
E774 [ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
57.37 What will be the criterion for receiving these funds? 57.38 Will this be implemented through a taskforce or committee? 57.39 If so, who will be a member of the taskforce or committee? 57.40 Will this taskforce or committee be reporting back to the Minister? 57.41 Will the recommendations from the taskforce or committee be tabled in Parliament? 57.42 Define ‘local’ in the context of the sentence “Target training in schools to local employment opportunities.” 57.43 Which businesses will this training be intended for? 57.44 Will the businesses have input into the training plans? 57.45 How will this be implemented? 57.46 When will this be implemented? 57.47 Who will be developing these initiatives? 57.48 When will these initiatives be ready for implementation? 57.49 Will these initiatives be tabled in Parliament? 57.50 What will the support services consist of? 57.51 Will already developed support services be used in this case? 57.52 Will new support services be developed? 57.53 If so, where will these support services operate from? 57.54 Who will be developing the new curriculum and models of assessment? 57.55 When will these initiatives and models be ready for implementation? 57.56 What kinds of workplace learning will they be applied to? 57.57 Will there be criteria for these initiatives? 57.58 What are the criteria? 57.59 Who will be developing the plan? 57.60 When will this plan be completed? 57.61 When is the forecast date of implementation of this plan? 57.62 Will this plan be tabled in Parliament? 57.63 If not, why not? 57.64 On what terms will this independence be implemented? 57.65 How will this be implemented? 57.66 [Question missing] 57.67 What will be the structure of TAFE colleges upon implementation of this initiative? 57.68 How will this affect funding of TAFE colleges? 57.69 How will this affect training outcomes in TAFE colleges? 57.70 What is the strategy for this initiative? 57.71 Who will be creating the strategy for this initiative? 57.72 When will this initiative be completed for implementation? 57.73 Which training and university courses will be a part of this initiative? 58. I refer to Division 28 page 348 under the Minister for Education and Training – 3% efficiency dividend in the TAFE sector and ask; 58.1 I refer to cuts to Administration and Operations amounting to $23.2m over the forward estimates and ask for a breakdown of those savings.
[ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E775
58.2 Where the cuts apply to colleges please provide the information separately using the same format. 59. I refer to Division 28 page 348 under the Minister for Education and Training – 3% efficiency dividend in the TAFE sector and ask; 59.1 I refer to cuts to College specific Reforms amounting to $4.49 m over the forward estimates and ask for a breakdown of those savings. 59.2 Where the cuts apply to colleges please provide the information separately using the same format. 60. I refer to Division 28 page 348 under the Minister for Education and Training – 3% efficiency dividend in the TAFE sector and ask; 60.1 I refer to cuts to Service Delivery Reforms amounting to $6.52 m over the forward estimates and ask for a breakdown of those savings. 60.2 Where the cuts apply to colleges please provide the information separately using the same format. 61. I refer to Division 28 page 348 under the Minister for Education and Training – 3% efficiency dividend in the TAFE sector and ask; 61.1 Why is the information in relation to the savings in the TAFE sector under the Minister for Education and Training? 61.2 Do you support the Minister for education applying the 3% efficiency dividend to take $34.2 million out of the TAFE sector? 61.3 Are you aware that $34.2 million in savings from the efficiency dividend together with savings from the removal of the It Pays to Learn Allowance saving from apprentices and Trainee of $58.3m means that $92.5 million has been taken out of training? 61.4 The Minister Economic Stimulus package is worth only $47.4 million – Given that you have taken $92.5m out of training - how can you claim that training is better off? 62. I refer to the issue of school based traineeships and ask; 62.1 How much has been allocated in the 2009-2010 budget to Aboriginal School based Traineeships? 62.2 Who is the responsible Minister for ASBT’s 62.3 Are ASBT’s still available at Certificate I (year 10) and Certificate 11 (Year 11 & 12) 62.4 What is the total government spend (Commonwealth and state) on the ASBT’s between 2004- 05 and 2009-10; 62.5 How much has the Commonwealth government and the state government each committed to support ASBT’s between 2004-05 and 2000-10; 62.6 What have been the commencements in ASBT’s between 2004-05 and 2009-10 63. I refer to Criminal screening of the existing training workforce and ask - 63.1 How much funding has been allocated in the 2009-2010 budget to functions associated with Criminal screening requirements of the Working with Children (Criminal Record Checking) Act 2004 which came into effect on 1 January 2006? 63.2 Are there any lecturers or persons working in TAFE that have not been screened as per the requirements of the Working with Children (Criminal Record Checking) Act 2004 which came into effect on 1 January 2006? 63.3 Has the department considered screening for other offences such as such as armed robbery, fraud, stealing and if not why not? 63.4 How many people who have been screened and who are working with children in TAFE and who have been subsequently found to have allegations of inappropriate behaviour made against them? 63.4.1 How many of these have been charged?
E776 [ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
63.4.2 How many of these have been convicted? 63.5 Since 2006 how many people working with children in TAFE have been moved out of direct contact with children and placed elsewhere within the state training system pending investigations, inquiry outcomes or potential charges? 64. COMMONWEALTH FUNDING FOR YEAR 7 STUDENTS 64.1 I refer to Commonwealth Funding for year 7 students and the progress in relation to the placement of Year 7 students into high schools across the state? 64.2 Has the Minister approached the Commonwealth Minister in respect of this matter and has there been any agreement reached? 64.3 Will Western Australian students be funded at a higher rate by the Commonwealth irrespective of their school setting or will only those student who transfer into existing high schools be funded at a higher rate? 64.4 Has there been a resolution in respect of these issues between the state and the Commonwealth? 64.5 On what date has legal advice been sought from the State Solicitor and on what date has that advice been received by either the department or the Ministers office? 64.6 What work has been undertaken on the preparation of curriculum and pastoral care guidelines for year 7 students in the event that they are all transferred to high school status? 65. I refer to the Student Information System (SIS) Remote Reporting facility, accessed by teachers via the Department of Education and Training internet portal, and ask – 65.1 Can the Minister confirm that the SIS Remote Reporting facility does not support Internet Explorer 8 or Windows Vista and so is not accessible by teachers using a new computer or laptop that uses these programs? 65.2 If yes to (65.1), given that the facility if open until midnight, seven days a week for the express purpose of teachers being able to complete reports at home, will this lack of up-to-date compatibility restrict the ability of teachers to complete their mid-year reports? 65.3 If yes to (65.1), will the Government be updating the SIS Remote Report facility so that it can function as it is supposed to? 65.4 If not to (65.3), is this failure to update necessary software another casualty of the Government’s 3% ‘slash and burn’ efficiency drive? 65.5 If yes to (65.3) when and at what cost will this update take place? 66. Referring to page 348 what is the total saved over the next three years by removing the ‘It Pays to Learn’ allowance of $200 for school students and $400 for TAFE students; is it $58 million dollars ($58,325,000)? 66.1 Of the $58.3 million, what is the amount saved from the school aspect and the TAFE aspect of the scheme? 66.2 Also on page 348 is the funding for the Economic Stimulus Package for Training over the next three years of $47.3 million dollars achieved by ceasing the ‘It Pays to Learn’ scheme? 66.3 Where in the budget papers are the details of the constituent parts of the Economic Stimulus Package for Training? 66.4 Does the Economic Stimulus Package for Training include any direct financial assistance to trainees to replace the $400 ‘It Pays to Learn’ scheme? 66.5 Why is there a reduction in VET full time equivalent (FTE) staff numbers for 746 in the 2008- 09 budget to a target of 688 for 2009-10 - a cut of 58 FTE (Page 352)? 67 67.1 Is there any funding in the Budget or in forward estimates for improvements to facilities at the Esperance Residential College? 67.2 If so, what monies have been allocated? 67.3 If not, why not, when can students and parents expect the current poor situation to change?
[ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E777
Answer: 4-11 Provided by the Minister for Education. 4.1 No. 4.2 ESTIMATED REVENUE FROM LAND SALES Location Estimated Reason for Sale Value $000 Albany SHS – part only 300 000 Surplus land being disposed of. Alexander Heights PS Site 5 070 000 Vacant site surplus to educational needs. Endangered flora species onsite. Balcatta SHS – part only 500 000 Land excision of surplus land. Blackmore PS 7 250 000 Amalgamation of Blackmore PS and Girrawheen PS on the Girrawheen PS site (Hudson Park PS) Camberwarra PS 8 000 000 Amalgamation of Camberwarra and Craigie PS on the Craigie PS site (Craigie Heights PS) Carine TAFE 24 000 000 Surplus to TAFE needs. City Beach HS – part only 8 700 000 Closed at the end of 2005. Students relocated largely to Shenton College and Churchlands SHS. Disposal process commenced. Coolbellup PS 7 000 000 Amalgamation of Coolbellup, North Lake and Koorilla Primary Schools. New school built (Coolbellup Community School) on Len Packham Reserve. Opened May 2006. Craigie HS 15 200 000 Craigie Senior High School closed at the end of 2003 due to declining enrolments. Students relocated to Belridge, Padbury and Duncraig SHS's. East Greenwood PS 7 500 000 Amalgamation of Allenswood PS and East Greenwood PS on the Allenswood PS site. Ferndale PS 5 000 000 Amalgamation of Lynwood PS, Kinlock PS and Ferndale PS on the Lynwood PS site (Bannister Creek PS) Hainsworth PS 7 250 000 Amalgamation of Hainsworth PS and Montrose PS on the Montrose PS site (Roseworth PS) Harvey Land Sales – part only 1 860 000 Relocation of Agriculture College to Wokalup site. Karratha HS – part only 6 000 000 Relocation of Karratha HS on the TAFE site Kinlock PS 5 000 000 Amalgamation of Lynwood PS, Kinlock PS and Ferndale PS on the Lynwood PS site (Bannister Creek PS Koorilla PS 6 400 000 Amalgamation of Coolbellup, North Lake and Koorilla Primary Schools. New school built (Coolbellup Community School) on Len Packham Reserve. Opened May 2006. Manjimup PS 1 300 000 Manjimup Primary school relocated and rebuilt on Senior high school site.
Midland PS 2 200 000 Closed at the end of 2005. Students relocated to Midvale, Woodbridge, Swan View and Clayton View primary schools and Moortidj Noongar Community College. Mount Lawley TAFE 6 500 000 Relocation of programs to other campuses of Central TAFE
E778 [ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
North Lake PS 6 600 000 Amalgamation of Coolbellup, North Lake and Koorilla Primary Schools. New school built (Coolbellup Community School) on Len Packham Reserve. Opened May 2006. Orana PS 1 400 000 Surplus to Departmental needs Rocky Gully PS – part only 500 000 School closed at the end of the 2003 school year. Students relocated to Frankland and Mount Barker Primary Schools. Shark Bay PS 860 000 Surplus to Departmental needs, new school built on other site Subiaco Oil & Gas 8 600 000 Surplus TAFE site Swanbourne Primary School - part 3 000 000 Balance of primary school not sold to Land only Tambrey PS Excision – part only 2 500 000 Excision of excess land. Waikiki HS Site (Western Power 1 700 000 Surplus land, two lot subdivision. One lot Site) being purchased by Western Power for substation. Balance to be redeveloped for residential. Wattleup PS 3 600 000 School closed at the end of the 2005 school year due to declining enrolments. Students relocated to a number of metropolitan schools West Armadale 3 150 000 Surplus site due to identification of more appropriate site Westminster JPS 3 000 000 Surplus land being disposed of.
TOTAL REVENUE 159 940 000 4.3 No. 4.4 It is proposed to reduce staff in Central and District Offices by 10% over the next 2 years. 4.5 The Department of Education and Training is fully aware of the Government’s Public Sector Wages policy. Under the Policy future increases are to be limited to CPI in order to maintain real wages. 5.1 Title Of Administration Or Operation $ Amount Cut Over Function Forward Estimates $000, Staff Reductions 46 000 Workforce Policy 1 343 Policy and Accountability 5 139 School Administration 936 Training 1 285 Finance 906 Grants and Subsidies 4 000 Facilities and Services 3 586 Shared Service Centre 1 600 Technical Infrastructure Reforms 12 000 Corporate communications 1 631 TOTAL 78 426
[ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E779
5.2 $ Amount Cut Over Program Forward Estimates $000s Curriculum improvement and assessment 5 303 Learning with ICT 5 250 Syllabus development 2 406 Running costs of Schools 10 273 Education and Training Support Programs 16 263 Discontinued the $100 secondary Subsidy 17 500 Discontinue Family Links Program 4 200 Miscellaneous 111 612 TOTAL 172 807
5.3 Reform Cut $ Amount Cut Over Forward Estimates $000s Structural Reform 9 000 Reduce over establishment Education Assistants 43 750 (450 FTE) TOTAL 52 750
6.1 $26.377 million. 6.2 2010/11 - $27.763 million 2011/12 - $29.347 million 2012/13 - $29.347 million 6.3 Year Number of Number of Percentage of Percentage of Average suspension students students students suspended length of notices issued suspended suspended once more than once suspensions 2005 Albany 381 224 70% 30% 2.35
Bunbury 747 436 66% 34% 2.11 Canning 2796 1448 61% 39% 2.22 Esperance 251 139 83% 17% 1.90 Fremantle- 2795 1431 63% 37% 2.12 Peel Goldfields 468 230 56% 44% 2.92 Kimberley 261 158 63% 63% 1.81 Mid West 707 392 67% 67% 2.10 Midlands 516 167 64% 64% 2.20 Narrogin 392 186 78% 78% 2.16
E780 [ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
Pilbara 599 313 56% 56% 2.50 Swan 2743 1444 63% 63% 2.20 Warren- 288 137 75% 75% 2.19 Blackwood West 1513 840 83% 83% 2.71 Coast 2006 Albany 448 228 63% 37% 1.96 Bunbury 1057 522 58% 42% 1.93 Canning 3863 1861 60% 40% 2.03 Esperance 307 169 70% 30% 2.03 Fremantle- 4015 1954 61% 39% 1.99 Peel Goldfields 523 267 60% 40% 2.21 Kimberley 629 280 56% 44% 1.85 Mid West 1063 494 53% 47% 2.10 Midlands 838 386 58% 42% 2.11 Narrogin 442 223 65% 35% 2.23 Pilbara 813 402 61% 39% 2.33 Swan 3402 1628 59% 41% 2.21 Warren- 325 184 67% 33% 2.26 Blackwood West 1884 1035 65% 35% 2.43 Coast 2007 Albany 440 218 61% 39% 2.23 Bunbury 1194 585 59% 61% 1.93 Canning 4101 1869 60% 40% 2.04 Esperance 339 170 61% 39% 2.08 Fremantle- 4108 2055 63% 37% 2.10 Peel Goldfields 755 348 57% 43% 2.12 Kimberley 871 405 53% 47% 1.76 Mid West 1120 537 58% 42% 2.35 Midlands 966 433 57% 43% 2.29 Narrogin 465 249 62% 38% 1.96 Pilbara 760 382 58% 42% 1.91 Swan 4111 1922 57% 43% 2.17 Warren- 473 229 58% 42% 2.41 Blackwood West 2231 1241 66% 34% 2.38 Coast 2008 Albany 672 311 56% 44% 2.12 Bunbury 1243 606 60% 40% 1.97 Canning 4289 1967 57% 43% 2.25 Esperance 492 188 51% 49% 1.97 Fremantle- 5093 2446 61% 39% 2.13 Peel Goldfields 761 397 61% 39% 1.95 Kimberley 878 443 59% 41% 1.76 Mid West 1459 640 55% 45% 2.41 Midlands 915 407 54% 46% 2.20
[ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E781
Narrogin 657 317 58% 42% 2.08 Pilbara 691 358 57% 43% 1.97 Swan 4056 1900 56% 44% 2.07 Warren- 427 209 65% 45% 2.20 Blackwood West 2411 1338 64% 46% 2.30 Coast 2009 Albany 306 199 71% 29% 1.99 as at 22 June Bunbury 706 379 64% 36% 2.13 Canning 2099 1226 64% 36% 2.35 Esperance 257 137 65% 35% 2.20 Fremantle- 2334 1387 67% 33% 2.16 Peel Goldfields 385 205 58% 42% 2.19 Kimberley 389 244 69% 31% 1.79 Mid West 850 444 58% 42% 3.15 Midlands 455 269 68% 32% 2.70 Narrogin 242 154 72% 28% 1.99 Pilbara 459 260 58% 42% 2.11 Swan 1898 1162 69% 31% 2.08 Warren- 189 126 73% 27% 1.89 Blackwood West 1358 827 71% 29% 2.28 Coast Please Note: Suspension data is collected in calendar years. 7.1 $1.535 million. 7.2 The Department has in place processes and strategies to support compliance with the requirements of the Working with Children (Criminal Record Checking) Act 2004 with respect to its employees in child-related work. The Department has implemented internal phasing-in arrangements of the Working with Children Checks that should result in all Department employees and volunteers engaged by the Department in child-related work having applied for a Working with Children Check by 26 October 2009. For many this will be earlier than as required under the Working with Children (Criminal Record Checking) Act 2004. The Department has no jurisdiction over those persons working in private schools. 7.3 Yes. The Department requires all new employees to be screened against the National Criminal History Record Check (NCHRC) undertaken by CrimTrac. This process takes account of all adult convictions. 7.4 The phrase “allegations of inappropriate behaviour” includes a range of behaviour beyond criminal. The Department is unable to interrogate its data against such broad criteria. 7.4.1 The Department does not have access to this information. 7.4.2 The Department does not have access to this information. 7.5 66 8.1 This is the review of the various programs that provide support for students moving from school to work or further education. The Economic Audit Committee considered that this was an area of spending where savings could be made on an on going basis. 8.2 See answer to question 8.1. 8.3 No. This does not relate to Year 7 students
E782 [ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
8.4 Yes. 8.5 Not applicable. 9.1.1 Metropolitan region 152 9.1.2 Regional and rural WA 115 9.2 104 9.2.1. Approved Description Establishment Albany Senior High School 4.4 Amaroo Primary School 8.7 Ashdale Primary School 13.6 Australind Senior High School 6.8 Balga Senior High School 15.7 Beaconsfield Primary School 7.8 Beechboro Primary School 11.3 Belmont City College 14.1 Bindoon Primary School 0.9 Bluff Point Primary School 11.8 Busselton Primary School 5.0 Calista Primary School 4.8 Cannington Community College 7.7 Carnarvon Primary School 9.6 Caversham Primary School 5.8 Cecil Andrews Senior High School 5.4 Challis E.C.E. Centre 11.0 Charthouse Primary School 8.5 Clarkson Community High School 10.6 Clarkson Primary School 8.7 Collie Senior High School 7.1 Currambine Primary School 15.4 Cyril Jackson Senior Campus 0.8 Djidi Djidi Aboriginal School 5.5 Donnybrook District High School 6.8 East Carnarvon Primary School 11.0 East Narrogin Primary School 4.5 Gidgegannup Primary School 6.4 Glen Huon Primary School 10.5 Goollelal Primary School 6.5 Greenwood Senior High School 5.1 Halls Creek District High School 11.2 Hampton Park Primary School 5.9
[ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E783
Highgate Primary School 5.0 Hospital School Service 0.3 Huntingdale Primary School 13.9 John Willcock College 12.0 Kelmscott Primary School 5.1 Kojonup District High School 8.6 Koondoola Primary School 7.4 Kununurra District High School 22.5 Lakeland Senior High School 2.8 Lesmurdie Senior High School 1.9 Lockridge Primary School 6.8 Mandurah High School 2.3 Manjimup Education Support Ctr 9.0 Melville Senior High School 8.9 Merriwa Primary School 11.4 Middle Swan Primary School 13.6 Midvale Primary School 9.3 Mirrabooka Primary School 4.6 Moora Primary School 3.0 Mount Barker Community College 10.1 Mount Lockyer Primary School 12.1 Mundaring Primary School 4.2 Nannup District High School 0.6 Narrogin Primary School 13.1 Neerigen Brook Primary School 6.0 Nollamara Primary School 6.4 North Lake Senior Campus 1.0 Nulsen Primary School 9.6 Parkwood Primary School 11.9 Pineview Pre-School 0.9 Pinjarra Primary School 8.8 Pinjarra Senior High School 2.0 Rangeway Primary School 16.8 Riverside Primary School 9.4 Rockingham Lakes Primary School 7.4 Singleton Primary School 7.6 Sir David Brand School 24.3 South Ballajura Primary School 13.2 South Lake Primary School 6.9 South Thornlie Primary School 8.7
E784 [ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
Southern River College 3.0 Tambellup Primary School 2.4 The WA Inst for Deaf Education 4.0 Vasse Primary School 4.9 Warnbro Primary School 9.3 Waroona District High School 5.3 Warriapendi Primary School 4.1 West Busselton Primary School 4.0 Westfield Park Primary School 4.0 Westminster Junior Primary 8.2 Willandra Primary School 15.1 Wyndham District High School 6.8 Yakamia Primary School 8.5 Yanchep District High School 8.7 Yangebup Primary School 6.7 York District High School 10.9 9.3 No. 9.4 Schools are currently reviewing their use of education assistants to identify and redeploy surplus staff. 10.1 Under the government’s wages policy, future increases are to be limited to CPI in order to maintain real wages. 10.2 $115 million. 10.3 3.4% 10.4 2001 -2002 1.54% 2002-2003 1.52% 2003 -2004 1.88% 2004 -2005 2.07% 2005 -2006 1.26% 2006 -2007 2.14% 2007 -2008 2.70% 2008 -2009 3.04% 10.5 2009 -2010 2.81% 2010 -2011 2.82% 2011 -2012 1.43% 2012 -2013 0.98% 11. The Director General and other senior staff meet regularly with each of the Ministers as well as providing joint briefings as required. The attendance of senior staff is dictated by the nature of agenda items listed for discussion.
12 Weekly or fortnightly as required.
13-15 Answers provided by the Minister for Education 13. $45 million. 14. Schools $13.5 million, each year for three years ($40.5 million)
[ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E785
TAFE $1.5 million, each year for three years ($4.5 million) 15. No.
16 This is summarised in the line item on page 348.
17 No
18 The reduction reflects the allocation of Corporate Services FTEs across the three service areas. The FTEs directly related to training in the 2008/09 budget was overstated, FTEs have not decreased from the 2008/09 budget to the 2009/10 budget (451 FTEs for both years).
19 Nil
20 The allocation for 2009/10 provides for the significant growth levels which are expected to be maintained over the forward estimates.
21 The operating deficits relate only to one academic year and no additional funding is required at this time.
22 Page 348; it is part of the Economic Stimulus Package. The Minister for Training is responsible.
23 Its purpose is to encourage employers to employ and retain more apprentices and trainees during the economic downturn.
24 Additional support for employers, apprentices and trainees includes: • access to ApprentiCentre field officers who can provide support and assistance to employers, apprentices and trainees; • payroll tax relief for all registered trainees and apprentices; • Commonwealth incentives of up to $4000 for employers of apprentices and trainees; • Building and Construction Industry Training Fund (BCITF) incentives for up to $8000 for employers of apprentices and trainees in the construction industry; • Commonwealth wage subsidies for apprentices 25 years and over in skill shortage occupations (from 1 January 2010); and • apprentices and trainees can apply for an Apprentice Edge card which provides them with discounts on a variety of goods and services. • The State Government is providing group training organisations with funding of $1800 per apprentice to employ out of trade or at-risk apprentices who are in an occupation listed in the National Skills Needs List and half way through their apprenticeship for 12 weeks to enable the apprentice complete their apprenticeship. • Course fee exemptions are available for eligible unemployed people to undertake one publicly funded vocational education and training qualification. The course fee exemptions will apply for up to 12 months from the commencement of the qualification.
E786 [ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
• Course fee concessions are available for individuals wishing to undertake recognition of prior learning at a unit of competence level or for a full qualification. Concessions only apply to publicly funded qualifications. Course fee concession of 50% are available for non concessional holders; course fee concessions of 25% are available for concessional holders; and course fee exemptions are available for eligible unemployed people.
25-26 The small business payroll tax rebate scheme is managed by the Department of Treasury and Finance.
27-30 Answers provided by the Minister for Education 27.1 There is no schedule of primary schools earmarked for closure or amalgamations over the next four years. 27.2 No. 27.3 See answer for question 4.2. 28. No budget allocation. 29. Category Primary Secondary Total Performance All teachers are required to participate in the development/management Department’s performance management process .
Unsatisfactory performance Unsatisfactory performance is managed within management. the context of performance management at the school site. Substandard performance. Data on substandard performance is not held centrally until cases are concluded. This
function is devolved to the local level, with central office support to schools, if requested.
30. Category Metro Regional Total Performance development/management Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable
Unsatisfactory performance Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable management.
Substandard performance Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable
31 The line item summary is on page 348. The individual breakdown is outlined in Training WA, or can be summarised as follows: Economic Response Package 2009/10 2010/11 2012/13 Total (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) Course fee-exemptions for the unemployed 5 722 6 059 5 791 17 572 Enhanced career development services 1 500 1 545 3 045 Strengthened Employment Directions Network 500 515 1 015 Recognition of prior learning leaders 800 825 1 625
[ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E787
Recognition of prior learning course fee concessions 372 383 755 Critical support unit 310 320 630 Expanded marketing and information awareness 2 000 2 065 4 065 Additional foundation skills qualifications 2 825 2 909 5 734 Small business institute response team 1 013 1 043 2 056 Rebate of workers compensation premium for first 4 963 5 622 10 585 year apprentices and certificate 111 trainees Industry based programs 150 150 300 TOTAL 20 155 21 436 5 791 47 382
32 Answer provided by the Minister for Education 32. Yes.
33 Yes
34 Grants to TAFE Colleges are provided for in 28:3.
35-39 Answers provided by the Minister for Education 35. This was a governance decision determined by the government. 36. Yes. 37. In 2008, there were 14 558 Year 11 and 12 students in the public school system and 5 320 in the Independent and Catholic systems participating in VET. 38. Minister Collier 39. It is a practice that occurs in other jurisdictions in Australia. (2) Yes.
40-55 Refer to questions 11-26.
56.1 The allocation of funds to each training provider depends on their planned training profile. The planned profile and funding may be adjusted during the year in response to training demand. The approximate allocation of funding for 2009/10 to each training provider is:
$ (000’s) West Coast TAFE 21 360 Challenger TAFE 53 948 Central TAFE 70 487 Central West TAFE 17 056 Great Southern TAFE 14 713 South West Regional College of TAFE 24 121
E788 [ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
Kimberley TAFE 16 048 C Y O’Connor College of TAFE 11 584 Swan TAFE 80 813 Pilbara TAFE 26 743 Curtin Vocational Training and Education Centre 12 500 WA Academy of Performing Arts 7 500
56.2 The actual funding allocated will depend on the profile of training agreed with Curtin University and adjustments to the profile of training during the year in response to training demand.
57.1 Any publicly funded VET qualification available through a registered training organisation.
57.2 All unemployed people will be eligible if they have either a: • Centrelink Health Care Card – Newstart allowance; or • Centrelink Health Care Card – Youth allowance – Job seeker; or • Job seeker ID issued through Centrelink or a Job Network member.
57.3 Unemployed persons registering for an apprenticeship or traineeship will be eligible.
57.4 N/A
57.5 Refer to 57.1
57.6 This initiative is targeted at the traditional trades and higher level traineeship qualifications to ensure the continuing growth of higher level skilled occupations.
57.7 The rebate amount will vary according to a variety of factors, including the particular trade, the salary paid to the apprentice and the worker’s compensation history of the employer.
57.8 The rebate will apply to all employers of apprentices and trainees at Certificate III and above, after the successful completion of the first year of their contract or Certificate III and above trainees whose training contract has a nominal term of 12 months or less, on successful completion of the training contract.
57.9 No. Eligibility for the rebate is dependent on apprentices and trainees at Certificate III and above completing their first year of training.
57.10 It is anticipated that in excess of 5 000 employers employing more than 15 000 Certificate III and above apprentices and trainees will benefit from this initiative in 2009/10.
[ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E789
57.11 All registered training organisations (RTOs) in Western Australia in receipt of public funding have been invited to apply for Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) Leader funding. Applications close on 1 July 2009 and a selection process will be undertaken.
57.12 Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) Leaders will be staff located within the selected registered training organisations.
57.13 The Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) Leaders will be located within their own registered training organisations (RTOs).
57.14 The Critical Support Unit will be a mobile response team established to provide instant support and advice to business, employers and their employees affected by the economic downturn and will be comprised of three officers.
57.15 One officer each from the Department’s Career Development Services Branch, the Department’s ApprentiCentre and the TAFE Response Unit.
57.16 It will no longer be required.
57.17 The coordinator of the Critical Support Unit will be based at the Department of Education and Training in East Perth, with the ApprentiCentre and TAFE Response Unit officers located within their respective units.
57.18 The State Government has developed the following initiatives to help employers retain apprentices and trainees: A full worker’s compensation rebate to all employers of apprentices and trainees at Certificate III and above after the successful completion of the first year of their contract or Certificate III and above trainees whose training contract has a nominal term of 12 months or less, on successful completion of the training contract. A critical support unit is being established to help employers and employees during the economic downturn. The Unit will include an ApprentiCentre field officer to assist employers of apprentices and trainees. A marketing and awareness campaign to highlight the long term benefits from employing apprentices and trainees and to encourage employers to maintain their investment in training apprentices and trainees.
57.19 Worker’s compensation rebate – employers of apprentices and trainees at Certificate III and above who commenced on or after 1 January 2009 will be eligible for the rebate. Critical support unit – from 1 July 2009. Marketing and awareness campaign – from 1 July 2009.
57.20- Additional funding to support out of trade and at-risk apprentices – The State Government is providing 57.21 group training organisations (GTOs) with funding of $1 800 per apprentice to employ out of trade or at- risk apprentices who are in an occupation listed on the National Skills Needs List and half way through their apprenticeship for 12 weeks to enable the apprentice to complete their apprenticeship.
E790 [ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
Apprentices and trainees who have had their training contracts cancelled can elect to be placed on an Out of Trade register with ApprentiCentre. This will enable the apprentice/trainee to continue with their off the job training while ApprentiCentre field officers work with the apprentice/trainee to find a new employer. Apprentices and Trainees can also register with ApprentiCentre’s Jobs Board to receive notification of new apprenticeships and traineeships.
57.22 Yes
57.23- N/A 57.24
57.25 The Small Business Institute will appoint additional business consultants and also sub-contract where appropriate to regionally based organisations to provide business advice and support services to small business in regional areas.
57.26 100%
57.27 Small business owner/operators or managers are eligible to apply for vouchers to undertake business management related training to increase productivity or contribute to an improved business environment. Training can be accredited or non- accredited.
57.28 Vouchers of up to $200 are provided to assist training course costs.
57.29 If the total cost of approved training does not exceed $100, the client is reimbursed for the total cost of the training. If the cost of the approved training exceeds $100, the client is reimbursed for $100 plus a further 50% of the remaining training costs to a maximum of a further $100.
57.30 Vouchers are already available.
57.31 Eligibility includes: must be a small business operating in Western Australia; must have an Australian Business Number; and must be a for profit organisation. Small businesses can be either businesses that employ less than 20 full time equivalent people or non-employing businesses.
57.32 2012/13.
57.33 The 2009/10 budget includes $395.547 million for training related grants and subsidies. $391.469 million of these funds is allocated for training delivery.
57.34 All training organisations registered with the Training Accreditation Council for the delivery of the proposed training in Western Australia will be eligible to apply for funding.
[ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E791
57.35 Publicly allocated funding for training is provided to TAFE Colleges, Curtin University Vocational Education and Training Centre, Western Australian Academy of Performing Arts and approximately 190 private Registered Training Organisations.
57.36 The competitive allocated funding will be advertised through public tenders and details will be available on the Department of Education and Training web site.
57.37 The general criteria for competitive allocated funding are: the training provider is registered with the Training Accreditation Council for the delivery of the proposed training in Western Australia; the provider satisfies a financial viability assessment; the provider has demonstrated satisfactory performance of previous funding contracts; and the provider accepts the terms and conditions of the funding agreement. Tenders for specific programs may also include selection criteria to assess the quality of the proposed training. These criteria are defined in the advertised tender specifications.
57.38 Ten industry training advisory bodies (known as Training Councils) are recognised by the State Training Board, as described in the VET Act.
57.39 N/A
57.40 N/A
57.41 N/A
57.42 Training will be targeted according to the training needs identified by each of the District Education Clusters.
57.43 Various depending on the needs within a District Education Cluster.
57.44 Yes
57.45 Through the Department’s Enterprise and Vocational Education (EVE) Coordinators within District Education Clusters.
57.46 It is already established.
57.47 DET
57.48 Many of these initiatives are already in place. The enhanced Aboriginal School Based Training
E792 [ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
program was implemented in 2009.
57.49 No
57.50 (a) The enhanced Aboriginal School Based Training (ASBT) program commenced in 2009 and provides new Certificate I programs at Year 10 and 11. These are delivered by public and private Registered Training Organisations (RTOs), in conjunction with schools, to prepare students for work. The program also funds strategies in Year 9 to engage students for Year 10 and provides a range of support mechanisms attached to the Certificate I program. After completion of the Certificate I, the ASBT provides work readiness assessments and guidance prior to transition to apprenticeships and traineeships. Strong mentoring support is provided for the apprentices and trainees. (b) The Indigenous Training Support Program will provide greater pastoral care and work readiness skills for Aboriginal people. (c) The Aboriginal Cadet Lecturer program, which commenced in 2007, aims to increase the number of Aboriginal lecturing staff in TAFEWA colleges. (d) Aboriginal cultural awareness training for TAFEWA lecturers and employers will continue. (e) Mobile trades training units are visiting Aboriginal communities to provide Aboriginal people with pre-employment plant, fitting, machining and boiler making skills to further improve job readiness. Mobile trades training units have been placed in the Kimberley, Pilbara, Central West and Kalgoorlie regions. (f) The number of partnerships between industry, employment networks, community organisations and Aboriginal communities will increase.
57.51 Yes
57.52 The Department is currently investigating a number of issues which might suggest a need for additional support services and will continue to do so.
57.53 Through Group Training Organisations, Registered Training Organisations or schools, depending on the issue.
57.54 The Department of Education and Training administers the VET Workforce and Curriculum Development Grant Program which enables public and private RTOs and other interest vocational education and training professionals to apply for grants to develop new curriculum and assessment models.
57.55 The first round of new initiatives and models will be available for implementation commencing December 2009.
57.56 The models will be applicable to a wide range of workplace learning, including apprentices and trainees, and will focus on Certificate IV level qualifications and higher.
57.57 Yes
57.58 Criteria are developed for each strand within the grants process and articulate project outcomes and
[ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E793
specifications.
57.59 The Department of Education and Training in conjunction with the Community Services, Health and Education Training Council. TAFE Colleges will also be involved in this process.
57.60 It is anticipated that the plan will be developed by the end of 2010.
57.61 Implementation will commence in 2011.
57.62 No
57.63 The workforce development plan relates to the Government’s workforce in the training sector and the implementation will be the responsibility of the Director General of the Department of Education and Training.
57.64 TAFE Colleges will be much clearer about their functions and be given the capacity to make decisions about how they operate.
57.65 The Department of Education and Training and TAFE Colleges are currently creating a framework.
57.66 [Question missing]
57.67 To be determined.
57.69 This will result in greater independence and flexibility to respond to client needs.
57.70 The Department of Education and Training currently develops an annual TAFEWA Pathways to University publication in conjunction with Western Australian universities. This will be complemented with the development and implementation of High Level Qualifications at Certificate IV and above through the VET Workforce and Curriculum Development Grant Program.
57.71 DET
57.72 Initial products will be available commencing April 2010.
57.73 All qualifications identified in the TAFEWA Pathways to University publication and those qualifications in receipt of High Level Qualifications grant funding.
58-60 See Appendix
E794 [ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
61.1 Grants are provided to TAFE Colleges by the Department of Education and Training.
61.2 Yes
61.3 The two processes are not directly linked however, it is acknowledged that a reduction has occurred, but disagree with the figure stated.
61.4 The stimulus package targets specific areas that will benefit the training sector overall.
62.1 The Aboriginal School Based Traineeship program has been revised and renamed Aboriginal School Based Training. State funding for 2009/10 is $3.145 million.
62.2 The Minister for Training
62.3 The revised ASBT program includes a Certificate I preparation for employment program and apprenticeships and traineeships at Certificate II and III levels. The Certificate I is no longer a traineeship.
62.4 As at end May 2009, total spend: State - $2.547 million; Commonwealth - $3.116 million Allocation for 2009-10: State - $3.145 million; Commonwealth - $859 000.
62.5 Year State Commonwealth Total (in 000s) (in 000s) (in 000s) 2004-05 Nil 827 827
2005-06 Nil 313 313
2006-07 1 072 371 1 443
2007-08 92 1 171 1 263
2008-09 1 383 434 1 817
2009-10 3 145 859 4004
62.6 Year Commencements Cert I Cert II 2004 353 283
[ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E795
2005 352 240
2006 326 239
2007 283 212
2008 217 194
2009 682 107 (as at 23/06/09)
63.1 Budget allocations for the forthcoming financial year are yet to be determined. However it is estimated that $266 000 will be allocated.
63.2 Yes, however TAFEWA colleges have in place processes and strategies to support compliance with the requirements of the Working with Children (Criminal Record Checking) Act 2004 with respect to its employees in child-related work.
63.3 Yes, all new employees are being screened against the National Criminal History Record Check (NCHRC) undertaken by CrimTrac.
63.4 Due to resource limitations, this information is not available in the time required. Could the Honourable - Member please place this question on notice in the Legislative Council. 63.5
64-65 Answers provided by the Minister for Education 64.2 The matter is still being investigated; the Minister has not approached the Commonwealth Minister. 64.3 The matter of Commonwealth funding for Year 7 students is still being investigated. 64.4 The matter of Commonwealth funding for Year 7 students is still being investigated. 64.5 Legal advice has not been sought from the State Solicitor as the re-examination has just commenced. 64.6 Identification of the need for additional curriculum or pastoral care guidelines will be considered during the investigation. 65.1 Yes. SIS Remote Reporting will operate on the Windows Vista operating system, but does not work on Internet Explorer 8. Development of SIS Remote Reporting is a lengthy process to ensure that it satisfies the latest reporting requirements and to ensure that it operates reliably. Work on the SIS Remote Reporting release for semester one 2009 began in November 2008 with User Acceptance Testing (UAT) commencing on the 26 March 2009 prior to release from 27 April 2009. The cost of this development was $45,540. Internet Explorer 8 was released in late March 2009 was not able to be included in the testing process without placing the release at risk. 65.2 No. Teachers are able to install the free and popular Mozilla Firefox web browser to
E796 [ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
complete mid-year reports when using Microsoft Vista. Internet Explorer 6, Internet Explorer 7 and Safari are also compatible web browsers for SIS remote reporting. 65.3 The SIS Remote Reporting facility functions as it was designed. The issues with Internet Explorer 8 result from the differences introduced by Microsoft in the Internet Explorer 8 version compared to the earlier IE versions and the timing of the Internet Explorer 8 release. SIS Remote Reporting is reviewed each semester so that it complies with reporting requirements and Department operating environments. The Department’s intention for Semester 2 is to include testing with Internet Explorer 8 with a view of minimising compatibility issues, but at the same time maintain compatibility with pervious web browser versions. 65.4 No. 65.5 Compatibility with Internet Explorer 8 will be added with the semester 2 2009 release of SIS Remote Reporting. The cost is unknown until an investigation of compatibility issues is completed.
66. Refer to questions 13 - 18
67 67.1 No. 67.2 Not applicable. 67.3 The closure of the Ravensthorpe Nickel Mine in 2008 has reduced demand by approximately 10 students and slightly eased the enrolment pressure on the facility. The Country High School Hostels Authority is reviewing its asset plan for this facility in the light of the immediate enrolment outlook and is preparing a report for my consideration.
DIVISIONS 33 AND 34: TRANSPORT — [Supplementary Information No: A1.] Daily Hansard Page No: E3 Hon Ken Travers asked: Will the Minister or one of the Departmental staff provide a list of the amount of revenue and where exactly that revenue will be spent for each of the fees and charges that are intended to be increased? Answer: The following table shows the increase in revenue from 2008/09 to 2009/10 and how the additional revenue will be spent. Department of Transport – Net Appropriation Determination
Revenue 2008/09 2009/10 Variance Funds will be spent on Estimate Budget Actual Estimate $’000 $’000 $’000 Boat Registration 9,134 11,617 2,483 Increase in funding to the Recreational Boating Facilities Scheme; Fees Indigenous Recreational Skippers Ticket systems and process; Navigation aid maintenance; and Increased costs for travel, communications and employment costs, particularly for a presence in regional areas. Maritime 175 223 48 Increased employment costs. Examinations
[ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E797
Motor Drivers 14,968 15,457 489 Increased employment costs.
Motor Vehicle 11,036 13,294 2,258 Increase in the manufacturing costs of plates and increased staffing costs Plates for pay increases. Motor Vehicles 21,975 21,407 (568) No increase in revenues.
Other Receipts 402 602 200 General operating activities.
Proof of Age Cards 261 308 47 General cost escalation and increased employment costs.
Recoup for 13,789 13,939 150 General cost escalation and increased employment costs. Services Provided Temporary Permits 450 504 54 General cost escalation and increased employment costs.
Total 72,190 77,351 5,161
[Supplementary Information No A2.] Daily Hansard Page No: E13 Hon Ken Travers asked: on what basis did the department arrive at the figure of $2 million, and in the out years the figure of $9.5 million, and where does it expect to raise that money from? Answer: The revenue projections are preliminary estimates. Opportunities exist at popular coastal infrastructure facilities, at locations such as Hillarys Boat Harbour and the Fishing Boat Harbour at Fremantle and to increase advertising exposure at these high visitation areas with billboard and other advertising space. Likewise opportunities exist to incorporate advertising in the numerous mail outs that the Department makes. The Department will likely engage suitable marketing expertise to determine more accurately the revenue potential from these opportunities and DPI will advise Government of these revenue estimates from the marketing experts.
[Supplementary Information No: A3.] Daily Hansard Page No: E14 Hon Ken Travers asked: (1) Could the Minister indicate why Mr John Ottoway was replaced in that role by Mr Wayne Winchester? (2) Could the Minister provide the qualifications of those two officers? Did Mr Ottaway make any recommendations, or provide any options or suggestions, of matters that needed to be dealt with in the cleanup that are not now intended to be carried out?
Answer: 1. Mr Winchester replaced Mr Ottaway following his resignation from the position of Project Director, Esperance Cleanup and Recovery Project (ECRP) in May 2009. 2. Mr Ottaway has a B.Sc. with Honours from the University of Adelaide and a PhD from the University of Canterbury in New Zealand. His background was as a research ecologist. He was seconded to DPI to take up the position of ECRP Project Director from the Department of Environment and Conservation where he had worked in areas of environmental protection and pollution control. In particular, he had worked in applied marine research in harbours, in investigation prevention and management of pollution from industries, in the assessment of new industrial development proposals, in the enforcement and development of environmental legislation, and in the assessment remediation and cleanups of contaminated sites. Mr Winchester has qualifications in Spatial Sciences with a degree in Cartography. He is currently the Regional Manager of Great Southern for the Department for Planning and Infrastructure, located in
E798 [ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
Albany. In that capacity he has a substantial community consultation role and a coordinating responsibility for the Department’s various program streams in the Great Southern. Mr Winchester has been the General Manager and Secretary of the Western Australian Planning Commission and prior to this was General Manager of State Land Services, where he had overall responsibility for management and administration of Crown Land throughout the State. Part of this role was the management of the Department’s responsibility for the identification and remediation of contaminated sites on Crown land. He has had extensive experience in project management and in coordination of projects across multi-government agencies. The scope of the cleanup has not changed since Mr Ottaway’s departure from the project. [Supplementary Information No A4.] Hon Ken Travers asked: Perhaps the Minister can provide to me by way of supplementary information the amount of money that has been provided, as of today’s date, by the Treasury under those two advances. Does Main Roads need any additional money over and above the two amounts listed in the Budget? Answer: Main Roads has not received any funds relating to these two advances and also does not need any additional funds.
Page 410 – Outcomes, Services and Key Performance Information Hon Alison Xamon referred to the comment “encouraging sustainable choices through programs such as TravelSmart and cycling promotions,” and recent reports of 300,000 cars having been added to the State’s roads since 2003, and asked: Question 1: I understand there is no specific line item for the TravelSmart and related Living Smart programs (although at least part of the TravelSmart program seems to be incorporated into a line item on page 415), so would the Government please separately outline expenditures on each of those programs for the 07/08 actual, 08/09 budget, 08/09 estimated actual, 09/10 budget, and various forward estimate years? Answer: 2007-08 2008-09 2008-09 2009-10 Actual Budget Estimated Budget ($’000) ($’000) Actual ($’000) ($’000) Living Smart 906 761 761 Nil TravelSmart 2,391 1,292 1,292 1,132
The 2009-10 budget is indicative of forward estimates. The TravelSmart Household program has been integrated with the Living Smart program. In 2009-10 and forward estimates period, the Living Smart program will incorporate the TravelSmart Household program budget ($982,279), together with partner funding which is yet to be finalised.
Question 2: To what extent will that program result in future increases in the use of public transport? Answer: The TravelSmart Household Program achieves an average 18 per cent increase in trips taken by public transport by residents from the project areas in which it is delivered.
Question 3: How have those anticipated increases in public transport use been reflected elsewhere in the budget and forward estimates in increased services and / or increased or improved public transport infrastructure? How do those sums compare to those spent on similar measures by the previous Government? Referred to PTA - Include this answer as part of Public Transport Authority Division 35 (of the 2009/10 Budget Statements): Answer: The Public Transport Authority works closely with a range of stakeholders, including TravelSmart. There are many factors which contribute to changes in public transport usage, including economic factors, petrol prices, population growth, new public transport services as well as initiatives such as the free entitlement for seniors.
[ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E799
The Public Transport Authority has a long term public transport plan takes these factors into account when planning changes to public transport. The Authority continually monitors changes in patronage levels and responds accordingly where budget and capacity allow. This has been the case for this and the previous Government.
Question 4: Will the Minister outline what the government is doing to promote cycling as a mode of transport (as distinct from as a velodrome sport) and to improve safety for cyclists? Answer: Cycling is promoted through the Bikewest Cycle Instead campaign which includes Bikeweek and the spring Cycle to Work six week challenge. Safety is improved through Bikewest cycling infrastructure programs such as the Perth Bicycle Network and the Regional Bicycle Network (formerly known as the Country Pathways grant scheme).
Question 5: To what extent will those measures result in increased cycling as a mode of transport in future? Answer: Current trends indicate that the Perth Bicycle Network usage will increase annually by 20 per cent. (Cycle use across all surveyed Perth Bicycle Network sites has increased by 207 per cent from 1998 to 2008– an average annual increase of 20 per cent).
Question 6: How have those anticipated increases in cycling as a mode of transport been reflected elsewhere in the budget and forward estimates in increased and / or improved infrastructure for cycling? How do those sums compare to those spent on similar measures by the previous Government? Answer: Details of Controlled Grants and Subsidies on page 415 show no significant change in the cycling infrastructure budget and forward estimates. The level of funding is comparable with the previous Government.
Question 7: Does the Government have any other plans in place to deal with this actual and future potential traffic congestion? If yes, what sums are proposed to be spent on these plans in the budget estimates and forward estimates periods, and how do they compare to the sums spent on similar moves by the previous Government? Referred to MRWA – include this response as part of Main Roads in Division 34 (of the 2009/10 Budget Statements): Answer: This Government’s approach to management of increasing congestion involves a continuation of the previous government’s focus on improving public transport together with measured investment in road transport. Under this approach, use of the existing state road network is optimised and alternative transport modes and high value road users are supported such as public transport, cycling, walking, high occupancy vehicles and freight. These measures are being enabled through the deployment of innovative Intelligent Transport Systems by Main Roads that will improve the reliability, productivity and safety of the road network. Main Roads has been rolling out basic levels of “foundation” ITS infrastructure on Perth’s freeways and major highways to enable improved traffic monitoring, incident management, traveller information and congestion management. The infrastructure and systems being deployed provide real-time data and analysis tools that will allow the performance of Perth’s freeways and major highways to be better understood and managed, particularly in relation to congestion points. The foundation ITS infrastructure is also critical for the operation of more advanced ITS applications that will be needed to actively manage increased congestion levels in the future.
The foundation ITS infrastructure installed up to 2008/09 includes: • Vehicle Detection Stations (VDS): The expansion in the number of installed VDS now provides coverage of majority of Perth’s freeways, including the Mitchell Freeway Extension and the New Perth Bunbury Highway • Fibre optic communications: Expansion of the fibre optic communications backbone has lead to complete coverage of the Kwinana, Mitchell and Graham Farmer Freeways • Variable Message Sign (VMS): Installation of seven strategically located electronic VMS has been completed on Kwinana and Mitchell Freeways to improve traveller information, particular for incident management, and to display road safety messages • National Performance Indicators (NPI’s): A database and reporting system is being developed to automate the generation of new NPI’s for network operations using real-time data to report on
E800 [ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
efficiency, reliability and productivity (throughput) of freeways/motorways in a nationally consistent manner. Whilst the combined investment in this area from within Main Roads minor works allocation and federal funding (Auslink 1 ITS R&D and Nation Building Program) has remained relatively steady with $5.626m budgeted in 2008/09 compared with a budget of $5.528m in 2009/10, forward funding increases for this area of ITS investment through the Nation Building Program are forecast. This includes $7.100m in 2010/11, $6.816m in 2011/12 and $11.223m in 2012/13. In addition, Main Roads policy is to ensure that any new major roads include appropriate ITS infrastructure so that the ITS retrofitting need to existing roads is minimised and broader network congestion management benefits can be realised. This has seen inclusion of ITS infrastructure into the scope of recently completed projects such as Roe Hwy (Nicholson Road to Kwinana Freeway), Mitchell Freeway extension (Hodges Drive to Burns Beach Road) and the New Perth Bunbury Highway which is approaching completion.
Question 8: Hon Alison Xamon referred to the comment “managing heavy vehicle freight movement to major industrial and intermodal sites,” and to the related note on page 409 that “The amount of freight to be transported is expected to increase at about 3.5 per cent per annum, resulting in a doubling of freight over the next 20 years,” and asked: What are the Government’s plans for moving freight from heavy haulage trucks to rail? In what parts of WA will we begin to see that transition, and by what expected dates? What sums are proposed to be spent on these plans in the budget estimates and forward estimates periods, and how do they compare with the sums spent on similar moves by the previous Government? Answer: North Greenbushes to the Port of Bunbury rail freight service • The Government is working with the plantation timber industry to move plantation timber logs off road and onto rail between North Greenbushes and the Port of Bunbury. • The communities in the region will benefit from the reopening of the rail and there will be a reduction in the number of truck movements along the South West Highway. • There will be a reduction in impacts associated with heavy vehicles such as noise, vibration and engine emissions and a consequential improvement for car drivers on the route and social amenity in the towns of Kirup, Donnybrook, Boyanup and the suburbs of Bunbury. • Rail will remove some of the safety hazards associated with trucking. • It is proposed that the plantation timber logs will move to rail by 2012. • The budget for the upgrade of the rail line and associated infrastructure is $19.45 million. • This is $5 million more that what the previous government had committed to the project.
Kewdale to Fremantle Port container rail service. • The rail service from Kewdale/Forrestfield to North Quay is providing a valued service which reduces the pressure on access roads at Fremantle Port and represents a cost effective means of reducing congestion levels and delays. • The Government currently provides a subsidy of ($50 per 20ft container and $100 per 40ft container) but is working to reduce this amount which has seen a reduction of $5 per container in recent times. • Rail's share of containers transported to Fremantle Port has increased from 2 percent in 2002 to 16.7 percent in the 12 months to May 2009. • With the exception of some services in Sydney, no other Australian port is serviced by metropolitan container trains. • Rail currently carries an average of 6,700 containers per month (YTD), or the equivalent of 80,000 per annum through the Port. • This equates to approximately 60,000 truck movements. Currently 20 trains per week (40 train movements) service the Inner Harbour container trade. • Container subsidy expenditure in 2008-09 has been revised down from $4.5 million to $3.5 million because of volume reductions emanating from the world financial crises.
[ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E801
The Government has continued to provide financial support equivalent to the previous Government on a container basis.
Page 415 – Financial Statement — Question 9: What is the rationale for axing the successful LPG subsidy scheme? Please provide information on the impact on the LPG conversion industry of the abolition of this subsidy, and the number of jobs that are predicted to be lost as a result of this decision? Answer: As was indicated in the 2009-10 Budget papers, the cessation of the LPG subsidy will save the Western Australian Government an estimated $49.542 m over the next four years (to the end of 2012/13). A significant saving in these tough economic times. A similar scheme was introduced by the Commonwealth Government in 2006. These Commonwealth subsidies will continue beyond the cessation of the WA subsidy, bringing Western Australia into line with other States and Territories. Though some adjustment is inevitable within the LPG industry, the continued Commonwealth subsidy combined with ongoing non-subsidised corporate LPG conversions and the significant price advantage of LPG should see the LPG industry remain robust into the future.
Question 10: How much of each of the figures listed in the Perth Bicycle Network / Country Pathways line item on this page (i.e. all figures from the 07/08 actual through to 12/13 forward estimates) relate just to the Perth Bicycle Network? Answer: Line item breakdown that relates to the Perth Bicycle Network is:
2007-08 Actual 2008-09 Estimate 2009-10 Estimate 2010-2013 Estimate $M $M $M $M 1.411 1.925 1.737 1.910
Page 430: Roe Highway 8 extension — Hon Lynn MacLaren asked: What is the State funding component? When will the Commonwealth funding component be determined? As this highway has yet to earn environmental approval, on what road design did the government base its costing of $166M over the four years of the budget estimates and forward estimates? Answer (1) The State funding component within the 2009/10 Budget and Forward Estimates is $90.5 million. (2) Negotiations have commenced with the Commonwealth regarding its funding and it is not yet known when these will be finalised. (3) The funding allocated in the 2009/10 Budget and Forward Estimates is based on a concept design that fits within the Metropolitan Region Scheme reservation and will be subject to considerable refinement as the design is finalised and the required statutory approvals, including environmental, are obtained. Information to Minister about Item 1 The $165.9 million allocated to the project within the 2009/10 Budget and Forward Estimates period comprised: $20 million of State funds committed at the 2008 State election; $70.5 million of State funds diverted from 3 projects under the Perth Urban Transport and Freight Corridor (PUT&FC) initiative; and $75.4 million of Commonwealth funds diverted from these 3 projects.
E802 [ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
The original decision to transfer funds from the 3 projects under the PUT&FC initiative was made by EERC on 18 March 2009. HMT has since reconsidered this transfer of funds and wrote to Minister Albanese on 3 June 2009 requesting the transfer of funds from just one of the 3 projects - the Kwinana Freeway Freight Management System - to the Roe Highway extension. The amount to be transferred is $58 million, of which $48.4 million is within the 2009/10 B&FE. This would reduce funding to the Roe Highway extension within the 2009/10 B&FE period to $68.4 million, comprising: $20 million of State funds committed at the 2008 State election; $21.6 million of State funds diverted from Kwinana Freeway FMS; and $26.8 of Commonwealth funds diverted from the same project on Kwinana Freeway. A draft letter has been prepared for HMT to send to the Treasurer seeking his agreement to return funds from the Roe Highway extension to the other 2 projects on the PUT&FC initiative.
Page 429: New Works on Leach Highway – Regarding proposed High Street improvements, with an estimated total cost of $67,986, what components make up this total, and what is the value of each of those components? Are there any other items relating to High Street in the budget estimates or forward estimates?
Answer: The figure quoted of $67,986,000 is only a budgetary figure as this proposal is still in the planning phase. The project is proposed to include the upgrading of High Street to a 4 lane divided dual carriageway standard between Carrington Street and leach Highway and reprioritisation of the High Street/Stirling Highway intersection. DPI is still investigating options for the proposed upgrade of High Street which may include upgrading along the current alignment or on a new alignment to the south of the existing road.
Page 429: New Works — It appears there is no listing for the reconstruction of Curtin Avenue from North Fremantle to Cottesloe for regional traffic along the railway as part of the Leighton Oceanside Parklands development – is this located elsewhere in the budget papers? If so, where?
Answer: Whilst a reservation is included in the MRS for the new Curtin Avenue to go behind the Leighton Oceanside parklands development, no funding has been allocated in the 2009/10 Budget and Forward Estimates for this upgrade.
Page 428: Queen Victoria Street – Fremantle Traffic Bridge replacement – What design is this costing based on? Has the Government given consideration to this as a ‘landmark’ bridge, an entrance to Fremantle? Have any funds been allocated in the budget estimates or forward estimates to deal with preservation of its heritage value?
Answer: $44.54 million is allocated towards this project in the 2009/10 Budget and Forward estimates for pre- construction activities such as feasibility studies, engineering investigations, planning and design for a new structure. Investigations are continuing on the feasibility of constructing a combined new road and rail bridge bearing in mind that the existing bridges need replacing. The Government is considering a “landmark’ design but no decision has yet been made on this. The heritage value of the existing road bridge is acknowledged. This will be an important consideration in defining the scope of works for the project. Some funding will be available to address the preservation of the existing bridge’s heritage value. A portion of the existing traffic bridge will be retained and maintained for heritage purposes.
Page 423: Services and key efficiency indicators –
Hon Alison Xamon asked: 1. Would the Government please outline its proposed work, with associated costs and estimated timeframes, on the State and National Black Spot Program in the East Metropolitan Region (State electoral boundaries) during the period of budget estimates and forward estimates?
[ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E803
Answer (1) Nominations for both the National and State Black Spot programs are called each year. The 2009/10 State Black Spot Program is currently being finalised by Main Roads and I would expect to formally approve the program later this month. The program will then be available on the Main Roads website. In relation to the National Black Spot program, there is approximately $2.4 million worth of works to be undertaken in the East Metropolitan Region during 2009/10. Details of these works are currently available on the Main Roads website using the following links: www.mainroads.wa.gov.au > Road safety > Blackspot Program > Approved National Program Information to Minister about Item 1 During 2009/10 it is estimated that a total of nearly $4.8 million will be expended in the East Metropolitan Region under the State and National Black Spot Programs. This figure comprises National Black Spot funding (under the Nation Building Program) of $2.448 million and $2.349 million under the State Black Spot Program (including a $254,000 Local Government contribution). Page 423: Asset Investment Program – 2. Would the Government please outline its proposed works, with associated costs and estimates timeframes, affecting the Roe Highway in the East Metropolitan Region (State electoral boundaries) during the period of budget estimates and forward estimates, other than those already picked up by the above question on the Black Spot Programs? 3. Would the Government please outline its proposed works, with associated costs and estimates timeframes, affecting the Great Northern Highway in the East Metropolitan Region (State electoral boundaries) during the period of budget estimates and forward estimates, other than those already picked up by the above question on the Black Spot Programs? 4. Which of the Asset Investment Program line items, if any, relates to the proposed upgrade of Toodyay Road to account for expected increase in traffic volumes? 5. How does this total Asset Investment Program spending during the period of budget estimates and forward estimates compare with the total spending on public transport in the same time period? I am interested in being able to compare road spending with public transport at this stage just in terms of the broad categories of works in progress, completed works and new works. 6. What is the thinking behind this split between public transport and road funding? Is there an accepted economic or planning model linking anticipated demand in each category with proposed works, on a statewide basis? Or is the statewide program a function of modelling on regional or local levels? 7. Importantly, how does the idea of reducing the need for roadworks through increasing availability of public transport options fit into the planning process, if at all? Answer: (2) The following funding is allocated in the AIP for works on Roe Highway within the 2009/10 Budget and Forward Estimates period: • $14.174 million is allocated to Roe Highway and Leach Highway between Midland and Fremantle Port for the installation of Intelligent Transport Systems. These predominantly involve real time traveller information (e.g. Variable Message Signs, Internet information distribution and third party information distribution such as into navigation systems). It has not yet been determined how much of this will be spent on Roe Highway and how much on Leach Highway nor has it been determined how much of the $14.174 million will be spent within the East Metropolitan Region. • $56.893 million is allocated towards the construction of an interchange with on and off ramps at the Roe Highway intersection with Great Eastern Highway. (3) The following funding is allocated in the AIP for works on Great Northern Highway within the 2009/10 Budget and Forward Estimates period: • $32.525 million is allocated for on-going reconstruction and widening works on Great Northern Highway between Lennard Street in Herne Hill and West Swan Road in Upper Swan. (4) No funds are allocated in the AIP for upgrading works on Toodyay Road.
E804 [ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
(5-7) Government funding priorities are determined on an annual priority basis. Competing priority projects are prioritised for funding consideration by agencies and then considered by government. This includes transport infrastructure projects. Government funding priorities are considered on a project by project basis within a climate of constrained funding. In terms of transport infrastructure, the Government is focused on providing sustainable transport infrastructure. Our approach therefore involves improving public transport whilst still providing measured investment in road transport. Accordingly some years there will be more funding assigned to one infrastructure mode than other years.
DIVISION 52: OFFICE OF ENERGY — [Supplementary Information No: I1.] Hon Robin Chapple asked: Can I please have details of the applications to connect month-by-month to both Synergy and Horizon Power since the Liberal-National promise to introduce feed-in tariffs. If there is no unexpected spike post mid-April, I will need to understand that. Why could you not have responded to the unprecedented demand with additional post-budget funding for an expended gross feed-in tariff scheme, given you have done it elsewhere, apropos Oakajee and other places? Answer: Renewable Energy Buyback Scheme meter connections.
Sep-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08 Jan-09 Feb-09 Mar-09 Apr-09
340 204 300 381 368 336 628 348
Government recognises the substantial interest within the community to install household renewable energy systems and wants to ensure it put in place appropriate support for households to do so for the long-term. Therefore, the Government will work on an alternative net feed-in tariff scheme that will provide an on-going benefit to households and the solar industry in WA. This scheme is expected to be implemented on 1 July 2010. The budget allocation of $13.5 million for the gross feed-in tariff will be used to fund the Government’s Household Renewable Energy Scheme. Under this scheme, owners of solar photovoltaic systems installed from the date of the State Government election will receive three annual lump-sum payments to help recover the cost of their system installation.
[Supplementary Information No I2.] Hon Kate Doust asked: has the Government done any costing on a re-merger between Verve and Synergy? Answer: There has been no review or investigation into the re-merge of Verve Energy and Synergy. There has been a study into the financial situation of Verve Energy. In relation to this, Mr Oates has met with the following groups: Verve Energy Western Power Synergy Horizon Power Economic Regulation Authority Chamber of Minerals and Energy Chamber of Commerce and Industry WA Office of Energy Independent Market Authority Department of Treasury and Finance
[Supplementary Information No I3.] Hon Max Trenorden referred to page 684, the solar hot water heater incentive scheme and the feed-in tariff: My perception is that that program has got to the stage where people who purchased and got rebates for the water heaters are now finding that some of them are wearing out. They are making applications
[ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E805
for a second bite, but cannot get it and, therefore, are going back to using electricity and so forth, which is defeating the purpose of the original program. That applies particularly to pensioners and people on a low income. The program has been in place for a little while now. Is anyone looking at the fact that these people cannot get their second hot water system and are going back to using electricity? Answer: The current guidelines for the Solar Water Heater Subsidy scheme do not allow a person to obtain a second rebate for a solar water heater system installed at the same property. The rebate is intended to encourage people to install gas boosted solar water heaters in new homes or to convert existing water heating systems to gas-boosted solar. The installation costs are significantly less when replacing an existing gas boosted solar system. The Office of Energy cannot find a record of this issue having been raised with the Office. It would therefore not appear to be a widespread problem. However, the scheme is currently under review and this issue will be considered as part of that review.
[Supplementary Information No I4.] Hon Robin Chapple asked: what were the government’s intentions in terms of renewable energy to meet the 20 per cent by 2020 requirement? Answer: Under the Commonwealth Government’s Renewable Energy Target, liable electricity consumers under the scheme can source renewable energy certificates from generators anywhere in Australia. The intention of the scheme is that renewable energy is developed in the least cost way nationally. Increasing the proportion of renewable energy in Western Australia’s main electricity grid from the current level of 5% to around 17% in 2020 would be sufficient to cover expected liabilities of Western Australian liable parties. The table below represents the potential increase in renewable energy on the State’s main grid if liabilities are met locally. However, there will be significant challenges in accommodating large quantities of intermittent renewable energy generation in the State's main electricity grid. Estimated Renewable Energy Certificate liabilities for the State’s main electricity grid
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Liabilities 1032 1209 1415 1631 1859 2080 2576 3057 3534 4010 4500 (GWh) Share in sales 4.9 5.6 6.3 7.0 7.7 8.3 10.0 11.7 13.3 14.8 16.4 (%)
[Supplementary Information No I5.] Hon Kate Doust asked: 1. What work has been done to progress the pipeline project? 2. The policy document states the likely capital cost will be $225 million – is this still the estimated cost or has this changed? 3. The policy document states that construction is expected to begin in this term of Government – is this still the case?. 4. Can the Minister outline what funding has been allocated in this year’s budget to progress this project, and what has been include on the forward estimates for its construction? Answer: 1. The Minister for State Development is considering options available to develop the gas pipeline. 2. This is still the estimated cost. 3. Statutory approvals and the acquisition of corridor rights will need to be obtained before a gas pipeline can be developed. 4. Western Power has been allocated $20 million (2011/12 – $10 million and 2012/13 – $10 million) for establishment of the pipeline corridor. The extent of pipeline development funding will be subject to joint venture negotiations with a private pipeline company. Hon Ken Travers asked: 1. As of the last date you reported to Treasury on your finances:
E806 [ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
1.1 Can you please identify all accounts held by your agency? 1.2 How much cash is held in each of these accounts? 1.3 How much of this cash is restricted or subject to approval or control? 1.4 As of this date, what is your estimated annual average cash as a percentage of your appropriation? 2. As of the last date you internally monitored each account your agency has: 2.1 How much cash is held in each of these accounts? 2.2 How much of this cash is restricted or subject to approval or control? 2.3 As of this date, what is your estimated annual average cash as a percentage of your appropriation? 3. Please provide, for each question below, what you expect to be the figures as of 30 June 2009? 3.1 How much cash is held in each of these accounts? 3.2 How much of this cash is restricted or subject to approval or control? 3.3 As of this date, what is your estimated annual average cash as a percentage of your appropriation?
Answer: OOE 1. As at 31 March 2009 1.1 The Office of Energy operates a single bank account with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. Office of Energy Operating Account. 1.2 $17,602,000 1.3 $3,000,000 1.4 74% 2. As at 31 May 2009 2.1 $11,052,891.11 2.2 $3,000,000 2.3 46% 3. 3.1 Approximately $10,000,000 3.2 $3,000,000 3.3 49% VERVE ENERGY 1-3 Verve Energy, as a corporation, operates commercially within a regulatory framework. Verve Energy holds an amount prudent to meet its normal daily ongoing operational payment obligations. As a Government Trading Enterprise, and in accordance with the Electricity Corporations Act 2005 (WA), Verve Energy provides the Minister with a quarterly report, for the first three quarters and an Annual Report for the whole financial year. As part of this quarterly reporting, the Corporation also provides highlights of important achievements with financial statements and relevant accompanying notes. WESTERN POWER 1-3 Western Power, as a corporation, operates commercially within a regulatory framework. Western Power holds an amount prudent to meet its normal daily ongoing operational payment obligations. As a Government Trading Enterprise, and in accordance with the Electricity Corporations Act 2005 (WA), Western Power provides the Minister with a quarterly report, for the first three quarters and an Annual Report for the whole financial year.
[ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E807
As part of this quarterly reporting, the Corporation also provides highlights of important achievements with financial statements and relevant accompanying notes.
Hon Kate Doust asked: Office of Energy 4. I refer to the underground Power Program and ask 4.1 When will Local Government be able to submit projects for Round 5? 4.2 How many homes are estimated will be covered by Round 5? 4.3 Given the significant increases in costs to home owners in recent years, will the Minister be considering alternative funding models that do not cause such a financial impost on the community? 4.4 Is the Minister aware of community concern in the Wilson West Underground Power project, and if so will he undertake to investigate the public consultation process to confirm its validity before the project proceeds further? 5. Will the Minister outline all Office of Energy projects delayed during 2008/09, and which ones, of these will be undertaken in 2009/10? Verve Energy 6. I refer to the $39.8million for “various works” at the Kwinana Power Station – can the Minister outline what these works entail? 7. I refer to the $980,000 allocation for Sustainable Energy – can the Minister outline what projects this and the forward allocation go towards? Western Energy 8. I refer to the Liberal party’s election policy that states: “A Liberal Government will construct a natural gas pipeline from Bunbury to Albany via Bridgetown and Manjimup to develop a secure, reliable and safe energy supply for the future economic and social growth of the region.” and ask: 8.1 What work has been done to progress the pipeline project? 8.2 The policy document states the likely capital cost will be $225million - is this still the estimated cost or has this changed? 8.3 The policy document states that construction is expected to being in this term of government - is this still the case? 8.4 Can the Minister outline what funding has been allocated in this year’s budget to progress this project, and what has been include on the forward estimates for its construction? 9. I refer to the Government’s decision to cancel/defer the 220kv bulk South West transmission line and ask: 9.1 Does Western Power still believe that the line is required by the end of 2011 as, according to your November 2008 proposal: “…the transmission network is constrained and cannot accommodate the forecast increase in generation in the South West region: and “there will no longer be sufficient capacity to install significant amounts of Generation in the South West Region”? 9.2 What is the current estimated cost of this Transmission line? 9.3 I notice that Western Power was slightly ambiguous in the other place during estimates recently about the timeframe for this project to commence – when will it look like construction will start given its importance?
E808 [ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
9.4 Given the obvious need for this project to ensure the stability and security of the Perth metropolitan area’s power supply, why has no funding been allocated for its construction in the forward estimates? 10. I refer to allocations to replace non complying poles and to maintain and inspect other poles on the network and ask: 10.1 How many power poles were replaced in 2008? 10.2 How many power poles have been replaced in 2009? 10.3 How do these replacement rates compare to Australian best practice? 10.4 How many unsupported jarrah pole exist in the rural network? 10.5 Given the Office of Energy Safety recently found that Western Power had been deficient in power pole inspection and replacement, what action is being taken to remedy this? 10.6 What funding has been allocated in the 08/09 Budget and in the out-years to fund pole inspection, maintenance and replacement? 11. Can the Minister explain what the allocation for ‘new Capacity, Asset replacement and public safety’ will be used for? 12. Under the Rural Power Improvement Program, just over $8million has been allocated for 2009/10 – what regions or projects will it be used for? 12.1 Why has this project received no funding in the forward estimates? 13. Will the minister give a breakdown of the allocation for Mobile Plant, Vehicle and IT replacement? 14. In the Drawdown from Royalties to regions fund line item, what is the $10million allocation for in 2011/12 and 2012/13? 14.1 Why isn’t this fund going to be accessed earlier? 14.2 Has any consideration been given to using this fund for much needed transmission works in rural areas? 14.3 Has any consideration been given to using this fund for the 330Kv line to the Mid West? Answer: 4.1 The State Underground Power Program Steering Committee plans to invite all local governments to submit proposals for underground power under Round 5 in the last quarter of 2009. 4.2 An estimated 9,000 homes will have power undergrounded under Round 5. 4.3 The financial arrangement will be the same as in Round 4. The costs will be shared between local governments 50% (through ratepayers who directly benefit), the State Government 25% and Western Power 25%. The shared funding arrangements reflect the shared benefits of underground power between the network operator and its customers. A subsidy of 15% applies for low income areas as determined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ Socio Economic Index for Areas (SEIFA). In addition, standard government pensioner rate rebates apply to the Underground Power Program. 4.4 Yes. The City of Canning conducted a survey that resulted in a response rate of 46% of all ratepayers, including 41% of all resident ratepayers. This response rate is considered high and statistically valid and sound. Total ratepayers who responded in favour were 78% with resident ratepayers at 73%. Total ratepayers who responded as prepared to pay were 58% with resident ratepayers at 49.9%. The Underground Power Program Steering Committee in assessing support and ability to pay does not discriminate against ratepayers who are non resident as they also pay their share of costs. However, as the survey indicated only 49.9% of resident ratepayers were prepared to pay, the UPP Steering Committee asked the City to provide a clear financial commitment to the project.
[ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E809
During a Council meeting held on 13 January 2009, the City of Canning unanimously voted to financially commit to the project. Therefore, the project will proceed as planned. 5. There are no Underground Power Projects delayed during 2008/09. The City of Bunbury (Withers) and City of Joondalup (Greenwood West) decided not to proceed with the proposed projects. The City of Melville (Attadale South) was promoted from the reserved project short-list to replace Greenwood West. A reserve project to replace Withers is currently being assessed. 6. The largest single item is for the replacement of a high pressure inner cylinder at Kwinana Unit 6 to enhance plant reliability. Also included is expenditure for canal maintenance as part of the NewGen arrangements, environmental works and security surveillance. 7. The budget allocation is primarily for planned wind-diesel capacity upgrades at Hopetoun and Denham. 8. 8.1 The Minister for State Development is considering options available to develop the gas pipeline. 8.2 This is still the estimated cost. 8.3 Statutory approvals and the acquisition of corridor rights will need to be obtained before a gas pipeline can be developed. 8.4 Western Power has been allocated $20 million (2011/12 – $10 million and 2012/13 – $10 million) for establishment of the pipeline corridor. The extent of pipeline development funding will be subject to joint venture negotiations with a private pipeline company. 9. 9.1 Western Power will continue to review the load and generation forecasts to determine the optimal completion date for the project. A new forecast will be released by the Independent Market Operator shortly and Western Power will use this information in its timing review. 9.2 Western Power is in the process of finalising a detailed cost estimate for the project. The estimated cost is in the order of $215M. 9.3 Refer 9.1 9.4 Western Power is regulated by the Economic Regulation Authority (ERA), who reviews its submissions for major projects, such as this line, to determine if it is economically viable and if the best solution, to reinforce power to the area, has been chosen. 10. 10.1 In 2007/08 6,070 poles were replaced. 10.2 Approximately 8520 poles have been replaced as of 30 May 2009. The forecast is for 9300 to be replaced by 30 June 2009. 10.3 The industry average, based on the latest industry statistics, is a replacement rate of 4.5 poles per 1000 poles. Western Power’s current replacement rate is 14.3 poles per 1000 poles, or more than 3 times the industry average. 10.4 There are approximately 210,000 unsupported Jarrah poles in Western Power’s distribution network from a total Jarrah pole population of 505,000. 10.5 The pole inspection process is being enhanced to reflect Australian industry best practice, as well as a range of other process improvements in design and construction. While the Energy Safety completed its report in December 2008 the report largely focuses on practices up to August 2008, ignoring the substantial progress Western Power has made in the 10 months since that time. Pole top fires have been reduced by 60 per cent and the number of unserviceable poles replaced has been increased by 100 per cent. In its latest submission to the regulator for funding, Western Power has sought to replace or remove 22,500 poles based on their condition and 11,500 poles from various programs, including the state undergrounding program, regional power improvement program, targeted reliability and maintenance programs, as well as 34,000 pole reinforcements. In total, nearly 70,000 wood poles will be addressed in the next three years, which is significantly above the volumes that other Australian utilities are operating at.
E810 [ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
10.6
2008/09 Actual 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 Distribution Wood Pole Inspection & $28.3M $24.4M $45.7M $51.2M Maintenance Distribution Wood Pole Replacement $43M $42M $41M $41M
11. The expenditure nominated as ‘New Capacity, Asset Replacement and Public Safety’ is driven by growth in system load, requirements to replace/refurbish assets that are no longer viable or to ensure that assets owned and operated by Western Power are done so in a manner that does not compromise the safety and well being of the public. The primary driver of new capacity works stems from increases in system load. This can include works necessary to meet the system peak demand, works in relation to load with a section of the network or works necessary to ensure that the network’s system meets security and reliability criteria. Asset Replacement expenditure is allocated to replace or refurbish assets that are either worn out or obsolete. Western Power will invest in programs that mitigate or reduce the risk to the public from the operation of the Transmission and Distribution networks. Typically this would cover storm damage, pole top fires and bushfire risk mitigation strategies. Asset Replacement expenditure is allocated to replace or refurbish assets that are either worn out or obsolete. Public safety relates to those programs that mitigate or reduce the risk to the public from the operation of the Transmission and Distribution networks. Typically this would cover bushfire risk mitigation strategies, replacement of customer services that pose a risk to electric shock, replacement of specific assets with risk of explosion, increasing clearances of lines on traffic ways. 12. The Rural Power Improvement Program (RPIP) is a capital expenditure program jointly funded by the Office of Energy and Western Power. The program focuses on delivering better power quality and reliability for customers in remote country areas in the South West Interconnected System (SWIS). The program includes initiatives to improve the capacity, security and reliability of the rural network. Works within this program include targeted initiatives for feeder extensions, reinforcements or replacement works. Major RPIP projects planned for 2009/10 are: Line upgrades in South Country covering Walpole, Pemberton, Witchcliffe and Yallingup and Minor works in North Country. RPIP expenditure is forecast to cease after 2009/10 as the target program of works is completed and the RPIP program finishes. 13. Mobile Plant and Motor Vehicles forecast expenditure for 2009/10 is $28M with the IT work program (covering the Strategic Program of Works and Business as usual expenditure) forecast at $37M for 2009/10. 14. The forward budget estimate is associated with the Bunbury to Albany gas pipeline. Refer to question 8.
Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich asked: 15. I refer to the Government’s aspiration for savings of $7.6 billion over five years across government as outlined on page 13 of the budget overview and ask – 15.1 Is your agency redirecting any capital works expenditure - if so can you provide details including value? 15.2 Is the agency selling surplus government land or assets, and if so can the Minister provide a list of land or assets earmarked for sale? 15.3 Is the agency proposing to privatize any of its function or contract out any of its services - if so, which ones? 15.4 Is the agency intending to reduce staff numbers over the next 4 years and if so what ceiling has the agency set and how many staff with be shed?
[ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E811
15.5 Is the agency aware of the Government’s new responsible public sector wages policy - if so, what is it? 16. I refer to ASSET INVESTMENT PROGRAM on page 693 and the government commitment of $742.4 million will be invested in new transmission capacity, asset replacement, and public safety programs. And I ask: 16.1 How much funding has been allocated for Transmission line works for lines between West Kalgoorlie to Black Flag? 16.2 What is the estimated time for commencement and of completion? 16.3 Will this work be contracted out to local contractors and if not why not? Answer: 15. Western Power, as a corporation, operates commercially within a regulatory framework. Western Power’s investment program is outlined in our proposed AA2, as well as subsequent submissions to be provided to the ERA during 2009. Western Power is not rationalising assets to achieve the savings requested, and is committed to making a revised submission to the ERA in light of the changed economic conditions. Western Power recognises that the final decision will require Government approval to proceed. Western Power has submitted its Strategic Development Plan (SDP) including a high-level overview of Western Power’s strategic direction over the five year period 2009/10 to 2013/14 to the Minister. This SDP is a continuation of Western Power’s strategy; it is consistent with the state budget process; reflects the fact that the Access Agreement has not yet been approved by the ERA; and outlines the risks to the business meeting community and government expectations with less resources. 16. 16.1 Due to reprioritising of works, the transmission line works for the 132kV line between West Kalgoorlie and Black Flag substation has been deferred by 12 months. Total funding allocated to this project is $24.3 million over five years, with funding allocations of $1.2M for 2010/11 and $1.1M for 2011/12. (what makes up the rest of the $24.3 million) 16.2 This project will commence in 2010/11 with expected completion in 2014/15. 16.3 It is anticipated that this work would be undertaken by the Transfield Alliance.
DIVISION 61: CHILD PROTECTION — [Supplementary Information No G1.] Hon Sue Ellery asked: In last year’s budget an efficiency indicator was the number of clients seen, and the work done in the first version of the demand model was based on a prediction of about 100 000 clients. I think the figure that appeared in last year’s budget was that 105 000 clients were seen. In this budget, note (d) on page 785 is about the number of clients but there is a significant difference of about 30 000 between the figure that was relied on in the demand model prepared for the last budget and the number that appeared in the last budget. I do not understand why that would be the case. I do not think that 30 000 clients would have been transferred off to the Department for Communities, so I do not know where they have gone. Answer: The reduction in the number of clients between the 2009-10 budget papers and the 2008-09 budget papers is due to the transfer of 85 non-government services from the Department for Child Protection to the Department for Communities effective 1 July 2008. The number of clients were re-stated for comparability purposes across all years as shown in the 2009-10 budget papers.
[Supplementary Information No G2.] Hon Alison Xamon asked the minister to provide details of the 382 mandatory reports received up to 31 March; how many children did that represent? Answer: There were 382 mandatory reports, reporting 368 children, received during the period 1 January to 31 March 2009. Of the 382 mandatory reports received to 31 March 2009 (which include multiple reports and reports on matters already under assessment), 97 were made by doctors, 35 by nurses, 186 by police and 64 by teachers/school principals.
E812 [ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
Of the 382 mandatory reports, 95 of these mandatory reports related to matters already under assessment by the Department (42) or were additional reports about the same child/incident (53). The remaining 287 mandatory reports, reporting 321 children, resulted in 347 new notifications of suspected sexual abuse. Please note: the Department’s May reporting snapshot shows there were 347 notifications of suspected child sexual abuse between 1 January 2009 and 31 March 2009. The figure of 360 was compiled primarily from the April reporting snapshot. Earlier figures reported and the difference in numbers is due to subsequent data correction since the April snapshot was taken.
Hon Ken Travers asked: 1 As of the last date you reported to Treasury on your finances: 1.1 Can you please identify all accounts held by your agency? 1.2 How much cash is held in each of these accounts? 1.3 How much of this cash is restricted or subject to approval or control? 1.4 As of this date, what is your estimated annual average cash as a percentage of your appropriation? 2 As of the last date you internally monitored each account your agency has: 2.1 How much cash is held in each of these accounts? 2.2 How much of this cash is restricted or subject to approval or control? 2.3 As of this date, what is your estimated annual average case as a percentage of your appropriation? 3 Please provide, for each question below, what you expect to be the figures as of 30 June 2009? 3.1 How much cash is held in each of these accounts? 3.2 How much of this cash is restricted or subject to approval or control? 3.3 As of this date, what is your estimated annual average cash as a percentage of your appropriation? Answer: 1.1 The Department has one bank account for its operations and one bank account for money held for children and young people in care of the Chief Executive Officer. 1.2 $19.893 million as at 31 May 2009 was held in the Department’s operating account. $0.017 million was held as at 31 May 2009 in a separate account for children and young people in care of the Chief Executive Officer. 1.3 $5.2 million of the Department’s operating account was restricted relating to funding received from the Commonwealth Government and an estimated $4 million was held for capital works projects to be utilised in 2009-10, leaving a balance of $10.693 million. The $10.693 million will reduce significantly by year-end due to the timing of payments and the receipt of appropriation. The full amount of $0.017 million for the Department’s other account is restricted. 1.4 The estimate annual average non-restricted cash as a percentage of appropriation is estimated 2.3 percent. 2. As per the information supplied for Question 1. 3.1 $8.3 million is estimated to be held in the Department’s operating accounting as at 30 June 2009, which largely relates to funding to be carried forward for capital works project in 2009- 10 and restricted cash for funds received the Commonwealth Government and held in trust. $0.020 million is estimated to be held in a separate bank account for children and young people in care of the Chief Executive Officer. 3.2 $1.1 million of the Department’s operating account balance of $8.3 million is estimated to be restricted and an additional $3.5 million is held for capital works, leaving a balance of $3.7 million. The capital works balance will be carried forward into 2009-10 for approved capital works projects in 2009-10. The full amount of $0.020 million in the separate bank account is restricted. 3.3 The estimate annual average non-restricted cash as a percentage of appropriation is estimated to be 2.2 percent.
[ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E813
Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich asked: 4.1 Is your agency redirecting any capital works expenditure – if so can you provide details including value? 4.2 Is the agency selling surplus government land or assets, and if so can the Minister provide a list of land or assets earmarked for sale? 4.3 Is the agency proposing to privatize any of its functions or contract out any of its services - if so, which ones? 4.4 Is the agency intending to reduce staff numbers over the next 4 years and if so what ceiling has the agency set and how many staff with (sic) be shed? 4.5 Is the agency aware of the Government’s new responsible public sector wages policy – if so what is it? Answer: 4.1 Capital funding previously approved for accommodation projects in 2011/12 have been reprioritised to provide office accommodation needs across the State to accommodate additional staff provided over recent years. Mandatory Reporting $500,000 Crisis Care $1,250,000 Armadale Office $1,000,000 Head Office Royal Street $3,000,000 Total $5,750,000 4.2 The following assets are in the process or earmarked for disposal the proceeds are to be redirected to the Department’s reform of residential care services - 2009/10 - Port Hedland Old District Office (vacant); 2009/10 – Brenda Cherry Centre, Subiaco (insufficient office space); 2009/10 – Onslow Drop in Centre (surplus to requirements); 2010/11 – Stoneville Land (surplus to requirements); and 2012/13 – McCall Centre (not suitable for accommodating therapeutic child focussed services) 4.3 No 4.4 No 4.5 The Department is aware of the recently released “Public Sector Wages Policy 2009.” As this is not a Department Policy, it is more appropriate that the Member direct the question to the appropriate Minister.
Hon Sue Ellery asked: 5.1 What the current number of children in care for more than 20 days with no planning recorded? 6.1 What monitoring systems are in place to ensure organisations continue to meet obligations to ensure WWC in place, given reduction in advertising? 6.1.1 Will additional compliance be engaged to ensure momentum is not lost? 6.1.2 What is the allocation in 2009/10 for compliance in respect to WWC; is there any reduction in FTE. 7.1 Which public campaigns will not proceed as a result of the savings incurred due to the election commitment to cut media, marketing and advertising. 8.1 How many children were placed with more than four (4) carers since 2008? 8.2 Given the review of multiple placements and strategies it recommended, why were the target figures any higher than in 2008/09? 9.1 What is the number of children in care for more than twelve (12) months with no review recorded? 9.2 What is the number of carer’s reviews overdue? 9.3 What is the number of carer record screening overdue or not recorded?
E814 [ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
Answer: 5.1 There are currently 164 children in care for more than 20 days with no planning recorded. This is compared to 345 for the same period last year. 6.1 The WWC Screening Unit is supporting and working with organisations such as the WA Sports Federation, Constable Care and a range of government agencies to promote the check to targeted groups. 6.1.1 An additional compliance officer is being recruited 6.1.2 FTE was not reduced. There are 2 FTE dedicated to compliance. There are also 2 FTE dedicated to community engagement promoting the check. 7.1 There are no public campaigns that will not proceed as a result of the reduction in Government spending on media, marketing and advertising. In recent years, major advertising campaigns have been held on a once-off basis, and the reduction in funding for advertising in the half financial year 2008-09 and for the full 2009-10 financial year is based on them not being repeated. The Department’s Working with Children Screening Unit’s community education campaign comprised 55 per cent of the Department’s total advertising in the 2007-08 financial year. The gradual introduction of the checks across all categories of child-related work will be complete by the end of 2010, meaning greater savings will be made on a reduced extent of community education, with the Unit seeking to undertake alternative methods of community education to inform people of their obligations under the legislation, at minimal cost. 8.1 37 children who were in care on 30 Sep 2008 had more than four placements between 1 January and 30 September 2008. 37 children who were in care on 31 May 2009 had more than four placements between 1 October 2008 and 31 May 2009. 8.2 The estimated actual average number of placements per child in the CEO’s care per year for 2008-09 (1.6) is higher than the 2008-09 budget (1.4) as a result of significant increases in the number of children in care over the last 12 months, placing pressure on the care system. The 2009-10 budget target has been set at 1.4 which is the same as the 2008-09 target. The Department is actively working towards addressing the issue of multiple placements through a suite of initiatives, including: • major foster carer recruitment campaign • the expansion and reform of residential care services • better health and education planning for children in departmental care • a greater focus on increased support in the recruitment, training and ongoing support of foster carers • development of legislation on Special Guardianship and a policy on permanency planning • implementation of the recommendations from the Report on Multiple Placements – Research into the Multiple Placement of Young Aboriginal Children in Departmental Care (November 2008). The impact of these strategies collectively on reducing multiple placements will not be evident at this stage, given a number of these initiatives are in the early stages of implementation. However, it is envisaged that these reforms will contribute to reducing the average number of placements per child in the CEO’s care in future years. 9.1 There are 623 children in care for more than 12 months with no review recorded. At this time last year the number was 510. 9.2 1,024 households. This includes households where there are no children placed. At this time last year the number was 1,070. 9.3 777 individual carers. This includes carers in households where there are no children placed. At this time last year the number was 1,130. NOTES: Responses to questions 5.1, 8.1 and 9.1 are as at 31 May 2009.
[ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E815
Responses to questions 9.2 and 9.3 are as at 8 June 2009. The June 2009 snapshot of the Department for Child Protection’s client database, taken on 8 June 2009, was used.
DIVISION 70: ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION —
[Supplementary Information No D1.] Hon Jon Ford asked in relation to the conservation estate: how many FTEs were involved? Answer: Staff employed in three of DEC’s seven services are involved in management of the conservation estate. Budgeted FTEs for these three services, including an allocation of staff providing corporate support services for 2009-10, are: 1. Nature Conservation: 836 FTEs 2. Sustainable Forest Management: 241 FTEs 3. Parks and Visitor Services: 431 FTEs. A total of 1,508 FTEs are budgeted for 2009-10 across these three services for 2009-10, out of a department total budget of 1,970 FTEs for 2009-10.
[Supplementary Information No D2.] Hon Adele Farina referred to the non-compliance of the Port Geographe development with the environmental conditions of approval, and asked: Do you have an anticipated date for when this project will be compliant? This project is very fast approaching handover and it is still not in compliance. There does not seem to be a time line from the current government to bring it into compliance. If it is not in compliance by the hand-over date, will the government prosecute? Answer: The developer is presently non-compliant with Condition 4-2 of Ministerial Statement 391, which states ‘The proponent shall not cause any long term loss or erosion of the existing beaches east or west of the foreshore works as a consequence of this project’. Non-compliance with Condition 4-2 also leads to technical non- compliance with Conditions 1 and 2-1, which require the proponent to implement their commitments and that the proposal is to be implemented as outlined in the Statement. A four-year works program commenced in 2006 to address, among other things, erosion issues at Wonnerup Beach through the bypassing of significant amounts of sand from the western side of the groynes. Changes to coastal structures are required, and the proponent has provided a proposal to the Department for Planning and Infrastructure (DPI), which is currently being assessed. In this regard, the University of Western Australia is leading a study that investigates seagrass wrack movement in the area. It is regarded as essential that this research, and the subsequent modelling of proposed changes to coastal structures, take place before decisions can be made. The seagrass study is expected to be completed in February 2010. DPI has advised that the community will be consulted prior to any action taking place. While the project is non-compliant with Condition 4-2, the proponent is taking significant measures to achieve compliance. The outcome of the modelling will indicate actions that can be taken by the proponent to achieve compliance with this condition. The developer is waiting for this information prior to being able to implement further corrective works. The developer is yet to commence works on Stages 5 and 6 of the 10 stage canal development and a further six stages of dry lot subdivisions. The development is still a number of years from completion, and the developer has indicated that completion may be expected within the next seven to ten years.
[Supplementary Information No D3.] Hon Adele Farina asked: Has the department completed its audit of the water monitoring report for Port Geographe 2007-08, which was due on 31 March last year? Answer: The Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) has completed its audit. The Port Geographe Water Quality Monitoring report for 2007/2008, which compiled monitoring data from March 2007 to February 2008, was provided to DEC on 29 April 2008.
E816 [ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
DEC reviewed the report, but did not identify any major issues of concern regarding water quality in the marina and Geographe Bay. A response was provided by DEC to the developer on 31 December 2008.
[Supplementary Information No D4.] Hon Giz Watson asked: My question relates to page 889 of the Budget Statements, and deals with sustainable forest management among other things. My first question is: why has the department’s sustainable forest management expense component blown out this year from a budgeted figure of $38 956 000 to $44 149 000? Answer: The following table shows those items that are projected to vary for the Sustainable Forest Management service comparing the 2008-09 Budget to the 2009-10 Budget target. $ 2008-09 Budget 38,956,000
Adjustments Increased estimated recoupable projects and other externally funded works 3,031,976 Payroll increases for CSA Specified callings, fire allowances & CSA Salary Outcome 1,574,119 Increased allocation of corporate and other costs to this Service following a review of internal cost allocations during 2008/09 1,487,601 Depreciation of assets 150,000 Consultancies/advertising/media and marketing budget reduction -62,260 Contribution to 3% Efficiency Dividend -677,436 Annual works program undertaken for the Forests Products Commission -311,000
2009-10 Budget Target 44,149,000
[Supplementary Information No D5.] Hon Giz Watson asked: Can the department specify in detail how the $43 919 000 for sustainable forest management will be spent? Answer: The following is a breakdown of the $43.919 million Estimated Actual expenditure for 2008/09 into its major components: 1. $7.289 million Works undertaken for the Forest Products Commission (FPC) from the appropriation to the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC), including protection burning and forest silviculture. 2. $1.75 million Works undertaken for the FPC that the FPC pays DEC for, particularly a corporate services bureau. 3. $3.57 million Implementation of the Forest Management Plan, inventory mapping services, dieback management and policy determination undertaken by DEC’s Sustainable Forest Management Division. This includes expenditure of $0.9 million funded by the FPC as a contribution to the implementation of the Forest Management Plan. 4. $2.4 million Forest science research. 5. $9.12 million Prescribed burning, control of dieback, weeds and pest animals, maintenance of access roads and other forest estate management activities in DEC’s three forest regions: Warren Region: $3.04 million Swan Region: $3.0 million South West Region: $3.08 million.
[ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E817
6. $4.635 million Fire management activities including providing for wildfire suppression administered by DEC’s Fire Management Services Branch. 7. $6.78 million Grants and recoupable projects undertaken for external parties. 8. $3.291 million Depreciation charges. 9. $3.854 million Central corporate costs incurred by DEC to support the above activities. These costs include financial services, human resources, geographic information, information technology, audit, insurances and other corporate support. 10. $1.230 million Payroll increases
[Supplementary Information No D6.]
Hon Sally Talbot: I refer to section 6 on page 893 of the Budget Statements. We see there a reduction in FTEs for the EPA from 131 to 115. How can the minister justify that in light of her statements about strengthening the role of the EPA? What does it mean to “strengthen the role of the EPA” if the FTEs are reduced? … To clarify a point made by the minister: how many of those 115 will not be working for the EPA? Answer: 89 FTE’s are forecast to be employed in the direct provision of services and support to the EPA for 2009-10. This comprises 50 FTEs in the Environmental Impact Assessment Division, 4 FTEs in the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority and 35 FTEs in the Strategic Policy Division. 26 FTEs have also been budgeted as an allocation of employees in corporate support areas such as finance, human resource management, media and marketing, audit and general management.
[Supplementary Information No D7.] Hon Sally Talbot asked: Can the minister tell me what the actual head count from that FTE complement is? Answer: 94 employees on a head count basis are forecast to be employed in the direct provision of services and support to the EPA for 2009-10. This comprises 54 employees in the Environmental Impact Assessment Division, 4 employees in the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority and 36 employees in the Strategic Policy Division. An estimated 28 employees have also been budgeted as an allocation of the head count in corporate support areas such as finance, human resource management, media and marketing, audit and general management. [Supplementary Information No D8.] Hon Sally Talbot asked: Could the minister also perhaps take on notice getting for me a list of the projects that have been concluded? The minister just mentioned a couple to do with acid sulphates. Can I have a full list of those projects that have been stopped? Answer: Funding allocations that were made with finite time periods are: 1. Major development approvals: 2008-09 $M2.196, 2009-10 $M1.464 2. Residential land shortages and management of acid sulphate soils: 2006-07 $M0.861, 2007-08 $M1.148, 2008-09 $M1.148 3. Acid sulphate soils risk mapping: 2007-08 $M0.460, 2008-09 $M0.460 (recashflowed to 2007- 08 $M0.160, 2008-09 $M0.360, 2009-10 $M0.400)
[Supplementary Information No D9.] Hon Sally Talbot referred to the allocation of funds for development of a state-of-the-art environmental data system and asked: When does the minister expect that system to be operational? When does she expect it to be included in the budget? Answer: The Shared Environmental Assessment Knowledge Taskforce chaired by Dr Paul Vogel is expected to report to the Minister for Environment in November 2009.
[Supplementary Information No D10.] Hon Philip Gardiner: Total income for the DEC is just under $100 million if the landfill levy is subtracted, and $135.5 million if it is included. My question relates to the significant income generation of the department.
E818 [ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
Nature conservation is earning approximately $26 million and sustainable forest management is nearly $11 million. Is an increase of that revenue restrained by what the market can afford to pay, or can more revenue be generated by raising entrance fees to national parks and so on? I also understand that there is a source of lime that is very important for the agricultural sector; I think it is located at Jurien Bay. It is being constrained from having lime sourced from it at this stage because of environmental concerns. Would the minister balance whatever the limited environmental cost might be compared with the major environmental benefit it might provide when it is put on agricultural land to improve the organic carbon, microflora and microbiology of the soils, while also increasing revenue through royalties? Answer: It is presumed that the question refers to a proposal to mine lime sand from the Beekeepers Nature Reserve. This matter related to approvals from the Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) for the clearing of native vegetation under that Department’s delegation pursuant to the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and also that Department’s responsibilities under the Mining Act 1978 for mining approvals. The Department of Environment and Conservation understands that Westdeen Holdings’ proposed Cervantes Lime Sand Pit has been approved by the DMP.
[Supplementary Information No D11.] Hon Sally Talbot referred to the Waste Authority and the minister’s previous reference to 28 FTEs and asked what was the actual headcount of the authority. Answer: The head count in the Waste Management Branch on 18 June 2009 was 19.
[Supplementary Information No D12.] Hon Sally Talbot referred to note 1 under the heading “Explanation of Significant Movements” at the bottom of page 892, and asked for an explanation of the deferral, particularly of the expenditure on the Brookdale site. When was that money expected to be expended; would it be expended in the next 12 months? Answer: In providing this supplementary information, the Department of Environment and Conservation has reviewed the answer it provided to the Legislative Council Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations hearing on 18 June 2009, and found that the answer relates to the former Waste Control Site in Bellevue, rather than the former Brookdale Liquid Waste Treatment facility, which was the subject of this question. Works are being undertaken at the former Brookdale Liquid Waste Treatment facility as part of implementation of the Decommissioning Plan, in accordance with Condition 5-2 of Ministerial Statement 588 which was published on 18 March 2002. During 2008 and 2009, further site investigations were completed to address some data gaps identified by the accredited contaminated sites auditor, Mr Charles Barber of OTEK, who was appointed by the Environmental Protection Authority. The further site investigation report was submitted to the accredited auditor in early June 2009 for his review. When the accredited auditor is satisfied that the data gaps have been addressed, the health and ecological risk assessment and site management plan will be revised to incorporate the findings of the further site investigation. The revised health and ecological risk assessment and site management plan will then be submitted to the accredited auditor for review. DEC expects that implementation of the auditor-approved site management plan will commence in 2010. Until the site management plan has been finalised, DEC is unable to provide advice as to when implementation of the site management plan, or decommissioning of the former Brookdale Liquid Waste Treatment facility in accordance with Condition 5-2 of Ministerial Statement 588, will be completed. Funds were expended in 2008/09 on the further site investigations, and additional expenditure on the works outlined above will be incurred in 2009/10. Investigations undertaken at the former Brookdale Liquid Waste Treatment facility have identified metal and hydrocarbon contamination in groundwater beneath the facility. However, this contamination does not extend beyond site boundaries.
Page 887 – appropriations, Expenses and Cash Assets — Hon Giz Watson asked: According to its website the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) employs around 1900 staff as permanent staffers, contractors, casuals and seasonal workers and trainees in cities and towns as well as in
[ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E819 some of the most remote areas of the State (April 2009). How many of these staff will lose their jobs as part of the 2009-2010 budget, or in the forward estimates years? Can the Department provide a list of those DEC positions earmarked to be defunded? Can the Department outline how the staff affected by the defunding have been informed and prepared for it? Answer: The Department expects that to achieve the efficiency dividend and media and marketing savings, a reduction of approximately 35 positions will be required. However there are approved FTE increases in other areas that will more than offset this. The Government’s voluntary severance scheme has been offered to all DEC staff. The outcome of that scheme has not been finalised. Changes to staff numbers will occur through a combination, as required, of the voluntary severance scheme, natural attrition and transfer of affected staff to other parts of the Department.
Page 887 – Major Policy Decisions — Hon Robin Chapple asked: (1) Why does the total proposed to be spent in the budget and forward estimates on a Kimberley Science and Conservation Strategy on this page ($6.3m)differ massively from the sum in the Minister’s media release on the budget ($9m)? (2) What cuts, if any, were made from other parts of the budget and forward estimates that ordinarily would have related to the management of the Kimberley? (3) Why does the total proposed to be spent in the budget and forward estimates on the management of the Great Western Woodlands on this page ($3m) differ markedly from the sum in the Minister’s media release on the budget ($3.8m)? (4) What cuts, if any, were made from other parts of the budget and forward estimates that ordinarily would have related to the management of the Great Western Woodlands area? Answer: (1) $9 million is provided in the budget for the Kimberley Science and Conservation Strategy. The recurrent component of $6.3 million is shown at page 887 and the capital component of $2.7 million is shown at page 894 of the 2009-10 Budget Statements. (2) The budget allocation to business support and administration has been reduced by 1% as per page 888. This will be applied across all regions. (3) $3.8 million is provided in the budget for the Great Western Woodlands initiative. The recurrent component of $3 million is shown at page 887 and the capital component of $0.8 million is shown at page 894 of the 2009-10 Budget Statements. (4) See the answer to question (2)
Page 888 – Major Policy Decisions — Hon Giz Watson asked: (1) Is “Match Funding to Better Reflect the Take-Up of the Contaminated Sites Program” just another way to say that funding for the management of contaminated sites is being decreased in the budget and the forward estimates? (2) Does “Reduction in Grants and Rebates to Better Focus on Air Quality Monitoring” reflect the axing of the Community-Based Participatory Research Grants? If not, what part of the budget reflects that programme being axed? In any event, why has that program been axed? (3) Will “Simplify Forest Management Plan Protocols to be Less Resource Intensive” mean a reduction in Forest management Plan compliance monitoring? Answer: (1) Take-up of funding by other government agencies for the contaminated sites program has been slower than forecast. It is appropriate that funding for the contaminated sites program be adjusted accordingly. (2) Consideration has been given to the way in which air quality outcomes can best be achieved including the delivery of grant programs. Community grants will not be continued as a program. The priority for air quality will be on maintaining and developing the air quality monitoring networks in WA. (3) No.
E820 [ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
Page 889 – Outcomes, Services and Key Performance Information — (1) Further to the above question, why is the EPA’s funding slated for further cuts in 10/11, only then to be slightly increased again as against that 10/11 low point in 11/12 and 12/13? (2) Why isn’t the Department expected to meet its 08/09 environmental regulation budget? Why is the 09/10 environmental regulation budget significantly lower than the 08/09 budget was? Why are further cuts, as against 08/09 levels, made in the forward estimates? Does the Minister agree that the above cuts are much greater size than the “new money” promised for environmental monitoring and compliance programs on page 887? (3) Given all of the above, how does the Government expect to address recent public concerns that the DEC is only prosecuting an average of seven individuals or companies per year, after receiving around 2,000 complaints per year? Answer: (1) The reduction in 2010/11 and the out-years results from the cessation of the finite major development approvals processes funding that commenced in 2008/09 and finishes in 2009/10. Relative to 2010/11 the increases shown in 2011/12 and 2012/13 relate to budgets provided for payroll and general cost increases. (2) Expenditure in 2008-09 will be less than the budget due mainly to the deferral of $2.6 million for the decommissioning of the Brookdale Liquid Waste Treatment facility and deferral of $4 million for contaminated sites rehabilitation to 2009-10. The 2009-10 budget is lower than 2008-09 due to a reduction in anticipated uptake of grants for contaminated sites rehabilitation and implementation of the 3% efficiency dividend. Offsetting these reductions is an increase in funding for environmental monitoring and compliance in line with election commitments and other adjustments including payroll and general cost escalations. The reduction in budgets for 2010-11 to 2012-13 is due principally to the completion in 2009-10 of funding provided for decommissioning the Brookdale Liquid Waste Treatment facility and a change in contaminated sites expenditure. (3) The department is committed to fulfilling its regulatory responsibility and utilises its 2008 Enforcement and Prosecution Policy to deliver appropriate enforcement outcomes. This policy allows the administration of a range of sanctions frequently delivered in a graduated manner to promote compliance by industry and others. Sanctions, in order of severity, include caution, letter of warning, infringement, modified penalty fine, pollution prevention order, environmental protection notice, licence amendment and revocation and criminal prosecution. The number of complaints received does not equate to the number of incidents that occur. It is not uncommon for one incident, for instance an emission of odour, to prompt 50 to 60 complaints. Many of these complaints cannot be substantiated. DEC has two specialist enforcement areas, the Environmental Enforcement Unit and the Nature Protection Branch, that deliver investigative and enforcement capability. This is augmented by the strong ‘pre incident’ compliance capacity delivered by the Inspection and Compliance Branch. The department’s regional environmental officers are also similarly involved on a daily basis with conducting compliance activity and identifying and investigating complaints and incidents. The additional investigative resources provided in this year’s budget will enhance the department’s existing environmental enforcement capacity. The following is a year to date breakdown of environmental incidents and related enforcement outcomes under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 that clearly show the department’s commitment to its regulatory and enforcement role: Complaints Received: 1703 Confirmed Incidents: 850 Enforcement Actions:
Environmental Field Notice EFN (caution) 240 Environmental Protection Notice 2 Infringement Notice 83 Letter of Warning 58 Licence Review/Amendment 12 Modified Penalty Brief 2 Prescribed Action 4 Prosecution Brief 11
[ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E821
Site Inspection 369 Site Visit 739 Statutory Direction/Notice 4 Stop Work Order 2 There have also been 3,241 infringements under the Litter Act 1979.
Page 889 – Outcomes, Services and Key Performance Information — Hon Robin Chapple asked – (1) Why is the Office of Climate Change only projected to spend about a third of its budget in 08/09? (2) Why will the Office of Climate Change budget fall to about 70% of its 08/09 budget in 09/10? (3) Why will the Office of Climate Change budget fall further to about 2/3 of its 08/09 budget in 11/12? Answer: (1) It is expected that the Office of Climate Change will expend all of its recurrent allocation in 2008-09. A portion of the Low Emissions Energy Development Fund allocated to 2008-09 has been carried forward to 2012-13. (2) Consistent with previous forward estimates the funding for the Living Smart Program ceases in 2008-09 and funding for the Act Now for the Future program has been reduced in line with previous forward estimates. The Office of Climate Change’s budget has also been reduced by its contribution to the efficiency dividend. (3) Consistent with previous forward estimates the Indian Ocean Climate Initiative funding terminates at the end of the 2010/11 year. The Office of Climate Change’s budget will also be reduced as a result of the efficiency dividend.
Page 890 – Outcomes, Services and Key Performance Information — Hon Giz Watson asked – (1) Why was there no progress in 08/09 on the “Proportion of terrestrial sub-bioregions with greater than 15% reservations”? (2) Turning now to issues related to the “Proportion of marine bioregions with marine conservation reserves,” the more interesting question for biodiversity conservation is what proportion of marine bioregions will have sanctuary zones by the end on 08/09? And by the end of the period of the forward estimates? What will that mean in terms of the percentage of state waters that are within sanctuary zones by the end of the 08/09? And by the end of the period of the forward estimates? Answer: (1) Identification and acquisition of suitable land has continued but formal reservation can only occur once native title requirements are met and other consultation and clearance processes are completed. (2) Seven of WA’s 19 marine bioregions have sanctuary zones or no-take areas gazetted, covering approximately 2.5 per cent of State waters. This will not change before the end of 2008-09. It is not possible to forecast the figures for the end of the forward estimates period as these will depend on the statutory processes of the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984 in respect of any revision of management plans for existing marine conservation reserves and proposed new marine conservation reserves.
Page 893 – Outcomes, Services and Key Performance Information — (1) Given the Government’s well-publicised desire to speed up approvals processes, why has the EPA’s funding been decreased in 09/10? How does the funding decrease reconcile with the Keating Review’s recommendation that the EPA receive extra resources? (2) Will the Government’s planned amendments to the environmental and mining legislation to fast-track mining approvals impact on the ability of the approval process to meet the highest standards of the assessment and regulation? (3) Has there been any progress on the recent “Review of Environment Impact Assessment Process in Western Australia” recommendation that the Government “Consider the EPA being given direct
E822 [ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
management control of its recourses and business? If not, does the Government accept that the DEC has a conflict of interest when it is a proponent for environmentally significant proposals but at the same time controls the funding of the body tasked with assessing those proposals? Answer: (1) The budget for environmental impact assessment and policies for the EPA has declined as a result of the completion of fixed term funding for additional resources from 2007/08 to 2008/09 for land use planning and management of acid sulphate soils, as well as a one per cent reduction related to business support and administration as a contribution to the efficiency dividend. (2) Improvements to the development approval process are currently being considered by Government. It is clear that there are opportunities to deliver better environmental protection; to improve the efficiency, transparency and consistency of the EIA process and policies; and to enable environmentally sustainable development without compromising the standards of assessment and regulation. (3) The review report has been forwarded to the Environment Minister’s Environmental Stakeholder Advisory Group for consideration. Government is considering this recommendation as part of its review of development approvals processes.
Page 893 – Outcomes, Services and Key Performance Information — Hon Robin Chapple asked: (1) Given the Government’s well-publicised desire to speed up approvals processes, why has the EPA’s funding been decreased in 09/10? [intentionally duplicates a question on notice from Hon Giz Watson MLC, because the question leads to the two following] (2) How does this funding decrease reconcile with the EPA’s anticipated role in environmentally assessing uranium mining in this State? (3) How exactly will any proposed uranium mine be assessed under the government’s planned new fast- tracked approvals process? Answer: (1) The budget for environmental impact assessment and policies for the EPA has declined as a result of the completion of fixed term funding for additional resources from 2007/08 to 2008/09 for land use planning and management of acid sulphate soils, as well as a one per cent reduction related to business support and administration as a contribution to the efficiency dividend. (2) The EPA will continue to undertake the assessment of proposals, including uranium mining proposals, with the allocated funding. (3) As with all proposals, uranium mining proposals will be subject to the current environmental approval processes.
Hon Giz Watson asked: (1) Regarding Page 893 Outcomes, Services and Key Performance Information and answers provided to my questions prior to the hearing — The answer to part (2) is in part “It is clear that there are opportunities to deliver better environmental protection; to improve the efficiency, transparency and consistency of the EIA process and policies; and to enable environmentally sustainable development without compromising the standards of assessment and regulation.” I ask — (1.1) Has the Department done any modelling in these new funding levels and how they will impact on assessment speeds? (1.2) If not, why not? Answer: 1.1 Modelling has not been carried out. 1.2 The relationship between funding levels and assessment speeds is significantly influenced by issues such as the design of review processes within which assessments are carried out. The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) and the department are moving towards a risk- based assessment process with clear timelines. The EPA has completed a review of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process and is progressively implementing the
[ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E823
recommendations of that review. This will deliver efficiencies in process and better environmental protection outcomes. Improving the timeliness of the EIA process is one of the key issues considered in the EPA’s review and is a priority of the Government. The EPA will continue to deliver its statutory processes within the budget allocation.
(2) Regarding total number of listed threatened taxa and ecological communities and in light of the recent Auditor General’s report — (2.1) Why does it take so long to establish additional terrestrial reserves to protect listed threatened taxa and ecological communities (on average 10 years, Auditor General Reports)? (2.2) Why does it take so long to develop recovery plans for these taxa and communities? (2.3) Does the Department have the staff to identify and protect these threatened taxa and communities? (2.4) Has the budget for threatened taxa and communities increased in this budget? (2.5) If no to 2.4, why not given the Auditor General report that is highly critical of management to threatened taxa and ecological communities? (2.6) What area of additional A Class conservation reserve is planned to be established (i) In the next 12 months? (ii) In the next 3 years? (2.7) Will this Government meet the Departments target of 15% of the State’s land area under reserve? If yes, when? Answer: (2.1) Before reservation of land as national park, nature reserve or conservation park in accordance with the Land Administration Act 1997, the Department for Planning and Infrastructure generally requires advice of clearances or approvals from the Department of Mines and Petroleum (in terms of its interests under the Mining Act 1978 and Petroleum Act 1967 and related legislation with respect to granted tenements and prospectivity for minerals, basic raw materials and petroleum), the Department of State Development (with respect to State Agreement Acts), water agencies and local government authorities, as well as meeting requirements under the Native Title Act 1993 (Commonwealth). The need to meet these requirements can cause delays in reserving areas identified or acquired for conservation. (2.2) The preparation of recovery plans requires an assessment of the biological and ecological characteristics of the threatened species or community, and analysis of the threats to the species or community, as well as the determination of management actions for the amelioration of those threats and the recovery of the species or community. The time taken to prepare such a plan is dependent on its complexity and can vary from a matter of months to several years. It is also influenced by whether scientific research is needed to inform the development of a recovery plan. Recovery plans are prepared for those species or communities at most risk and in greatest need of action. (2.3) In 2009-10, 836 Full Time Equivalent employees will be working under the department’s Nature Conservation Service. The duties of these staff are spread across all nature conservation functions, including conservation reserve and species management, fire management, scientific research and policy and planning functions. The conservation of threatened taxa and communities also involves inputs from other agencies such as Perth Zoo, the Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority and the WA Museum, as well as community groups, land managers and industry. (2.4) Threatened taxa and communities will benefit from new funding shown on page 887 of the Budget statements for election commitments, namely the Great Western Woodlands, the Kimberley Science and Conservation Strategy, the allocation to the Kimberley Toad Busters and the Environmental Community Grants Program. In addition, the Government has allocated $30 million for the State natural resource management program. It is expected that there will, therefore, be an increase in funding allocated by the State to threatened taxa and communities in 2009-10. (2.5) The Auditor General’s report was released after release of the 2009-10 budget. The report will be considered in developing the 2010-11 budget.
E824 [ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
(2.6) (i-ii) The timeframe for the creation of new conservation reserves (class A or unclassified) is often outside of the Department’s control (see answer to question 2.1). Over 6 million hectares of leasehold and freehold lands which have been purchased over a number of years for the creation of new conservation reserves or additions to existing reserves are awaiting formal reservation. Additional lands are purchased with available funds and suitable Crown land is identified for transfer into the reserve system. It is not possible to anticipate with accuracy what area of additional lands will become Class A conservation reserves over any specific time period. (2.7) The general target is to achieve 15% reservation in the medium to longer term across each region and subregion of the State as classified under the Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation of Australia. As at 30 June 2008, 11 out of 54 subregions had achieved the 15% reservation level, and three additional subregions had lands acquired to meet this level but are awaiting reservation. In total, at 30 June 2008, 17.5 million hectares or 6.9% of the State had been reserved as formal conservation reserves. In addition, 6 million hectares of pastoral leasehold land had been acquired for conservation reservation (including 101,670 ha following the early surrender of lands identified for exclusion from pastoral leases for conservation when they expire in 2015) but are yet to be reserved. Approximately 195,000 hectares of land tenure changes to conservation reserves are yet to be implemented under the Forest Management Plan 2004- 2013. Reservation of all of these areas will bring the total conservation reserve system to 23.7 million hectares, or about 9.4% of WA’s land area. Progress will continue to be made towards the 15% target, however progress is dependent on suitable land being available for acquisition and reservation. In some regions, targets will not be able to be met due to extensive historical clearing.
(3) Referring to the population of marine bioregions within the conservation reserves - (3.1) What additional areas of marine reserve are to be added to the State’s conservation reserve – (i) Within the next 12 months? (ii) Within the next 3 years? (3.2) At this rate, indicated in the answer to question 3.1, how long will it take to meet the target of comprehensive, representative and adequate marine reserve system for the State? (3.3) Why is the rate of increase in the State’s marine reserve system as slow? (3.4) How many FTE’s are employed in establishing marine reserves? Answer: (3.1) (i-ii) Additional marine reserve are subject to the statutory reserve planning and concurrence process and consideration by the Government. (3.2) Western Australia has been progressively establishing its marine parks and reserves system. The gazettal of the Walpole and Nornalup Inlets Marine Park on 8 May 2009 brings the current total to 13 marine parks and reserves covering 1.5 million hectares or approximately 12% of State waters. Marine parks and reserves exist in 8 of the State’s 19 marine bioregions. (3.3) The rate of establishment of marine parks and reserves relies on the gathering of ecological and socio-economic information necessary for appropriate reserve planning, consultation and negotiation with stakeholders, and the completion of statutory reserve planning and concurrence processes under the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984. (3.4) There are approximately 7 FTEs involved directly in establishing marine reserves. Additional support is provided in specialist branches and in regional areas, drawing on additional staff as necessary.
(4) I refer to page 889 Service summary item 2 - (4.1) Will DEC specify in detail how the $43,919m for sustainable forest management will be spent? (4.2) Why is there no 3% efficiency dividend applied to SFM over the next four years, when the expense of SFM increases by 5% on the 2008/09 estimated actual figure?
[ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E825
(4.3) During the next financial year how much is required for expenditure on native forest logging and burning for each of the following – (i) Nature conservation (ii) Parks and visitors services (iii) Environmental regulation (iv) Environmental sustainability (v) Environment impact assessment; and (vi) Coordination of response to climate change. (4.4) In the last financial year what did DEC spend on prescribed burning in: (i) All lands where DEC is responsible for fire management; (ii) All lands vested in the Conservation Commission; (iii) In each of the three south-west forest regions; and (iv) In each of the six other regions in the State? (4.5) In each of the three south-west forest regions, in the last financial year how much did DEC spend on prescribed burning for: (i) Community/strategic protection; (ii) Biodiversity conservation/management; (iii) Hardwood silviculture; and (iv) Tourism and recreation/protection? (4.6) What department and/or agency pays for hardwood silviculture prescribed burns? Answer: (4.1) $7.289 million: Works undertaken for the Forest Products Commission (FPC) from the appropriation to DEC, including protection burning and forest silviculture. $1.75 million: Works undertaken for the FPC that the FPC pays DEC for, particularly a corporate services bureau. $3.57 million: Implementation of the Forest Management Plan, inventory mapping services, dieback management and policy determination undertaken by DEC’s Sustainable Forest Management Division. This includes expenditure of $0.9 million funded by the FPC as a contribution to the implementation of the Forest Management Plan. $2.4 million: Forest science research. $9.12 million: Prescribed burning, control of dieback, weeds and pest animals, maintenance of access roads and other forest estate management activities in DEC’s three forest regions: Warren Region: $3.04 million; Swan Region: $3.0 million; and South West Region: $3.08 million. $4.635 million: Fire management activities including providing for wildfire suppression administered by DEC’s Fire Management Services Branch. $6.78 million: Grants and recoupable projects undertaken for external parties. $3.291 million: Depreciation charges. $3.854 million: Central corporate costs incurred by DEC to support the above activities. These costs include financial services, human resources, geographic information, information technology, audit, insurances and other corporate support. $1.230 million: Payroll increases. (4.2) The expense on Sustainable Forest Management increases from the estimated actual figure of $43.918 million to $44.149 million in 2009-10, a percentage increase of 0.5%. The efficiency dividend is applied over the next four years but there are other increases such as for payroll, salaries and fire allowances; increases to grants and recoupable projects; and increased allocation of corporate and other costs to this Service. (4.3) Providing a detailed breakdown of expenditure relating to activities associated with native forest logging and burning would entail considerable staff resources to review each task
E826 [ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
undertaken. However, the following components of the budget for Sustainable Forest Management Service 2 identified in the answer to Question 4.1 will include activities relating to native forest logging: Component 1: The works program and budget for 2009-10 for works specifically associated with native forest harvesting are currently being developed. In 2008-09 the budget allowed for these works from the appropriation of $7.289 million was $3.583 million. Components 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9: Various proportions of the activities undertaken under these components are related to native forest commercial activities and prescribed burning. For example, in component 5 the Regions undertake planning, approvals, monitoring and enforcement tasks associated with native forest logging and burning. As noted above, providing a detailed breakdown of expenditure would require considerable staff resources to review each task undertaken. (4.4) (i) $8,939,072 (ii) $8,821,943 (iii) $7,354,067 (iv) $1,467,875 (4.5) (i) $2,556,373 (ii) $2,211,190 (iii) $1,614,732 (iv) $971,772 (4.6) The Forest Products Commission.
Hon Ken Travers asked: (5) As of the last date you reported to Treasury on your finances: (5.1) Can you please identify all accounts held by your agency? (5.2) How much cash is held in each of these accounts? (5.3) How much of this cash is restricted or subject to approval or control? (5.4) As of this date, what is your estimate annual average cash as a percentage of your appropriation? Answer: (5.1) The department has 3 main groups of accounts: a main Operating Account with approximately 6,000 active subaccounts for internal budgeting and reporting purposes; approximately 500 specific purpose accounts that are grouped together as “restricted cash accounts”; and a smaller number of special purpose accounts created by legislation to hold other restricted cash. (5.2) Total cash at 31 May 2009 was $70.345 million. Of this, the Operating Account had a balance of $13.997 million, specific purpose accounts had a balance of $32.560 million and the special purpose accounts had a balance of $23.788 million. (5.3) The specific purpose accounts and special purpose accounts are restricted or subject to approval or control. The total cash for these two categories was $56.348 million. (5.4) At 31 May 2009 the Operating Account cash balance of $13.997 million was 6.5% of the estimated 2008-09 appropriation of $215.641 million. Restricted cash of $56.348 million was 26.1% of the estimated 2008-09 appropriation of $215.641 million. Total cash holdings of $70.345 million were 32.6% of the estimated 2008-09 appropriation of $215.641 million.
(6) As of the last date you internally monitored each account your agency has: (6.1) How much cash is held in each of these accounts? (6.2) How much of this cash is restricted or subject to approval or control?
[ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E827
(6.3) As of this date, what is your estimated annual average cash as a percentage of your appropriation? Answer: (6.1) The agency last internally monitored accounts at 31 May 2009. The answer to question 5.2 is thus applicable. Total cash at 31 May 2009 was $70.345 million. Of this, the Operating Account had a balance of $13.997 million, specific purpose accounts had a balance of $32.560 million and the special purpose accounts had a balance of $23.788 million. (6.2) The specific purpose accounts and special purpose accounts are restricted or subject to approval or control. The total cash for these two categories was $56.348 million. (6.3) At 31 May 2009 the Operating Account cash balance of $13.997 million was 6.5% of the estimated 2008-09 appropriation of $215.641 million. Restricted cash of $56.348 million was 26.1% of the estimated 2008-09 appropriation of $215.641 million. Total cash holdings of $70.345 million were 32.6% of the estimated 2008-09 appropriation of $215.641 million.
(7) Please provide, for each question below, what you expect to be the figures as of 30 June 2009? (7.1) How much cash is held in each of these accounts? (7.2) How much of this cash is restricted or subject to approval or control? (7.3) As of this date, what is your estimated annual average cash as a percentage of your appropriation? Answer:
(7.1) Total cash at 30 June 2009 is forecast to be $70.000 million. Of this, the Operating Account is forecast to have a balance of $13.039 million, specific purpose accounts are forecast to have a balance of $29.361 million and the special purpose accounts are forecast to have a balance of $27.600 million. (7.2) The specific purpose accounts and special purpose accounts are restricted or subject to approval or control. The total cash for these two categories is forecast to be $56.961 million. (7.3) At 30 June 2009 the forecast Operating Account cash balance of $13.039 million would be 6.0% of the estimated 2008-09 appropriation of $215.641 million. The forecast restricted cash of $56.961 million would be 26.4% of the estimated 2008-09 appropriation of $215.641 million. Total forecast cash holdings of $70.000 million would be 32.4% of the estimated 2008-09 appropriation of $215.641 million.
Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich asked — (8) I refer to the Government’s aspiration for savings of $7.6 billion over five years across government as outlined on page 13 of the budget overview and ask - (8.1) Is your agency redirecting any capital works expenditure – if so can you provide details including value? (8.2) Is the agency selling surplus government land assets, and if so can the Minister provide a list of land or assets earmarked for sale? (8.3) Is the agency proposing to privatize any of its function or contact out any of its services – if so, which ones? (8.4) Is the agency intending to reduce staff numbers over the next 4 years and if so what ceiling has the agency set and how many staff will be shed? (8.5) Is the agency aware of the Government’s new responsible public sector wages policy – if so, what is it? Answer: (8.1) No capital works expenditure is being redirected. (8.2) The department does not have a forward program for disposal of surplus land or real property, as surplus department landholdings were generally sold in the late 1990s. Minor land sales continue to occur as land becomes surplus to requirements, such as office sites and house sites.
E828 [ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
Plant and other equipment are sold as an ongoing process when they reach the end of their useful life. (8.3) No. (8.4) The department’s staff ceiling will increase from 1,944 FTEs in 2008-09 to 1,970 FTEs in 2009-10. No overall decrease in staff numbers is anticipated in the outyears.
(8.5) Yes. The current Government wages policy applicable from 1 July 2009 provides a projected maximum increase in wages of 9% over the next three years.
Hon Sally Talbot asked: (9) How many staffing positions are vacant at DEC? (9.1) How many of these vacancies are in the area of environmental regulation? (9.2) Will you provide a breakdown of these vacancies by the level of the job title? Answer: (9.1) 165. (9.2) 23. (9.3) Manager Policy and Process Management, Level 7 1 Manager , Level 7 1 1 Executive Assistant, Level 3 2 Admin and Support Officer, Level 3 1 Administrative Assistant, Level 22 1 Principal Environmental Officer, SCL4 1 Senior Environmental Officer, SCL 3 2 Environmental Officer, SCL 1 6 Environmental Officer, SCL 2 2 Environmental Officer, SCL 3 1 Licensing Clerk, Level 2 1 Inspector, Level 3 1 Training Coordinator , Level 4 2 Technical Officer, Level 2 1
(10) What funding has been allocated to the new Walpole and Nornalup Inlets Marine Park? Answer: For 2008-09 and onwards the Department of Environment and Conservation was allocated $265,000 and the Department of Fisheries $158,000 of Consolidated Account funds for management of the Walpole and Nornalup Inlets Marine Park. For 2008-09 DEC was also allocated $80 000 of capital funding, and $75,000 of capital funding has been allocated to this area for 2009/10.
Hon Lynn MacLaren asked: I refer to the Auditor General’s Report, ‘Rich and Rare: Conservation of Threatened Species’ released this month which states on pages 5 that ‘DEC is not effectively protecting and recovering threatened species’; that ‘the number of threatened species is rising’; and for most threatened species ‘recover action is not happening’: Can the Minister explain how DEC can be effective in countering these trends and fulfilling its obligations under the Conservation and Land Management Act of 1985 and the Wildlife Conservation Act of 1950 in light of the decreasing amount being spent on managing wildlife habitats from $4.16 per hectare in 07-08, to $3.87 in 08- 09, down to $3.68 in 09-10? Answer: The Department of Environment and Conservation has acknowledged that there is scope to better demonstrate its cost effectiveness in threatened species management. However, DEC is recognised already as being a leader in threatened species conservation in Australia, with a number of innovative programs in operation, including
[ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E829
Western Shield and many threatened flora recovery efforts. It must also be recognised that Western Australia, with its large area covering one third of the continent and the world-renowned richness and endemism of its biodiversity, has a significant challenge in conserving threatened species. With regard to the efficiency indicator of cost per hectare of managing wildlife habitat, the calculation takes into account all funds expended including external grants and actual costs of fire suppression rather than just the budgeted amounts. The target budget, which cannot necessarily accurately estimate external funds or actual fire suppression costs, will thus often be an underestimate of actual expenditure. An example of the variability of budget targets to actual results is evident in a reduction in Commonwealth funding as the Commonwealth has moved to its Caring for our Country program which does not have a strong emphasis on threatened species. For 2009-10, the State Government has announced a special allocation of $600,000 for emergency woylie recovery actions. The 2009/10 state budget also allocated $30 million to the State Natural Resource Management program.
DIVISION 72: SWAN RIVER TRUST —
[Supplementary Information No E1.] Page 912 of the Budget Statements, under the heading “Service Summary”, Hon Phil Edman asked: I refer specifically to item 4, which is the communication of environmental information. Can the Minister explain what community programs are run by the trust and how effective they are? Answer: The Trust delivers four key community engagement and education programs.
Great Gardens workshop program - since 2003, more than 25,000 people have attended one of 260 Great Gardens Workshops, made possible by Swan River Trust funding. These free workshops provide the Perth public with sustainable garden practices and environmental education to reduce urban fertiliser and water use. Annual research is demonstrating an 80% rate of community behaviour change each year as a result of this program. River Guardians program - since 2008, more than 580 people have joined the new River Guardians Pilot Program. Membership provides the public with the opportunity to attend river science activities, take part in Indigenous cultural awareness training and river restoration projects, increasing their knowledge and involvement in river management activities. For example, 35 members of the public are actively participating in a new social science research project recording the activities of Swan River dolphins with Curtin and Murdoch universities through the River Guardians Program. Independent market research to monitor and evaluate the pilot program’s effectiveness is being conducted by Research Solutions. Ribbons of Blue program - environmental education in the Swan Canning Catchment is also being delivered through the Ribbons of Blue Program which actively engages with 75 schools, 3,500 students, 540 teachers and 11 community groups each year. This program has been running in WA for 20 years. Phosphorous Action Group – since 2001 the Trust’s support of this program has educated more than 14,000 Perth people a year, to reduce urban fertiliser use and in particular, phosphorous-based products. The program also delivers an annual Local Government Nutrient Survey for Trust management response.
Hon Ken Travers asked: (1) As of the last date you reported to Treasury on your finances: 1.1 Can you please identify all accounts held by the agency? 1.2 How much cash is held in each of these accounts 1.3 How much of this cash is restricted or subject to approval or control? 1.4 As of this date, what is your estimated annual average cash as a percentage of your appropriation? (2) As of the last date you internally monitored each account your agency has: (2.1) How much cash is held in each of these accounts?
E830 [ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
(2.2) How much of this cash is restricted or subject to approval or control? (2.3) As of this date, what is your estimated annual average cash percentage of your appropriation? (3) Please provide, for each question below, what you expect to be figures as of 30 June 2009? (3.1) How much cash is held in each of these accounts? (3.2) How much of this cash is restricted or subject to approval or control? (3.3) As of this date, what is your estimated annual average cash percentage of your appropriation? Answer: (1.1) Swan River Trust WA Operating Account. (1.2) As reported to Treasury on 31 March 2009 the cash held was $5,314,278. (1.3) All cash is subject to approval. (1.4) 37.4% (2.1) As at 18 June 2009 cash held is $3,366,197. (2.2) All cash is subject to approval. (2.3) 23.7% (3.1) It is estimated that on 30 June 2009 cash will be at $ 2,854,000 (3.2) All cash is subject to approval. (3.3) 20.1%
Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich asked: (4) I refer to the Government’s aspiration for savings of $7.6 billion over five years across government as outlined on page 13 of the budget overview and ask – (4.1) Is your agency redirecting any capital works expenditure – if so can you provide details including value? (4.2) Is the agency selling surplus government land or assets, and if so can the Minister provide a list of land or assets earmarked for sale? (4.3) Is the agency proposing to privatize any of its function or contract out any of its services – if so, which ones? (4.4) Is the agency intending to reduce staff numbers over the next 4 years and if so what ceiling has the agency set and how many staff will be shed? (4.5) Is the agency aware of the Government’s new responsible public sector wages policy – if so, what is it? Answer: (4.1) No (4.2) No (4.3) No (4.4) Yes. 56.4 staff and it is expected that staff numbers will be reduced by one. (4.5) The Swan River Trust is not an employing authority; staff are employed via the Department of Environment and Conservation. The public sector wages policy is available on line at www.commerce.wa.gov.au
Hon Sally Talbot asked: (5) Explanation of Significant Movements(5.1) How much is the agency expected to receive from the Burswood Casino Levy in the 2009/10 budget? (6) Waterways Management(6.1) Can you explain in more detail the increase in the average cost per tonne of waste removal? (6.2) Can you please advise which service is now providing Audit Compliance?
[ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E831
(6.3) Noting that advocates of the creation of very small councils around the Nedlands-Dalkeith- Peppermint Grove area have suggested that the Swan river Trust would pick up the total cost of the river care, I ask: (i) Would you give us an outline of the Trust’s relationship with local government? (ii) What funding arrangements are currently in place? (6.4) What powers does the Swan River Trust have to prosecute people who damage the foreshore or pollute the waterways? (6.5) How many prosecutions have resulted from charges brought by the Swan River Trust in relation to the destruction of the foreshore vegetation? (6.6) How many prosecutions have resulted from charges by the Swan River Trust in relation to heavy industry and irresponsible householders and businesses blamed for toxic chemical contamination revealed by the Department of Water study commissioned by the Swan River Trust and released in March 2009? (7) Development and implementation of environmental management programs(7.1) Which aspects of policy development have you outsourced? Why? (7.2) Why has the allocation under “Development and Implementation of Environmental Management Programs” effectively doubled? (7.3) Why does it reduce significantly in the out years? (7.4) How is shore erosion controlled? (7.5) Who is responsible for this? (7.6) What monies if any have been allocated to control or eradicate introduced and/ or feral species in the river and its tributaries and catchments? (7.7) What research programs have been funded and what are they targeting/studying? (8) Communication and Environmental Information(8.1) Can you give us an idea of what form an Environmental Education Program might take? (8.2) Do participants pay to be involved in the program? (8.3) If so, how much do they pay? (9) Statutory Assessment of Development Proposals(9.1) What is the process of the expansion plans by the self described small working man’s club the Perth Flying Squadron Yacht Club? (9.2) Does the Swan River Trust have concerns about the effects of the proposed expansion on the health of the river? (9.3) Are there any costs involved to be met by the Swan River Trust? (10) Dot Point 2 Does the Trust have any plans in place to migrate the effects of the record tides and rising sea levels associated with climate change? Answer: (5.1) It is expected that the agency will receive 3 million. (6.1) In 2007-08, the total waste collected was 409 tonnes. In 2008-09 it was 169 tonnes. The reduction was largely due to the drop in weed collected. The budget figure of cost per tonne is significantly affected by this shift and by other apportioned costs. (6.2) Statutory Assessment of Development Proposals. (6.3) (i) The Trust works closely with local governments, especially with the 21 councils fronting the Swan and Canning rivers. As well as ongoing operational interactions, for the past several years the Trust has co-hosted a bi-annual forum with the Minister, Trust and local council mayors and chief executive officers as a forum in which issues about the river can be discussed. (ii) The Trust partners with local governments in several ways. The Swan and Canning Rivers Management Act 2006 makes the Trust jointly responsible for Riverpark shoreline management with the adjoining land manager – in most cases this is local government. Through the Trust’s Riverbank program $5,475,997 has funded 124 shoreline restoration projects, with matched funding from councils. In 2009-10, the
E832 [ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
$900,000 grants project was boosted by $1.9m for works on the river wall at Mounts Bay Road. This will be matched by the City of Perth. The Trust is also collaborating with councils in the delivery of the Drainage Nutrient Intervention Program by providing funding to the cities of Canning and Belmont and Shire of Chittering to build interventions in nutrient-enriched drains, such as constructed wetlands. Through the development of local Water Quality Improvement Plans (WQIPs) the Trust also works closely with local councils located in priority catchments not meeting nutrient targets. In 2009-10, the Trust has allocated $400,000 to the implementation of local WQIPs. Funding recipients are still to be determined but may be local councils which partner in the local WQIPs. (6.4) The Swan and Canning Rivers Management Regulations 2007 provide for offences which prohibit damage to the river bed, banks and vegetation of the Riverpark and Development Control Area. The Swan and Canning Rivers Management Act 2006 provides for the issue of River Protection Notices to protect the ecological and community benefits and amenity of the Riverpark. Infringements or other legal action may also be taken under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and its regulations. (6.5) No prosecutions. Three infringements were issued in 2008-09. The nature of the offence is such that is it extremely difficult to identify an offender. The Trust’s response to this has been to work with local councils to erect large ‘tree vandalism’ signs at sites where foreshore vegetation has been deliberately damaged. (6.6) None. The Department of Water study into non-nutrient contamination was not designed to identify sources, many of which are likely to arise from historical land use. (7.1) None. The Trust develops its own policies, but will seek appropriate external comment and technical expertise. (7.2) The Environmental Management Programs 2008-09 Budget did not include the $6m allocated from the Burswood gaming levy; this was reflected in the 2008-09 Estimated Actual and hence the apparent doubling. The 2009-10 Budget contains the one off $1.9m for urgent river walling repairs. (7.3) The out years for Environmental Management Programs are reduced because the Burswood funding drops to an expected $3m per year. The $1.9m in 2009-10 was one-off funding. (7.4) The Trust’s Riverbank Program is designed to address shoreline erosion. The program has provided $5,475,997 in funding for 124 projects since 2002, supporting a wide variety of activities such as foreshore vegetation planting, weed control, fencing, development of foreshore management plans, construction of fishing platforms and river walling maintenance and replacement. To improve management of shoreline assets in the longer term the Trust is establishing an asset management system in consultation with relevant shoreline managers. The asset management system along with recently completed projects including the Foreshore Assessment Strategy (completed in 2007) and the Best Management Practice Guidelines (under development) will be used to identify priority sites and appropriately budget for works into the future, ensuring that available funds are allocated to the most appropriate projects. (7.5) The Swan and Canning Rivers Management Act 2006 makes the Trust jointly responsible for shoreline management with the adjoining land manager – in most cases this is local government. (7.6) No funding has been allocated in 2009-10 for direct feral control. However in 2009-10 the Trust will provide $150,000 as devolved grants to land and river care groups, a proportion of which is expected to go towards weed management. Also, through its Drainage Nutrient Intervention Program (DNIP) the Trust may provide funding to local councils or natural resource management groups for the maintenance of DNIP sites, including weed control. (7.7) In 2008-09, through its Swan Canning Research and Innovation Program, the Trust funded seven research projects totalling $146,780. The results will be delivered in 2009-10. Funding recipients and research programs are:
• CSIRO - Quantifying and managing dissolved Organic Matter-Derived Nutrients in Agro- Urban Coastal Catchments;
[ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E833
• University of Western Australia - Spatial and seasonal variability in nitrogen cycling processes and Application of high-resolution laser optical plankton counting technology for the study of spatial and temporal distribution of zooplankton in the Swan-Canning System;
• University of Tasmania - Does cryptophyte abundance trigger algal blooms and toxicity of the fish killing dinoflagellate Karlodinium veneficum in the Swan Canning river system?
• Curtin University - Status of fish health in Claisebrook Cove; and Implications of exposure by agriculture and urban runoff to crustaceans within Swan-Canning catchments;
• Murdoch University - Toxicant exposure, population genetics, and trophic associations of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops sp.) in the Swan River; and
• Australian Maritime College, University of Western Australia and Curtin University - Effect of boat wake on shorelines. (8.1) The Trust engages with the community at many levels. The Trust also runs four key engagement and education programs: First, the Great Gardens program. Since 2003, more than 25,000 people have attended one of 260 Great Gardens Workshops, which are made possible by Swan River Trust funding. These free workshops provide the Perth public with sustainable garden practices and environmental education to reduce urban fertiliser and water use. Annual research is demonstrating an 80% rate of community behaviour change each year as a result of this program. Second, the River Guardians program. Since 2008, more than 580 people have joined the new River Guardians Program. Membership provides them the opportunity to attend river science activities, take part in Indigenous cultural awareness training and river restoration projects, increasing their knowledge and involvement in river management activities. For example, 35 members of the public are actively participating in a new social science research project recording the activities of Swan River dolphins with Curtin and Murdoch universities through the River Guardians Program. Third, the Ribbons of Blue program. Environmental education in the Swan Canning Catchment is also being delivered through the Ribbons of Blue Program which actively engages with 75 schools, 3,500 students, 540 teachers and 11 community groups each year. This program has been running in Western Australia for 20 years. Also, since 2001, the Trust’s support for the Phosphorous Action Group has educated more than 14,000 Perth people a year to reduce urban fertiliser use and in particular, phosphorous- based products. (8.2) No (8.3) N/A (9.1) The Perth Flying Squadron Yacht Club development proposal has been advertised for public comment. The Trust Board will consider the proposal and submissions received and is expected to report to the Minister by mid-August. (9.2) The Trust’s report and recommendations will outline all relevant issues considered in the project assessment and will be publicly reported. (9.3) The Trust meets the cost of the assessment of the proposal. (10.1) The Trust is developing a tool kit that will enable local councils to assess the vulnerability of foreshore areas to sea level rise and the risk this presents to ecological, social and infrastructure assets. This tool kit should be available in early 2009-10 and uses the Point Fraser Wetland area in East Perth as a worked example of this risk assessment. Page 911 – 3% efficiency dividend Hon Giz Watson asked: (1) Please provide details regarding the projected $145,000 savings on media, marketing, advertising and consultants? (2) What projects will be affected by this reduction?
E834 [ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
(3) Please explain how FTE will be affected by the proposed reduction in salaries of $332,000 in the coming financial year? (4) In what way will this reduction affect the statutory assessment of development proposals? (5) In what way will this reduction affect the Development and Implementation of Environmental Management Programs? Answer: (1)-(2) Separate to the 3% efficiency dividend and in line with the Government’s election commitments, the Trust has reduced its budget in media, marketing, consultants and advertising. The dividend affects the Trust’s community education programs with the reduction of one staff. The reduction in consultants spending was achieved by reducing funds to the Trust’s Technical Advisory Panel. Advertising was reduced by $2,250 in 2009/10. (3)-(5) None. The historical Swan River Trust approach to salary budgeting is to load 100% FTE salary and wages for the full financial year. Modest savings are realised on the basis of vacancies between staff appointments. The Trust proposes to use this factor to achieve the 3% efficiency dividend.
Page 912 – Service Summary Hon Giz Watson asked: (1) How does the efficiency target match the actual budget, being $16,453,000 or 118% of the estimated actual 2008-2009? (2) Please explain the difference in budget and actual for 2008-2009? Answer: (1) There is no efficiency target indicator that relates to the total cost of services. The difference between the estimated actual 2008-09 and the 2009-10 Budget Estimate is due in large part to the addition of a one-off $1.9m for urgent repairs for river walling at Mounts Bay Road. The State’s contribution via the Swan River Trust was matched by the City of Perth and Main Roads. (2) The 2008-09 budget figure does not include $6,000,000 received through the Burswood gaming levy which became available after the Budget was set in May 2008. The funding was made possible by the passage through State Parliament of legislation to amend the Agreement Act between the State and the Burswood Island Casino. The 2008-09 amount was double that expected in any one year, as the Trust was offered gaming machine revenue accumulated over two years before the commencement of the Casino (Burswood Island) Agreement Amendment Act empowering the Minister to direct funds to the Swan River Trust. The level of funding available for 2009-10 and all future years will be an estimated $3m per year.
Page 913 – Outcome Key effectiveness Indicators Hon Giz Watson asked: (1) On what basis is the Trust identifying whether a development recommendation has attracted negative responses from the community? (2) How many people attended environmental education programs in the past year? (- also Page 916) (3) How is it ascertained what percentage of people change their behaviour after an education session? Answer: (1) After the Trust Board has considered a development proposal, the draft report and recommendations are posted on the website for community comment. The comments are analysed and the report may be amended before it is presented to the Minister or to the WA Planning Commission. (2) 4,208 people attended the Great Gardens Program workshops in 2008-09 at 31 workshops directly funded by the Swan River Trust. Leveraged from these core workshops, a further 4,823 people attended an additional 56 workshops in the Swan Canning Catchment with alternate funding. (3) Participants of the Trust’s environmental education program are surveyed before and after attending programs. The current figure (80% community behaviour change each year) relates to the Great Gardens Program. The benchmark was set in 2004 after an external market research targeted survey, as
[ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009] E835
part of the evaluation of the Swan Canning Cleanup Program. The indicator is being given greater backing in the past year with the inclusion of follow up household visits and behaviour change audits by the Great Gardens program providers.
Page 913 – Significant Issues impacting the Agency Hon Giz Watson asked – (1) Which of the strategies the Trust is using to address excess nutrients entering the waterway are regarded as most successful? (2) How is the Trust measuring the success of each strategy? (3) What concern does the Trust have about unallocated crown land on the foreshore? (4) What financial implications has the new research and education project recording the activities of bottlenose dolphins in the Swan Canning Riverpark? Answer: (1) Managing excess nutrients in a waterway needs to respond to the complex set of interactions between nutrient species, their ratios, water temperature, salinity, oxygen, light, flow and phytoplankton present. The management response has to be multi-faceted and be applied from the catchment to the waterway. No single action will successfully address the impacts of excess nutrients. (2) The effects of the Trust’s strategies are reported in its effectiveness indicators contained in the Trust’s annual report to Parliament. Measures include the extent to which management of water quality targets are achieved in the Swan- Canning catchments for phosphorous, nitrogen, chlorophyll A, and dissolved oxygen. Other measures include the percentage of foreshores protected and rehabilitated in relation to total area and the percentage of people attending environmental education programs who change their behaviours as a result. (3) In terms of environmental impacts, the tenure of land along the foreshore is not generally relevant. Tenure affects what management arrangements can be struck and so it is preferable for riverside lands to be vested usually with local governments or government agency. (4) The community recording project is staffed by volunteer River Guardians. The project is part of a broader program overseen by a level 5 salaried Trust officer.
Page 918 – Details of Controlled Grants and Subsidies Hon Giz Watson asked: (1) Please provide details as to the significant reduction in controlled grants and subsidies under the Health Rivers Action Plan? (2) What community organisations (not local councils) are recipients of any grants or subsidies by the Swan River Trust? Answer: (1) The 2008-09 amount of $6 million was double that expected in any one year, as the Trust was offered gaming machine revenue accumulated over two years before the commencement of the Casino (Burswood Island) Agreement Amendment Act empowering the Minister to direct funds to the Swan River Trust. The level of funding available for 2009-10 and all future years is an anticipated $3m per year. (2) The following organisations received grants from the Swan River Trust in 2008-09: Perth Region Natural Resource Management (Perth Region NRM); South East Regional Centre for Urban Landcare; Eastern Hills Catchment Management Group; Ellen Brockman Integrated Catchment Group; Swan Alcoa Landcare Program recipients (through devolved grants that the Trust and Alcoa Australia Ltd each contributed $250,000 in 2008-09 and Perth Region NRM, in addition to administering the program, contributed $25,000): Armadale Gosnells Landcare Group Inc
E836 [ESTIMATES — Supplementary Information — Thursday, 18 June 2009]
Baldivis Children's Forest Inc Blackadder-Woodridge Catchment Group Inc Bungendore Park Management Committee Chittering Valley Land Conservation District Committee City of Bayswater City of Nedlands/Friends of Allen Park Coogee Beach Surf Lifesaving Club Inc Ellen Brockman Integrated Catchment Group United Nations Association of Australia (WA) Environment sub committee Friends of Attadale Foreshore Inc Friends of Bennett Brook Reserve Friends of Black Cockatoo Reserve Friends of Blue Wren/Susannah Brook Catchment Group Friends of Boya Trail Friends of Coolbinia Bushland Friends of Lightning Swamp Bushland Friends of Marionvale Brook Friends of May Brook Friends of Piesse Brook Inc Friends of Pioneer Park Helena River Catchment Group Inc Jane Brook Catchment Group Mt Henry Peninsula Conservation Group North Swan Conservation District Committee Roleybushcare Inc Sandy and Roger Stone South East Regional Centre for Urban Landcare Susannah Brook Catchment Group Swan TAFE The Canning River Regional Park Volunteers Inc Two Rivers Group Wandi Landcare Group/Town of Kwinana Wilson Wetlands Action Group Inc Wooroloo Brook Land Care District Committee Swan Canning Research and Innovation Program recipients: CSIRO; University of Western Australian; Curtin University; Murdoch University; and University of Tasmania. ______
(837)
CONTENTS
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS ...... E649
Divisions 33 and 34: Transport, $96 161 000; Commissioner of Main Roads, $916 401 000...... E649 Supplementary Information ...... E796
Division 11: WA Health, $4 590 003 000...... E666 Supplementary Information ...... E745
Division 70: Environment and Conservation, $184 768 000 ...... E681 Supplementary Information ...... E815
Division 72: Swan River Trust, $12 422 000...... E695 Supplementary Information ...... E829
Division 13: Mines and Petroleum, $89 710 000...... E701 Supplementary Information ...... E761
Division 61: Child Protection, $331 309 000...... E708 Supplementary Information ...... E811
Division 28: Education and Training, $4 340 083 000 ...... E718 Supplementary Information ...... E765
Division 52: Office of Energy, $44 308 000...... E733 Supplementary Information ...... E804 ______