Legislative Assembly

Wednesday, 12 August 2009

THE SPEAKER (Mr G.A. Woodhams) took the chair at 12 noon, and read prayers.

SHACK SITE COMMUNITIES Petition MR J.N. HYDE (Perth) [12.02 pm]: I present a petition that reads — To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned say that: Leased Shack Sites Communities, such as Wedge Island, Grey, Donnelly River, Broke Inlet, Dampier Archipelagos, and Israelite Bay have long been the traditional holiday/recreational destination for many thousands of ordinary Western Australians. Most Shack Site Communities sprung up to accommodate the gathering of farming and town based families to enjoy holidays together in remote and idyllic fishing locations right across Western Australia. Some Shack Site communities went onto becoming fully-fledged towns such as, Bremer Bay, Jurien Bay, Dongara and Horrocks, whilst some Shack Site Communities have disappeared. However, some residual communities remain, with a strong sense of community and have become the preferred holiday option for many thousands of Western Australians. These places are tangible examples of sustainable lifestyles, where younger generations can learn responsibility and become creative and family traditions and stories can be passed on. The loss of these communities will seriously diminish the social, economic and health well being of many ordinary Western Australian families. Now we ask that the Legislative Assembly support our campaign for the Government to Examine how other States of Australia, including South Australia, Tasmania and New South Wales have retained conforming Shack Site Communities in order to preserve these valuable assets for many Western Australians to have affordable coastal holiday destinations and continue to allow human interaction all but lost in today’s society. I certify that the petition contains 163 signatures and conforms to standing orders. Similar petitions were presented by Mr J.C. Kobelke (200 signatures) and Mr A. Krsticevic (169 signatures). [See petitions 92, 93 and 95.]

RAIL FREIGHT CROSSING — NICHOLSON ROAD, THORNLIE Petition MR C.J. TALLENTIRE (Gosnells) [12.04 pm]: I have a petition from 105 petitioners. It reads — To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, say 1 The at-grade rail/road crossing at the intersection of Nicholson Road, Thornlie and the rail freight line between Midland and Fremantle causes frequent and serious delays for both rail freight and road traffic. 2 The Daddow Road bridge in Forrestfield is currently being constructed to avoid delay at a similar at-grade intersection on the same railway. Now we ask the Legislative Assembly 3 To promote the construction of a Nicholson Road bridge over the railway so that both rail freight and road traffic can proceed without delay through the intersection.

5786 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009]

4 To promote the construction of a pedestrian footbridge over the railway at Elliot Place, Thornlie and so avoid train sirens sounding, especially at night. I table the petition. [See petition 94.] PAPERS TABLED Papers were tabled and ordered to lie upon the table of the house. INTERNATIONAL RED CROSS AND RED CRESCENT MOVEMENTS Notice of Motion Mr J.N. Hyde gave notice that at the next sitting of the house he would move — That this house — (a) notes the sixtieth anniversary of the four Geneva conventions of 1949; (b) congratulates the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement on its continuous fostering of the principles of international humanitarian law to limit human suffering in times of armed conflict and to prevent atrocities, especially against civilian populations, the wounded, and prisoners of war; (c) recalls Australia’s ratification of the conventions and of the two additional protocols of 1977; (d) affirms all parliamentary measures taken in support of such ratification at the national level with cross-party support; (e) encourages the fullest implementation of the conventions and additional protocols by the military forces and civilian organisations of all nations; (f) acknowledges that many of the obligations found in the Geneva conventions require implementation at a state or territory level; (g) encourages ratification by all nations of the conventions and additional protocols; (h) notes that the Red Cross was formed in Australia in 1914 and that the Australian Red Cross is represented on the governing board of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies; and (i) recognises the extraordinary contributions made by many individual Australians, including Australian Red Cross members, volunteers and staff, in the state of Western Australia to the practical carrying into effect of the humanitarian ideals and legal principles expressed in the conventions and additional protocols. ROAD SAFETY COUNCIL — APPOINTMENT OF PROFESSOR D’ARCY HOLMAN Statement by Minister for Road Safety MR R.F. JOHNSON (Hillarys — Minister for Road Safety) [12.09 pm]: Prior to delivering my brief ministerial statement and on behalf of the Minister for Agriculture and Food, I acknowledge in the Speaker’s gallery the Agricultural Research Group from Libya. Obviously we welcome them very much indeed. Last Sunday it was my great privilege to announce that I had appointed Professor D’Arcy Holman as the incoming independent chair of the Road Safety Council. Professor Holman is a world-renowned expert in public health and is indeed the chair in public health at the University of Western Australia’s School of Population Health. His credentials are impeccable and he is someone in whom our state can take great pride. I believe his intellect, knowledge, experience and concern for the public good will prove invaluable as we meet the challenges that lie ahead in road safety and implementing the Towards Zero strategy. Western Australia is very fortunate to have a person of Professor Holman’s calibre in such an important position. I also believe the outgoing chair, Mr Grant Dorrington, is owed an enormous debt of gratitude from all sides of politics and, indeed, from the people of Western Australia. Twelve years ago road safety in Western Australia lacked focus. Death and serious injuries on our state’s roads were at horrific levels, yet Mr Dorrington welcomed the challenge to become the first chair of the inaugural Road Safety Council. Few people realise that this position does not come with any sizeable remuneration and that it is largely a voluntary role. Few people realise the demands of this job in terms of not only time but also emotional stress. I am told that Mr Dorrington endeavoured to personally contact many families of those killed in road crashes to offer his support. He was always available to the media at weekends, after hours and on public holidays. He never complained about the demands of the position; rather, he maintained his passion and enthusiasm for the role and even agreed to remain in the position while we set about finding the best candidate for the job. Mr Dorrington also leaves our state’s

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009] 5787 roads in a much safer state than they were in when he took on the role. He started at a time when the annual fatality rate on Western Australia’s roads was 14.1 deaths per 100 000 people. Last year, that figure was down to 9.62 per 100 000. Clearly many lives have been saved directly as a result of his work and efforts amongst key decision makers to raise the profile of this terrible problem. Mr Dorrington has my appreciation and, I hope, the appreciation of the other side of the house as he retires from the post, which Professor Holman will officially assume in November. I offer both men my congratulations and I hope that members from all sides of the house will join with me in offering Mr Dorrington our thanks and in wishing Professor Holman success for the future. Mr J.C. Kobelke: Minister, I know you can’t debate this, but I fully commend your statement and congratulate you on your appointment. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I thank the member for Balcatta; I thought he would be happy.

GENEVA CONVENTIONS — SIXTIETH ANNIVERSARY Statement by Attorney General MR C.C. PORTER (Bateman — Attorney General) [12.12 pm]: I rise so that this house may formally record the event of the sixtieth anniversary of the modern exposition of the four Geneva conventions. This anniversary is a perfect opportunity to both recall and reaffirm this Parliament’s commitment, which I am sure includes members of all political persuasions, to the conventions as well as expressing gratitude to the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement on being a continuous exponent of the principles of international humanitarian law, to limit human suffering in times of armed conflict and to prevent atrocities, especially against civilian populations, the wounded and prisoners of war. The Geneva conventions notably consist of four treaties and three protocols, which were updated in 1977. The four treaties provide for the amelioration of the condition of the wounded and sick in armed forces in the field; the amelioration of the condition of wounded, sick and shipwrecked members of armed forces at sea; perhaps most famously the treatment of prisoners of war; and the protection of civilian persons in time of war. The three protocols deal with the protection of victims of international armed conflicts; the protection of victims of non- international armed conflicts; and the adoption of an additional distinctive emblem for medical services. I can also advise the house that the commonwealth Attorney-General announced Australia’s ratification of the third protocol earlier today. In recognising the significant role that the conventions have played since their inception, this Parliament encourages ratification by all nations that have yet to formally subscribe to them. The Commonwealth of Australia ratified the original treaties of the Geneva conventions through the Geneva Conventions Act 1957. This act deals specifically with Australia’s capacity to prosecute those accused of breaching international humanitarian law, as well as the correct use of the Red Cross emblem. The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement each hold specific mandates under international humanitarian law to bring assistance without discrimination to the wounded on the battlefield, and endeavour to prevent and alleviate human suffering wherever it may be found. The Australian Red Cross, of which there are members present in the public gallery today, including Mr Steve Joske, executive director of the Western Australian branch, was formed in 1914 and has made an extraordinary contribution to the practical implementation of the humanitarian ideals and principles expressed in the Geneva conventions. One such contribution has been the establishment of an international humanitarian law program that consults with members of the Australian Defence Force, the Australian Federal Police and humanitarian workers who regularly engage with this area of the law. The Australian Red Cross also has an additional role of promoting international humanitarian law to journalists, the legal profession, students and the general public. The Western Australian branch of the Australian Red Cross has a proud history of educating Western Australians about the elements of international humanitarian law and regularly conducts public forums to facilitate the dissemination of information. I further note that this anniversary of the Geneva conventions presents an opportunity to publicly remember, acknowledge and celebrate the work of the many tens of thousands of volunteers who promote the mandate of the Red Cross in Australia. I also remind the house of the work undertaken by the Western Australian Parliamentary Friends of the Red Cross under the direction of the member for Darling Range. This group is open to all members and provides regular updates on the activities of the Australian Red Cross in Western Australia, nationally and internationally. The significance and impact of the Geneva conventions on international law is outshone only by the dedication and efforts of those volunteers who promote them and make them an actuality. I offer our thanks to the Australian Red Cross, and especially its Western Australian branch, for its continued support and service to our society in Western Australia and abroad.

5788 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009]

DEPARTMENT OF WATER — PROBITY INVESTIGATION Statement by Minister for Water DR G.G. JACOBS (Eyre — Minister for Water) [12.15 pm]: I rise to draw this house’s attention to the investigation of probity concerns by the Office of Public Sector Standards Commissioner into the Department of Water. Last year my office received an anonymous complaint regarding a staff member at the Department of Water. This complaint was immediately referred to both the Public Sector Commissioner and the Corruption and Crime Commission. The CCC referred the matter to the Office of the Public Sector Standards Commissioner, who has today released a report outlining the investigation and recommendations. Dr Ruth Shean, the Commissioner for Public Sector Standards, provided me with a briefing on the report, and I must say I found the report disturbing. As required under the Public Sector Management Act and public sector standards, the matter has now been referred to the Director General of the Department of Water. As my parliamentary colleagues would be aware, under the provisions of the act and public sector standards there is a requirement for confidentiality during all stages of the process, and as such I cannot comment on specific matters within the report. However, I have spoken to the director general and indicated that disciplinary proceedings must be instigated and completed expeditiously, and that the Public Sector Commissioner should be consulted regarding the process. I have every confidence that the director general will treat this matter with the seriousness that it requires. Under the act the director general has the power for disciplinary action depending on the outcome of the investigation; this action includes the removal of an individual if the director general has lost confidence in the ability of the individual to complete his or her duties. Again, I stress that I have confidence that the Director General of the Department of Water will act quickly and responsibly in relation to these allegations

MEMBER FOR MIDLAND The Cliffe — Removal from Register of Heritage Places — Personal Explanation MRS M.H. ROBERTS (Midland) [12.17 pm]: I would like to make a personal explanation, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Permission granted. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation with respect to the correspondence that you tabled yesterday from the Corruption and Crime Commission concerning the removal of The Cliffe from the Register of Heritage Places. First and foremost, Mr Speaker, I reject any notion of impropriety with respect to my handling of the removal of The Cliffe from the heritage register of Western Australia. In doing so, I recognise that many people in the community did not like the decision to remove The Cliffe from the Register of Heritage Places. Clearly the complainant in this instance, Mr Waldron, did not support the removal of The Cliffe from this register. He also notes that the Heritage Council did not support the removal of The Cliffe from the Register of Heritage Places. That is correct: it did not. The Heritage Council had recommended that The Cliffe be listed some 12 years earlier. During that time the real protection of that building had not been achieved by successive state governments, successive ministers or, indeed, the Heritage Council. During that the time the building deteriorated significantly. Mr Speaker, I stand by the integrity of the comments that I made in this place on 14 May last year in response to the motion to remove The Cliffe from the Register of Heritage Places. I commented then — I did hope, when I first looked at this issue, that we could find a solution. People have been trying to find a solution to this situation for some 12 years now. It has gone on for a very long time. I further stated — It is not every day that places are removed from the heritage register. I think I have probably added a couple of hundred places to the register in the year or so that I have been Minister for Heritage. This will be the first occasion on which we have moved to take something off the register. It is not a step that I have taken lightly. I did look through the house in some detail. I was expecting to form a contrary view—that this was a place that should be conserved or that we should make other arrangements for. I have now satisfied myself that that is not practical in the circumstances and that, on balance, this is a place that should be removed from the heritage register. I think I made it quite clear then that this was not a cut and dried issue or an easy decision to make. I further went on to say — I know that people who are proud supporters of heritage in our state will be disappointed to see this heritage listing removed.

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009] 5789

This decision has been made after much consideration has been given to a whole range of issues. If it were practical to do so, I would have liked to find another location to transport and relocate The Cliffe and re-establish it to its former glory. That would have been good to do, but it is neither practical to do nor would it be a cost-effective use of heritage dollars. I am disappointed that this matter was referred to the Corruption and Crime Commission because I am absolutely confident that the allegations of “misconduct”, as they are now described by the Corruption and Crime Commission, are completely without foundation. It is a huge leap to draw the conclusion that because The Cliffe was removed from the state Register of Heritage Places against the advice of the Heritage Council, something improper had therefore occurred and that because, as minister, I did not strictly follow the advice of the Heritage Council, something improper had occurred. I certainly was not the first heritage minister in this state to not take the advice of the Heritage Council on a matter, and nor will I be the last. The Minister for Heritage has responsibilities under the Heritage of Western Australia Act to look at the advice of the Heritage Council and to then form a view, and that is exactly what I did. As I explained at the time, it was not a decision that I took lightly. I informed myself by speaking to the local member of Parliament, which I believe was appropriate. The member for Cottesloe is elected to represent the views of the people in his electorate. I am not overly familiar with the member for Cottesloe’s electorate and I thought that it was appropriate to speak to the elected member on this issue and for him to speak to me as the heritage minister about an issue that had gone on for 12 years. I note that the complainant has drawn the conclusion that something must be corrupt if the minister did not accept the advice of the Heritage Council. That is a notion that I reject entirely. I believe that a minister has an obligation to form a view on behalf of the whole community. I looked at the correspondence that was tabled yesterday in which Mr Waldron outlined what he thinks I should have done and what the government should have done in response to this issue. He believes that I should have informed the house of section 73 of the Heritage of Western Australia Act. I will quote from that correspondence so that it is fully in context — The Heritage Act of Western Australia 1990 foresees the possibility that places of heritage significance may be jeopardised by neglect. Section 73 makes provision for the compulsory acquisition of property if such a place is being “deliberately allowed to fall in disrepair for the purpose of justifying its demolition and redevelopment …” In such a case, any cost of restoration of the property can be deducted from any compensation the State chooses to pay. The terms of this compulsory acquisition is set by the State and would therefore be most favourable to the community, not dictated by the owner … That provision of the Heritage of Western Australia Act has not been used in this state. I think it would need to be a very special circumstance for the state to determine that it should buy a private heritage property and then compulsorily acquire it. The implication here, I can only assume, is that the state should consider compulsorily acquiring the property from the owners and that the state should then incur the expense of restoring the property and deduct that amount of money from what was paid to the owners as part of the compulsory acquisition. It may be appropriate to do that in some other circumstance in the future. I certainly did not think that was an appropriate action in this circumstance. When I made my comments to the house, I said that the heritage grant in Western Australia totalled $1 million per year. I think that is a paltry amount of money. It is spread out across two and a half million square kilometres in Western Australia and is paid in very small grants each year. To find the money to acquire and restore the property would have been well in excess of the Heritage Council’s budget and would have required a special submission to be made to cabinet. I probably formed the view that my colleagues would not have supported that proposition. I also question what the strength of the government’s position for doing that would have been, given that there are so many government-owned buildings in disrepair. I think that the public would find it very strange if the government suddenly went into the business of buying and restoring private properties when there are so many government-owned buildings, such as the old Treasury building to name just one startling example, that are in somewhat of a state of disrepair. That has occurred over a period of successive governments, which says something about the priority that successive governments have given to heritage matters. It certainly indicates to me that it would have been an extraordinary circumstance to compulsorily acquire a property that I did not consider to be of extreme merit. As I said at the time, I expected to see something very special. I read in detail the reports of the Heritage Council and the heritage experts. When I viewed that property—because I was not prepared to make an arbitrary decision—I formed the view for myself that I did not think it lived up to the critique that was provided to me as minister, and I made my decision accordingly. It has been suggested that I should have tabled the Heritage Council’s advice on this matter or that I should have mentioned that advice in my response to the motion moved in Parliament last year. Frankly, if anyone had entered the debate and asked me what the Heritage Council’s position was on this matter, I would have gladly told them, but no-one did that. A motion was put to remove the place from the register and I argued in support of its removal. I acknowledged at the time that it was a difficult decision to make and that I would have preferred it if the building were relocated elsewhere, at the very least. In the circumstances, I supported the motion. I do not

5790 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009] think it is general practice in this house for a member to canvass the arguments that disagree with a motion with which the member agrees. That would have been nonsensical. Perhaps I could have noted it, and maybe I should have noted it, but I do not see how it was in any way improper to not make those comments, or that I was in any way obliged to provide that information to the house. I certainly would have done so had I been asked. In conclusion, I note that it is appropriate that the Procedure and Privileges Committee look at this matter. I have absolutely nothing to hide. I would welcome the scrutiny because I believe that when matters like this are raised, people assume that where there is smoke there is fire. Until this matter is subjected to appropriate scrutiny, I think it does leave doubt and I would much prefer that that doubt be removed by the scrutiny of the committee. THE CLIFFE — LETTER FROM CORRUPTION AND CRIME COMMISSIONER REFERRING COMPLAINTS Standing Orders Suspension — Motion MR M. McGOWAN (Rockingham) [12.30 pm]: The reason I rise is that the member for Midland has provided a personal explanation about the issues contained in the letter from the Corruption and Crime Commissioner that was tabled in Parliament yesterday. I propose to seek some advice from the Premier to ascertain whether he is prepared to do the same thing. If he is not, I will move to suspend standing orders to move a motion to invite the Premier to do the same thing. I am seeking guidance from him across the house. I approached the Premier to ask him but he has not given me a direct answer. I am merely asking the Premier to do it. Mr C.J. Barnett: Whatever you want; it is up to you! Mr R.F. Johnson: It is not a general debate. If you want to move to suspend standing orders, do so. Mr M. McGOWAN: I have not received that advice, so that is fine. Mr Speaker, I move without notice — That so much of the standing orders be suspended as is necessary to enable the following motion to be moved forthwith — That this house refer the matters raised in the Corruption and Crime Commission documents relating to The Cliffe to the Procedure and Privileges Committee for inquiry, and further call upon the government to amend section 27A of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act 2003 by deleting the words “not being serious misconduct”, thereby allowing the Corruption and Crime Commission to deal with allegations of serious misconduct in the future. I will have the motion distributed. I would not mind speaking to the motion, but I seek guidance across the house as to whether or not the government is prepared to allow it. Mr R.F. Johnson: The member needs to convince the house why he is suspending standing orders and why he is interrupting the business of this Parliament for political purposes. You need to do that, my friend. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan: Oh my God, politics in the Parliament! It is a shocker! Mr C.J. Barnett: Let’s hear the argument. Make your case. Mr M. McGOWAN: I would have thought it appropriate, in light of the allegations that were made in relation to the Premier over the winter recess, that he come into the Parliament on the first day and make an explanation from his point of view as to what took place in relation to those arguments. Prima facie the arguments are serious. The research done by the complainants to the Corruption and Crime Commission is quite extensive. What they have pointed out, and what is contained within the letter provided by the Corruption and Crime Commission to the Speaker, is prima facie an allegation of serious misconduct. Not “misconduct” under the CCC act, “serious misconduct” under the CCC act. I thought that on the first available opportunity—not by way of press conference and not by way of doorstop comment—the Premier would come into the Parliament and provide an explanation, because that is what the Parliament is for. I heard the Speaker’s address yesterday and I also heard him on radio say that he had three options in this matter. One option was to put the matter in the drawer and leave it forever, to sit there and not be dealt with; the second option was to bring it into the Parliament and allow the Parliament to decide what should happen about the allegations contained within the CCC’s letter; and the third option was, I thought, going to be direct referral to the Procedure and Privileges Committee, but I think there may have been some legal difficulties with that course of action. Therefore, the appropriate course of action now is for this Parliament to examine the issues and decide upon a course of action. The best way for us as a Parliament to decide upon a course of action would have been for the Premier to make a statement, as the member for Midland did, and advise the house of what happened from his point of view. The Premier has elected not to do that. The member for Midland has come clean immediately—although that is perhaps the wrong choice of words—and provided an explanation to the house from her point of view of the matters contained within the CCC’s letter at the first available opportunity following the tabling of the document. I have invited the Premier to do so; he has failed to do so. That is the first point I want to make.

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009] 5791

We have drafted a two-pronged motion to be considered by the house. The first thing we have moved is that the house should decide that the matters contained within the Corruption and Crime Commission complaint be dealt with by the Procedure and Privileges Committee. I will go through the reasons why. As I understand it, the allegations made by Mr Waldron to the Corruption and Crime Commission in relation to the Premier were serious allegations. They alleged that the Premier, as a member of Parliament, brought an issue to this house in order to benefit a family member. That was the allegation that was made by Mr Waldron. Mr C.J. Barnett: Please explain—come on! If the member is going to waste the Parliament’s time, he has got to be accountable and he has got to make his case. Mr M. McGOWAN: I am explaining. I wish the Premier would do the same thing! If only the Premier would stand up and explain and be accountable to the house. Mr C.J. Barnett: Let us hear what the opposition believes. Mr M. McGOWAN: What we see again is the arrogance, pomposity and hubris that this man demonstrates on a daily basis. The Premier displays arrogance, pomposity and hubris in not explaining himself to this house. The allegations made by Mr Waldron to the Corruption and Crime Commission were that the Premier took up an issue concerning a private property and addressed the house on that matter. He took up an issue that, if resolved in the way that the Premier wanted it resolved, would result in a significant financial benefit to a constituent of his. What Mr Waldron identified was that this constituent of his was also a significant investor in a company that was run by the Premier’s son. On the face of it that is a serious allegation. When the Premier went to the press to explain himself in relation to these matters, he said that he had discussed the issue of this property with his son, but he then claimed that he was unaware that Mr Creasy was a significant investor in his son’s company. That is the explanation. Mr C.J. Barnett: Not the son’s company. Mr M. McGOWAN: That is the explanation the Premier provided. As I said, this is a serious allegation on the face of it and the Premier should provide some explanation to this house. I suggest that if he does not provide that explanation to this house, it strengthens further the argument that members should support the motion that this matter be referred to the Procedure and Privileges Committee. It has further come to the opposition’s notice that at the time the Premier made his grievance and subsequent speeches—he made two speeches in this house in relation to this matter: one on 30 August 2007 and the other on 14 May 2008 — The SPEAKER: Can I remind the member that the opportunity he has at the moment is to call for a suspension of standing orders. I hope he is going to address that. I have given the member six minutes to call for the suspension of standing orders. Mr M. McGOWAN: The allegation of serious misconduct is something that should be debated by the Parliament when it concerns the most senior office holder in the state. That is the reason why we should suspend standing orders. The allegation is one of serious misconduct. That allegation is enhanced when it is revealed that the Premier misled the house in relation to his arguments for the removal of the heritage listing of The Cliffe property. The Premier misled the house in relation to those matters. If I were given the opportunity by way of suspension of standing orders to allow that matter to be debated, perhaps I could outline to the house how the Premier misled the house in relation to the listing of the property. He actually provided information to the house that was incorrect and perhaps he should answer those questions. They are the sorts of questions that need to be dealt with. Furthermore, we need to actually examine not only why it is that the Parliament and the Procedure and Privileges Committee need to deal with this matter and not the Corruption and Crime Commission, as in the case of the members for Mindarie, Victoria Park and South Perth and the issues that were resolved satisfactorily in relation to those matters and those members earlier this year, but also why in the case of misconduct those members had their issues dealt with by the CCC but in relation to an allegation of serious misconduct that is not actually possible under the law as it currently exists. They are the issues that need to be dealt with by way of a suspension of standing orders. I drafted the motion to suspend standing orders and the motion that I tabled earlier on the basis that both those two serious issues of procedure and privileges and the law as it currently stands, which means that the Procedure and Privileges Committee has to examine this issue and not the CCC, need to be debated today. This is the first opportunity for us to do so after the tabling of the letter that the Speaker tabled yesterday. This is the first opportunity for the house to examine those issues, and I think that it is appropriate that it does. If the government is open and accountable, it will agree to that and it will agree to a debate, because I have a lot to say in relation to this. I want to reveal to the house how the Premier misled the house. I want to reveal to the house how the law is currently inadequate to deal with these matters, which means that a committee of the Premier’s peers, including three government members out of five, is required to deal with this matter, rather than the independent body that dealt with the members for South Perth, Mindarie and Victoria Park. I want the opportunity to examine those

5792 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009] two issues, and, quite frankly, I am shocked, considering the seriousness of this matter, that the government appears to be not agreeing to a suspension of standing orders to allow that discussion to take place and that the Premier is not prepared to stand and explain to the house the actions that he has taken. By way of interjection, I invite the Premier and perhaps the Leader of the House to provide me with some advice across the chamber about whether they are prepared to allow that, and that may determine what action the opposition takes from this point forward. Mr R.F. Johnson: Are you the only speaker on this? Mr C.J. Barnett: We’re still waiting for the case to be made. Mr R.F. Johnson: We’re still waiting for the case to be made, but still — Mr C.J. Barnett: It’s pathetic. Mr M. McGOWAN: If we could actually debate the formal motion, then I could make the case, but the government does not seem to be prepared to allow that, which indicates that it might have something to hide. If the government is not prepared to allow the house to examine this issue, it indicates that it might have something to hide. Mr R.F. Johnson: I will tell the member what we will do. We will agree to the suspension of standing orders, but the only part of this that we are prepared to debate is the first part. We are certainly not going to go into amending the Corruption and Crime Commission Act by deleting various bits and pieces; that is not appropriate. We are happy to suspend standing orders provided the motion is simply to refer this to the Procedure and Privileges Committee for its inquiry. Mr M. McGOWAN: We have moved a motion. It is a matter of whether the government wants to support it, vote against it or amend it. Mr R.F. Johnson: The only motion you have moved is to suspend standing orders, my friend. That is the only motion moved. Mr M. McGOWAN: That is the motion we have moved. Several members interjected. Mr M. McGOWAN: We have moved the motion. If government members want to vote it down, be that on their heads. If they do not want to allow this debate today, be that on their heads. We have moved the motion and the motion as it stands is the motion that will be decided upon by this house. MR J.R. QUIGLEY (Mindarie) [12.44 pm]: This is a matter of public importance — The SPEAKER: Might I remind the member, and any member who wishes to stand at this point, that what he is talking to is the suspension of standing orders. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: Understood, and I will not seek much latitude from the direct line, but this is a matter of public importance. It is already a matter that has attracted a considerable degree of intense public debate. I rise in the people’s Parliament on behalf of the public of Western Australia to support the suspension of standing orders—that is, to interrupt the normal run of business in the people’s Parliament—and I request on behalf of the public of Western Australia that this business be interrupted for the following very important reason. Under the Corruption and Crime Commission Act 2003, section 27A deals with allegations involving parliamentary privilege and states that despite any contrary provision in the act, an allegation of misconduct, not being an allegation of serious misconduct, made against a member of the Legislative Assembly in the performance of his duty is to be referred by the commission to the Presiding Officer. The commission, we were informed by the Speaker’s good self yesterday, referred an allegation to his office under section 27A. But it was an allegation characterised by the commission. I am pointing out and stressing to the Premier, if he is within hearing distance as he is getting his briefing notes, that I am not making an allegation against the Premier in this motion for the suspension of standing orders. I am not. I am addressing the point that you, Mr Speaker, invited—nay, directed—me to address; that is, the reason why the business of the people’s Parliament should be suspended whilst this motion could be allowed to come forward. Therefore, I do not stand as the member for Mindarie to make an allegation against the Premier of Western Australia; I do no more than refer to the third paragraph of the letter to your honourable good self, Mr Speaker. I will read that paragraph into Hansard, if I may. It states — The Commission has now had an opportunity to assess the allegations raised pursuant to section 22 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act 2003 … and has formed the view that the allegations raised against Mr Barnett and Ms Roberts are of serious misconduct. Mr R.F. Johnson: The allegations.

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009] 5793

Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: The allegations in — Mr R.F. Johnson: Who from? Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: Member, I stand and I am being as candid and austere as I know how to be to frame the argument. I said I was not making an allegation against the Premier; I was simply referring to the manner in which the Corruption and Crime Commission had categorised in bold, member, the allegation. When we go to the ensuing provisions of the legislation to see what the government response should be, we see that it is dealt with under section 27B of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act. Section 27B(1) states — The presiding officer, on receipt of a referral made under section 27A(1), must — And the Speaker is directed what to do with it — (a) where the allegation is made under section 27A(1)(a)— That is, an allegation involving parliamentary privilege — require— The Speaker must require — a committee of the House whose functions include considering matters relating to the practice, procedure and privileges … to inquire into the matter; That is a matter in respect of which the Speaker has no option. That is a matter in respect of which the previous Speaker sitting in the chair had no option when the CCC referred a complaint of misconduct to the preceding Speaker of the last Parliament. The Speaker, as a matter of mandated requirement, had to refer the allegation involving me to the Procedure and Privileges Committee. By reason of that—I say in good humour—the Premier, at the time when that referral of me was made, made some moment of the fact that I was being investigated, although he never, and I give him credit, called me a crook or said I was guilty. He said that it must be investigated. The difference here — The SPEAKER: Member — Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: I will come back right to the point. I am sorry. The SPEAKER: Please. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: Thank you for your direction, Mr Speaker. Under this section, if my conduct had been serious misconduct, the Speaker could not have referred it, because the Speaker is not allowed to refer serious misconduct. Therefore, he reported this matter to the house because it was serious misconduct. However, the legislation, by reason of an anomaly, prohibits the Speaker referring a complaint raised by the Corruption and Crime Commission of serious misconduct, but requires him to have an investigation into conduct simpliciter. That is an anomaly. Although the Speaker correctly reported back to the house the allegation he had received, the Speaker leaves the matter to the house. This is no criticism of the Chair—no criticism of you, Mr Speaker. The Speaker is governed by the legislation. Therefore, he reported to the house, and there it sits in limbo without investigation, just at the mercy of the house, if one likes. The reason why the motion was moved on behalf of the public of Western Australia is to bring about a process of resolution on behalf of the public. The member for Midland has already submitted to the chamber that she will voluntarily submit to such an inquiry, so on behalf of the public of Western Australia there can be resolution of the allegation brought against her. In the same manner, because I was accused of a lesser degree of misconduct than the Premier is accused of, the Speaker had to send it on and there could be resolution. The reason why standing orders need to be suspended on behalf of the public of Western Australia, and it will not take long, is just to set the ball rolling—just to push the allegation down the track of accountability. This is not me pointing the finger at the Premier; this is not me making an allegation against the Premier. The CCC characterised the allegation as serious misconduct. I expect the presumption of innocence to be fully afforded the Premier, but that is not to say that an inquiry should not happen and should not be — The SPEAKER: Member, I call on you to deal with the substance of the motion. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: It is important at this point for the people’s Parliament to pause and, on behalf of the people’s Parliament, for the motion to go through, for the matter to go to the Procedure and Privileges Committee, for a full explanation to be given by that committee, and for the matter to be resolved for the public and not be left hanging in limbo. The only mechanism by which that can proceed at this point is a suspension of standing orders now. MR R.F. JOHNSON (Hillarys — Leader of the House) [12.53 pm]: Is it not interesting? Let me put it this way — Mr J.N. Hyde: Speak to the motion.

5794 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009]

Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Go on holiday again, my friend. It is a much quieter place when the member is not here. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan: Are you one of the intellectual giants that the Premier referred to yesterday? Mr R.F. JOHNSON: The member for Armadale certainly is not; that is for sure—the candidate for Canning! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan: Your repartee is just extraordinary—that great razor-like wit. The SPEAKER: Member for Armadale! Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I have never met a woman like the member before. The SPEAKER: I am sure there is a great deal of interest on both sides of this place in the motion that the member for Rockingham has put in front of us. I would prefer that those members who are interjecting be silent. I think it might benefit all of us to hear the debate without interjections. I am not going to tolerate any further interjections in the debate on this motion. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: We do not have a problem with suspending standing orders, but we have a problem with the latter part of the motion to suspend standing orders; that is, the substantive motion. We are more than happy to refer this issue. Mr E.S. Ripper: What you do, Leader of the House — The SPEAKER: I am not going to call the Leader of the Opposition, but I did say that I would not tolerate any interjections. As I see it, there seems to be some progress being made. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Quite frankly, what we will be happy to do, and what I will do now in a substantive way, is move an amendment. Amendment to Motion Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I move to amend the motion before the house to suspend standing orders as follows — To delete all words after “inquiry”. In other words, the motion would read — That so much of the standing orders be suspended as is necessary to enable the following motion to be moved forthwith — That this house refer the matters raised in the Corruption and Crime Commission documents relating to The Cliffe to the Procedure and Privileges Committee for inquiry. We are happy for that to happen. We do not want to have a very serious part of legislation simply debated in an ad hoc way, wasting the time of this Parliament. We have no problem with this issue being referred to the Procedure and Privileges Committee. We are happy for that to happen. I believe that I am well able to move an amendment to the motion to suspend standing orders. The motion would therefore read — That this house refer the matters raised in the Corruption and Crime Commission documents relating to The Cliffe to the Procedure and Privileges Committee for inquiry. My amendment is to delete all the words after the word “inquiry”. We are talking about some allegations that have been made by various people. We do not have a problem with the Procedure and Privileges Committee inquiring into that. However, we are not going to agree to a suspension of standing orders to simply debate all the areas after that. If the opposition wants to amend legislation—that is what it wants to do in the second part of the motion—we will not agree to that. We are not going to amend legislation simply at the whim of the manager of opposition business or his leader—certainly not. We will do things responsibly. As I understand it, the amendment that is now before the house is — That so much of the standing orders be suspended as is necessary to enable the following motion to be moved forthwith — That this house refer the matters raised in the Corruption and Crime Commission documents relating to The Cliffe to the Procedure and Privileges Committee for inquiry. We will support that amendment. If the opposition wants to do that, fine; let us not waste any more time. Let us vote on that, let us all agree that the issue can go to the Procedure and Privileges Committee, and it can deal with that issue. It can carry out that inquiry. Let us not waste any more of this Parliament’s time. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN: The Leader of the House has moved to amend the substantive motion, whereas what we are debating at the moment is the suspension. I am seeking the Speaker’s guidance on whether that is possible. Secondly, when we vote on this matter, does that conclude the entire debate, or will we have the opportunity to speak on any such subsequently amended substantive motion?

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009] 5795

Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: The member for Rockingham has sought some advice on whether the Leader of the House can amend the motion that the member for Rockingham moved. He certainly can do that. Debate Resumed The SPEAKER: The question that I will put to the house is that the words to be deleted are those words that follow on from “inquiry”. I will read it for everybody’s benefit. The motion that would be in front of the house if the deletion were successful would be — That so much of the standing orders be suspended as is necessary to enable the following motion to be moved forthwith — We then have the member for Rockingham’s words — That this house refer the matters raised in the Corruption and Crime Commission documents relating to The Cliffe to the Procedure and Privileges Committee for inquiry. That would be the motion, as amended, if the amendment of the Leader of the House is successful. That is what we would then be substantially debating. None of that has taken place yet. I put it to the house that the words to be deleted be deleted. MR M. McGOWAN (Rockingham) [1.01 pm]: I seek further clarification. I will explain to the house what we are doing. We will be voting against the motion that the words to be deleted be deleted. We will be voting for the suspension of standing orders, and then we will have a number of speakers on the suspension. I understand that that is what has been agreed to. Mr R.F. Johnson: That has not been agreed to at all. It has been agreed to send this to the Procedure and Privileges Committee for it to do its job. The SPEAKER: Member for Rockingham, you have asked several important questions for all members of this place. If the words are deleted from your original motion, the substantive motion would need to be moved again, which would end on the word “inquiry”. Mr M. McGOWAN: That would provide members of the opposition with the opportunity to speak on that matter. The SPEAKER: That is my interpretation. MR E.S. RIPPER (Belmont — Leader of the Opposition) [1.02 pm]: We will vote against the deletion of the words, so we will vote against the amendment moved by the Leader of the House. I assume that the government will use its numbers to carry that amendment, and then the substantive motion, as amended, will be before the house. The SPEAKER: It will need to be put again. Mr E.S. RIPPER: The motion before the house will then be the amended motion for suspension, which we will vote for. Once that amended motion for the suspension is carried, the manager of opposition business, the member for Rockingham, will move the motion for referral to the committee, and then we will have a debate on that. It is remarkable that we have not had a statement from the Premier, as we had from the member for Midland. We have had aggressive interjections and tantrums and politicisation of the debate. We could have had a dignified statement from the Premier, if he is capable of that, such as the statement that we got from the member for Midland. I want to debate the amendment moved by the Leader of the House. What is at stake here is how our system responds to allegations of serious misconduct involving actions inside the Parliament by members of Parliament. It is bizarre that ordinary misconduct can be considered by the Corruption and Crime Commission while serious misconduct cannot be considered by the CCC. Serious misconduct involving actions in the Parliament has to be dealt with by a committee of the Parliament. When an allegation involves a member of the government, it is dealt with by a committee of the Parliament on which the government has a majority. Members may like to think about how that might be viewed outside. This is the first occasion on which we have had a series of events such as this that have revealed the bizarre nature of the operation of those sections in the legislation. Mr C.J. Barnett: Blame Jim McGinty. Mr E.S. RIPPER: The opposition says, “You’re the government; you’re responsible.” It talks about blame. This is the first time that we have had a series of events that have revealed the anomaly, as the shadow Attorney General calls it, in the legislation. Of course the Parliament should suspend standing orders to debate that issue as well, because what the issue ultimately comes down to is: does the matter get referred to a committee of the

5796 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009]

Parliament for resolution, or does that committee have a chance to refer it back to the CCC? Which option gives the community more confidence? Which is the better resolution from the point of view of ordinary people out there who want to make a complaint against a senior politician and have that complaint properly considered and properly resolved? I put it to the house that the involvement of the CCC is what members of the public would want. Therefore, the motion to suspend standing orders should be carried in its original form, not in a form sought by the Leader of the House. It would express the view of this house that the credibility — Mr R.F. Johnson: Who says it’s the view of the house? Mr E.S. RIPPER: If the motion was fully carried, it would enable this house to express a view that the credibility of the process would be best supported by removing that distinction in the handling of serious misconduct. Mr C.J. Barnett: All bets are off. Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Premier says that all bets are off. I will tell him what I would have done in his position. If I had been in the Premier’s position, yesterday, following the statement of the Speaker, I would have immediately moved for a suspension of standing orders to debate an immediate referral to the Procedure and Privileges Committee. I would have given a statement. That is what an open, accountable and honest Premier of integrity would do. He has not done that. We will oppose the amendment. If the amendment is nevertheless carried, we will support the resulting motion.

MR C.C. PORTER (Bateman — Attorney General) [1.07 pm]: Mr Speaker, on the point of whether what you have identified is some kind of anomaly or legal lacuna in the legislation, I do not consider that it is. The point about the operation of those provisions was to encapsulate the intent of Parliament to preserve parliamentary privilege in its largest part. That is precisely how the act was meant to operate. Mr M. McGowan: Let us debate it. Mr C.C. PORTER: The point that the manager of opposition business is making in support of his motion is that there has to be a reason of great importance to activate this Parliament’s consideration of this matter. He cites two reasons for that great importance. One is that the allegation involves an allegation of “serious misconduct”. That is a matter of fact. The allegation does. All serious misconduct allegations are only allegations until proved. Mr M. McGowan: Not under the act. Mr C.C. PORTER: The second point that the manager of opposition business is making is that somehow there is an error or mistake or anomaly in the act, and that is what warrants his motion important enough to be considered. I am telling him that that is not the case. Mr E.S. Ripper: So you don’t blame Jim McGinty then; you support Jim McGinty. Mr C.C. PORTER: The former Attorney General passed legislation that encapsulated the intent of Parliament to preserve, to the extent set out in this act, parliamentary privilege. That is precisely what it does. Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER: That is precisely what it is meant to do. Page 220 of the Gail Archer report states — Nothing in the Act suggests an intention by Parliament to abrogate the privilege (apart from the specific mechanism set out in sections 27A and 27B of the Act). Indeed, the contrary is true. Section 3(2) of the Act demonstrates an express intention by Parliament to preserve parliamentary privilege in respect of the scope and operation of the Act. The review document of some 300 pages that the former government commissioned recognises that these provisions are precisely as they were meant to be and does not suggest any amendment to them whatsoever. This is the document that the former government commissioned. The point that the member for Mindarie makes is that serious misconduct stays at the CCC, whereas misconduct is forwarded to this house. But that is not necessarily always the case. What the member has cited in the letter, which I have not seen, is that the CCC says that this is a case of serious misconduct. Mr J.N. Hyde: You haven’t read the letter. Mr C.C. PORTER: I have not read the letter. Mr J.R. Quigley: I will read the paragraph again — The Commission has now had an opportunity to assess the allegations raised pursuant to section 22 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act 2003 … and has formed the view that the allegations raised against Mr Barnett and Ms Roberts are of serious misconduct. Mr C.C. PORTER: And has referred it here, as it is supposed to do, if it involves privilege.

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009] 5797

Mr J.R. Quigley: And has done that. Mr C.C. PORTER: That is correct. Mr J.R. Quigley: But then under section 27B, the Speaker is not required to send it back. Mr C.C. PORTER: Only if it were misconduct simpliciter. Mr J.R. Quigley: Correct. Mr C.C. PORTER: And that is precisely what the act is meant to do, because by doing that, a certain sphere of parliamentary privilege is enshrined and protected. That was always the purpose of those provisions. Mr J.R. Quigley: Can I ask one question? On your reading of the legislation, do you agree that if you are a bigger crook in Parliament you will not be investigated, but if you are just a little crook you will be investigated? Mr C.C. PORTER: The purpose of those provisions was to preserve the sanctity of parliamentary privilege. There is no lacuna; that is what was meant to happen. That preserves parliamentary privilege. Mr J.R. Quigley: But if you’re a big crook in this big room, you don’t get investigated, but if the allegation is that you are just a little crook, you’ll have the spotlight on you. The SPEAKER: Order! Thank you, member for Mindarie. This is not an opportunity to debate the second half of the original motion. Attorney General, I will give you the opportunity to make a passing reference, if you like, but not to go into a full-blown explanation of the whys and wherefores. Mr C.C. PORTER: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The point I was seeking to make is that those provisions are matters of importance in the context of this motion only if there is something wrong in them, or if somehow they represent an anomaly that was never intended. But that, in my view, is clearly not the case. The member for Mindarie might disagree, but I think that those provisions are as they were meant to be and the outcome is as was intended by Parliament. It is quite clear from the Archer report that that is the case. MR J.N. HYDE (Perth) [1.12 pm]: I will speak against this deletion. The Attorney General has just shown why we should debate this motion in full. Yesterday, Mr Speaker, you tabled a letter and a document. You have given an indication that you agree with the Corruption and Crime Commission’s interpretation of misconduct and serious misconduct. The Attorney General has not even read that letter, which is mind-boggling, but he wants to support the amendment for deletion. This is the very first occasion that the Parliament of Western Australia has the opportunity to debate the letter, Mr Speaker, and to determine whether the Parliament agrees with your interpretation of the CCC’s letter and your suggested procedure—that is, whether it be referred to the Procedure and Privileges Committee. Even if members support this amendment, they cannot pass the motion to refer the matter to the committee without debating it. As members of Parliament, we deserve the right to discuss whether the matter should be referred to the Procedure and Privileges Committee. For a variety of reasons, it is incomprehensible that the Premier did not put this issue to bed yesterday and show leadership. He must do that today. Members of Parliament must be able to discuss this issue in full. I oppose the amendment. MR J.E. McGRATH (South Perth) [1.13 pm]: I rise to speak as someone who has appeared before the Corruption and Crime Commission, and I can say that it is not a very enjoyable experience. A complaint was lodged with the Procedure and Privileges Committee, and because it was an allegation of misconduct, but not serious misconduct, I was sent to the CCC. I was run down like some sort of criminal and served a notice to appear before the CCC. I was told that I could not speak to anyone in my family, not even my wife, or to any friends, about the allegations that had been made against me or the inquiry that was being held. I have made the point publicly that, when I look back on it, the allegations that were made against me as a member of Parliament—considering that I had broken no law of the land; I had not even broken the standing orders— amounted to my having spoken to a person called Brian Burke, who is a former Premier of Western Australia and a person who, before I agreed to speak to him, had been given a clearance by the previous Premier of Western Australia. In hindsight, I wish that the allegation of misconduct against me had been of a serious nature, because then I would have appeared before the Procedure and Privileges Committee, which is the committee that should deal with allegations made against members of Parliament who have acted inappropriately. Anyone who does something that is criminal should be before the CCC and other courts, but we have a mechanism here — The SPEAKER: I remind the member once again that he is speaking to the motion that is before the house. Mr J.E. McGRATH: I am speaking to the motion. I am very confident that the Premier has done nothing wrong in his dealings, and I am sure that he will be cleared of any innuendo or accusations that have been made. I am confident of that. I also believe that, for the proper process to take place and for us to be an open and accountable government, the Premier must go through this process. I am happy that the Premier has agreed and I think it is

5798 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009] the right and proper thing. In the career that we have taken on as members of Parliament, we are open to accountability of the highest order, and that is how it should be. I am pleased to see that this matter will now move to the Procedure and Privileges Committee. The committee should hold a public hearing, because this matter has had a lot of media attention. I will be voting for the amendment, because now is probably not the time to debate that matter, but I agree that there is a serious anomaly in the clause that the Leader of the House wants removed from this motion. In the end, today will be a good outcome for accountability in the Parliament. The Premier has indicated that he is quite prepared to go before an inquiry, and I am confident that all will be revealed. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. Mr J.E. McGRATH: If the member for Perth has some problems with that, the fact is that the opposition has raised this matter, and that is what oppositions are about. Mr J.N. Hyde: I am not having a go at you. I am just saying that the Premier has not yet agreed that he will appear before the committee. Mr J.E. McGRATH: I have spoken to the Premier, and he will be going before the Procedure and Privileges Committee. Mr J.N. Hyde: The Premier is saying no, member! Mr J.E. McGRATH: That is the contribution that I am making. We do have a very — The SPEAKER: Member for South Perth, you are speaking to the substantive motion. Mr J.E. McGRATH: I am speaking to the substantive motion. I think that at the moment, the Parliament needs to support only the first part of the motion. I will support the motion as it will be amended by the Leader of the House. MRS M.H. ROBERTS (Midland) [1.19 pm]: I note that I have not spoken in this debate, but I have previously given a personal explanation. I seek your ruling or advice, Mr Speaker, on whether, given that the motion directly affects me, I should participate in the vote. The SPEAKER: Member for Midland, everyone who was in the house when you were on your feet earlier giving your personal explanation has heard it. As you would appreciate, and as I hope all members in this place also appreciate, it is your absolute right to do so. I add to that that there is nothing in the standing orders at all that would prevent you from taking part in a vote on this matter. All members elected to this place should be here on the basis that they have absolutely every right to vote on every issue. My advice to you, member for Midland, is that if you want to vote you should do so, and that you should not feel that there is any reason at all why you should not have that vote. Amendment put and a division taken with the following result — Ayes (30)

Mr P. Abetz Dr E. Constable Dr G.G. Jacobs Mr D.T. Redman Mr F.A. Alban Mr M.J. Cowper Mr R.F. Johnson Mr A.J. Simpson Mr C.J. Barnett Mr J.H.D. Day Mr A. Krsticevic Mr M.W. Sutherland Mr I.C. Blayney Mr J.M. Francis Mr W.R. Marmion Mr T.K. Waldron Mr J.J.M. Bowler Mr B.J. Grylls Mr P.T. Miles Dr J.M. Woollard Mr T.R. Buswell Dr K.D. Hames Ms A.R. Mitchell Mr J.E. McGrath (Teller) Mr G.M. Castrilli Mrs L.M. Harvey Dr M.D. Nahan Mr V.A. Catania Mr A.P. Jacob Mr C.C. Porter

Noes (26)

Ms L.L. Baker Mr J.C. Kobelke Mr P. Papalia Mr A.J. Waddell Ms A.S. Carles Mr F.M. Logan Mr J.R. Quigley Mr P.B. Watson Mr A.J. Carpenter Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan Ms M.M. Quirk Mr M.P. Whitely Mr R.H. Cook Mr M. McGowan Mr E.S. Ripper Mr B.S. Wyatt Ms J.M. Freeman Mrs C.A. Martin Mrs M.H. Roberts Mr D.A. Templeman (Teller) Mr J.N. Hyde Mr M.P. Murray Ms R. Saffioti Mr W.J. Johnston Mr A.P. O’Gorman Mr C.J. Tallentire

Pair

Mr I.M. Britza Mr T.G. Stephens Amendment thus passed with an absolute majority.

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009] 5799

Standing Orders Suspension — Motion, as Amended Question put and passed with an absolute majority.

Motion MR M. McGOWAN (Rockingham) [1.25 pm]: I move — That the house refer the matters raised in the Corruption and Crime Commission documents relating to The Cliffe to the Procedure and Privileges Committee for inquiry. After a long and tortuous process to get to this point, I will speak to this motion. I suggest to the house that a great deal of this debate could have been avoided had the Premier elected to stand up before this house and explain the matters contained within the Corruption and Crime Commission letters, tabled by the Speaker yesterday. Had he done that at the first available opportunity yesterday or at the commencement of Parliament today some of this debate could have been avoided. I invite him in this debate to stand up and explain himself, as the member for Midland did in the debate on the motion to suspend standing orders. I have a few points to make in the debate on this motion. My first point is that the opposition is attempting to refer this matter to the Procedure and Privileges Committee because it has no other option available to it to ensure that this matter is investigated. The reason we suggested in the debate on the motion to suspend standing orders that this is not the appropriate way to deal with this issue is because it would come down to ourselves judging ourselves. I know that over time there has been a long history of Parliament dealing with matters of its own privilege, but in 2003 that was adjusted in relation to matters concerning misconduct as defined by the Corruption and Crime Commission Act. The member for South Perth alluded to what took place in relation to matters concerning him, the member for Mindarie and the member for Victoria Park; that is, when allegations were made of misconduct, less serious than the allegations made against the Premier, they were dealt with by the Corruption and Crime Commission. A report on that matter was handed down by the CCC last year. Matters of misconduct are considered by the CCC because the Parliament amended the act to make it appropriate for an outside body to do so. However, in a rather curious and anomalous fashion the act also determines that matters of serious misconduct—matters that are more significant and potentially worse—are not to be dealt with by the CCC, but by the Procedure and Privileges Committee. Do members think that is a strange arrangement? Whilst I heard the Attorney General defend it, I can quote from the report on the members for South Perth, Mindarie and Victoria Park in which the CCC debunks at length this arrangement that is included in the existing act. That is the reason we included in the motion that the arrangement whereby me, as a member of the Procedure and Privileges Committee, and the other members of that committee—the member for Swan Hills, the member for Mount Lawley, the member for Cockburn and the Speaker—are required to decide upon these matters concerning the Premier. As a member of Parliament I am required to come into this place and raise these matters and then I am required to adjudicate on them. I am required to speak to this matter, which is highly political, in this house and then adjudicate on it. When it was decided that matters of misconduct should go to the CCC, the legislature decided it was perhaps inappropriate for matters of significant misconduct to be dealt with by an outside body by Parliament referring its privilege. However, matters of serious misconduct are for this house to consider, which, quite frankly, is bizarre. I will quote from the “Corruption and Crime Commission Report on Behalf of the Procedure and Privileges Committee of the Legislative Assembly”. It indicated as follows — Both from a practical and philosophical perspective there appear to be good reasons to remove the distinction in section 27A of the Act. This could be easily achieved by amending that section to remove the words “not being serious misconduct” in the second line. The effect would be that the Commission would be obliged to refer all allegations to a presiding officer of Parliament. This would then enable, but not oblige, Parliament to direct the Commission to conduct an inquiry on its behalf. Such an inquiry could be conducted in any case of misconduct, both ordinary and serious. Parliamentary privilege would still be protected, as any such inquiry would be undertaken by the Commission on behalf of the relevant Privileges Committee and sub-section 3(2) of the Act would continue to apply.

Point of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT: There is a motion before the house that a matter of some allegations made against me should go to the Procedure and Privileges Committee. That is the motion before the house. It is surely up to the opposition to make a case for those allegations to be referred to that committee, not to argue a case, as the member for Rockingham is, for amendments to the legislation relating to the Corruption and Crime Commission. He is doing what the Parliament has voted not to consider. Whatever the merits of the allegations, he has moved a motion to refer a matter to the Procedure and Privileges Committee, and he must surely make a case for that to occur, not argue about the drafting or misdrafting of the Corruption and Crime Commission legislation.

5800 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The words that were deleted are the part that calls upon the government to amend section 27A to add serious misconduct, and that is what the member for Rockingham is dealing with now. I am taking the Premier’s point that the member should limit his debate to the matter before the house — That the house refer the matters raised in the Corruption and Crime Commission documents relating to The Cliffe to the Procedure and Privileges Committee for inquiry. Debate Resumed Mr M. McGOWAN: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will get on to why the substantive matter should be referred to the Procedure and Privileges Committee. I have made the point that the Corruption and Crime Commission report agreed with the motion that we moved before, that matters of serious misconduct should be dealt with by the Corruption and Crime Commission and not be referred to the Procedure and Privileges Committee, as indeed in the case of matters of misconduct. These matters came to light during the parliamentary break. The complaint was made about the Premier. The complaint, as I outlined to the house, was that the Premier made a speech in this house and that, as a consequence of that intervention by the Premier, a financial benefit accrued to a constituent of his and that constituent was a major shareholder in a company chaired by the Premier’s son. The Corruption and Crime Commission said that on the face of it, it was a prima facie allegation of serious misconduct. The Corruption and Crime Commission wrote outlining that to the Speaker. The Speaker came into the house and tabled the document. He said yesterday, as members will recall, that it was a matter for the house to decide. That is why we have raised this issue today. On the face of it they are serious allegations. I understand that the Premier was hurt and offended because it involved a family member of his. That indeed is a hurtful and unpleasant matter for a person to deal with, whoever they are, and in particular for a member of Parliament. Our view is that this matter deserves proper investigation. If at the end of the day the matters are found to be — Mr C.J. Barnett: Can you explain why? Mr M. McGOWAN: I will, actually. The reason it deserves proper investigation is that it involves serious allegations made against the highest officeholder in the state. Mr C.J. Barnett: Serious allegations or allegations of a serious matter? Do you believe the allegations are serious? Mr M. McGOWAN: I can quote the Corruption and Crime Commission. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, you have changed the words. Mr M. McGOWAN: They are allegations raised, and it refers to serious misconduct. Mr C.J. Barnett: Allegations raised that, if they were true, would constitute serious misconduct. The point is: do you consider them serious allegations? That is the case that you have got to make. I could say that you are an axe murderer. If you were an axe murderer, that would be serious misconduct. However, I am not accusing you of being an axe murderer, and it would not be a credible accusation to make. Mr J.R. Quigley: I will take the interjection from the Premier. Mr C.J. Barnett: I want to hear from you, too, because I know you will dig a hole so deep that even you will not be able to climb out of it. What is the member for Rockingham’s case? Mr M. McGOWAN: I think what the Premier is saying is that I should now adjudicate on this matter. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, you have got to make the case for the motion. Mr M. McGOWAN: I am a member of the Procedure and Privileges Committee, which is exactly the point I was making before. I am prosecuting the case as manager of opposition business for why this matter should be referred to a committee of which I am a member. Can the Premier not see that that is the reason we had the second part of the original motion? Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Mr M. McGOWAN: On the face of it the allegations are serious and they deserve explanation. However, I want to raise another matter in this context. When the Premier was raising these matters as part of a grievance on 30 August 2007 and as part of a speech to a motion to the house on 14 May 2008, he made a number of statements. He used words along the following lines: the purchaser of the house “had absolutely no reason to believe that there would be any sort of heritage issue on this property”. Shortly after the Heritage Council took an interest in the property, he said on 14 May 2008, after the purchasers had purchased the house, “… there was no mention of any municipal or state heritage listing of the property. They bought the house believing there was no heritage issue, with the intention of demolishing the house …”. Those statements are incorrect. In 1984 the house was

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009] 5801 classified by the National Trust. In 1992 the house was placed on the Register of the National Estate. On 3 July, prior to the transfer of the title of the house, a Heritage of Western Australia Act memorial was lodged on the property title. I have a copy of that here. The transfer of the title of the house took place on 17 July 1995. One of the bases of the argument raised by the Premier as part of his grievance and as part of his motion was that the people who purchased the house had no knowledge that there might be any heritage issues and, therefore, the argument went, according to the Premier, that it was unjust that the house be heritage listed. Mr C.J. Barnett: Part of the argument, yes. Mr M. McGOWAN: That is the bedrock upon which arguments relating to heritage listing were founded. Those statements were false. Mr C.J. Barnett: Were they? Mr M. McGOWAN: They were not correct. Mr C.J. Barnett: So they were false, were they? Mr M. McGOWAN: I am not saying whether the Premier did it deliberately or not. All I am saying is that what he said was incorrect. If he examined the definition of “false”, I think he would find that “incorrect” is similar in meaning. I am not saying that he said it deliberately, but I am saying that he should correct the record for the house if he misled the house, and he did mislead the house. I will repeat the chronology. In 1984 the house was classified by the National Trust. In 1992 it was registered on the National Estate. It was transferred on 17 July 1995. A memorial was lodged on 3 July 1995, prior to the transfer of the property. On the facts, the Premier has misled the house. It is now up to the Premier to correct the record in relation to these matters. It goes to show that what the Premier has said on these matters over a long period of time, whether deliberately or not deliberately—I suspect the latter—is not necessarily correct. That is why the Premier needs us to conduct some examination of these matters. Mr C.J. Barnett: Is that the matter you are referring to the privileges committee? Mr M. McGOWAN: The matter that we are referring to the Procedure and Privileges Committee is the allegation in the letter—if the Premier reads the motion—provided by the Corruption and Crime Commission. Mr C.J. Barnett: I want to know the issue you think this committee should look at. Mr M. McGOWAN: I find it extraordinary that the Premier, as the highest office holder in the land, would argue against — Mr C.J. Barnett: Only the state. Mr M. McGOWAN: It is a big land. The state is three times the size of Texas. I find it extraordinary that the highest officer holder in the state would argue against allegations of serious misconduct by him being properly examined by the only body, it appears, within the law as contained in the Corruption and Crime Commission Act 2003, that is authorised or entitled to examine the matter. I heard earlier from the member for South Perth that the government would be supporting a referral of this matter to the privileges committee, and I expect some resolution of this matter later on this afternoon. However, I invite the Premier, at least, to address these matters before the house. In conclusion, the allegations and matters raised by the opposition are serious. The Premier is the most senior office holder in the state — Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell me which allegation is serious? We are looking for a way to support the opposition’s motion, but the member has to make the case, and he has not done that yet. Mr M. McGOWAN: I have explained to the Premier how he has misled the house. Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell me what the member is accusing me of. I would like to know that. I have a right to know what the opposition, the Labor Party and the member for Rockingham are actually accusing me of. Mr M. McGOWAN: That is the problem, Premier. Allegations have been made in relation to the Premier, and the Procedure and Privileges Committee will have to adjudicate upon those allegations. The opposition is not saying whether or not those allegations are true. What we are saying is that there should be an appropriate process for dealing with those matters. As part of arriving at that point we have identified how the Premier misled the house on these earlier matters. That is the context in which this matter has been brought forward. That is pretty straightforward. It is up to the Premier whether he allows this matter to go to that level or uses the numbers to vote the matter down. That is basically the extent of it. As is the Premier’s wont, and as is his modus operandi, he is indignant and angry on this matter. Rather than acknowledging that if it were anyone on our side he would think that this was an appropriate way of dealing with this matter, as soon as it involves the Premier himself, he thinks different standards and rules apply. We are saying that this is the appropriate way forward. We

5802 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009] attempted to say that we could have avoided all of this had it been dealt with by the other mechanism—that is, as misconduct. That would have been, perhaps, a better and more independent way of dealing with this matter, rather than the way that we are required to deal with it now because of what I think is a flaw in the existing legislation. Mr C.J. Barnett: Let me try to understand the member’s argument. Now he is saying that the CCC should investigate this. Is that his view? Mr M. McGOWAN: Under the law I do not think it is able to. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, I want to know the opposition’s view. I want to know the case that the opposition, the Labor Party, is making. Is the Labor Party asserting that the CCC should investigate these allegations? Mr J.R. Quigley: No. Mr C.J. Barnett: I think your spokesman just said it should. Mr M. McGOWAN: I am happy to elucidate on that point. Mr C.J. Barnett: I think he did. I want to know where the member stands. Tell us, simply: should it be investigated; and, if you believe it should, should it be investigated by the Procedure and Privileges Committee or by the CCC? I might have a view on that, but I am interested in what the Labor Party’s view is. Mr M. McGOWAN: I will tell the Premier my view. The CCC referred it to the Procedure and Privileges Committee because— Mr C.J. Barnett: No, they referred it to the Speaker. Mr M. McGOWAN: They referred it to the Speaker, yes. Mr C.J. Barnett: That is a significant difference. Mr M. McGOWAN: That is correct. Mr J.N. Hyde: And the Speaker did not bin it. He has taken it seriously. Mr M. McGOWAN: He had an option. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he did not; he had to table it. Mr M. McGOWAN: No, he did not. Under section 152; he did not. I am suggesting that, if the government agrees, rather than the Procedure and Privileges Committee undertaking an inquiry or investigation, it would be better for the exact same situation to occur as occurred in the misconduct allegations against the member for South Perth. As I read out — Mr C.J. Barnett: Who do you think should investigate this matter? You will not say it. Mr M. McGOWAN: — the CCC should investigate it. Mr C.J. Barnett: The Labor Party’s position is that the CCC should investigate this matter. Is that agreed? That is what the opposition’s lead speaker has just said, and now we have it recorded in Hansard. I thank the member for Rockingham. Mr M. McGOWAN: What I am suggesting — Mr C.J. Barnett: No, the member just said it: the CCC should be investigating this! Now at least we know that this is the member’s view. Mr J.N. Hyde: They have started and the first step is to send it to the Speaker. Mr C.J. Barnett: They are investigating, are they? Even better! Keep going! You will have the hangman’s noose around my neck before the end of the day. Mr J.N. Hyde: You are doing anything to avoid the issue! Mr C.J. Barnett: The member for Perth has no idea where he is going! Mr M. McGOWAN: I think what I am saying is pretty straightforward. Mr C.J. Barnett: As for this amateur hour effort over here — Mr M. McGOWAN: The Premier shows exactly what he is made of all the time! Section 27A of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act states that allegations of misconduct, not being serious misconduct, are to be referred to the Presiding Officer. The act makes it plain that matters can then be referred back to the CCC, if there is misconduct. In cases of serious misconduct, as I outlined previously, they cannot be referred back to the CCC. That is an anomaly, and it is strange. It is a lacuna in the legislation. I have already quoted the report on the members to whom I referred earlier, which stated this was “unusual and

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009] 5803 curious”. I would have thought that would be a better option to deal with these matters. That was the purpose of the opposition’s original motion. If the CCC had the capacity to deal with the matter, as I outlined to the house, we would not have the problem of partisan people in this house adjudicating upon the Premier. That is quite straightforward and sensible. However, as is the Premier’s wont, he always find ways of arguing with the quite straightforward logical positions that are put. I look forward to hearing how the Premier will argue against that proposition. MR J.R. QUIGLEY (Mindarie) [1.48 pm]: I know that the Premier has been waiting for me to rise because he wants to juxtapose my speech against that of the manager of opposition business. Mr C.J. Barnett: You are experienced in these matters. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: I am so experienced that I hope the Premier takes my advice and goes there, because he will know that I received two complete acquittals by the CCC replete with congratulations for my efforts. So what comes out of a CCC inquiry is not all adverse, and what comes out of a privileges inquiry is not all adverse. It can also clear the air. The motion, when first drafted, had two parts to it. Now it has one part to it. For emphasis sake, I wish to hasten to add that it is not my allegation, and I do not prosecute the allegation on the basis that the Premier is guilty of the conduct complained of by Mr Waldron, other than that the allegation has been made and he is presumed to be innocent of the allegation. That is the starting point. The second point is that the allegation has been investigated by the Corruption and Crime Commission. Once again, I hasten to add that it is an allegation and that there is a presumption of innocence. The Corruption and Crime Commission, after investigating the matter, has categorised it as one involving an allegation of serious misconduct. Mr C.J. Barnett: If it was proven. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: That is what I said. I used the word “allegation” probably 10 times, Premier. Mr C.J. Barnett: Hence my axe murderer analogy. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: It is also like the McLeods. They would have been guilty of a serious crime, if it had been proven; it was not proven. I understand the concept well, Premier. The situation is that the CCC has categorised the allegation as one that involves, prima facie, serious misconduct. The Premier responded to the allegation in the same way that I responded to the allegations against me: “Tell me what I’ve done. Tell me what the allegation is. I know I’ve done no wrong. Tell me the allegation.” There is a problem here. The CCC legislation is not without its complications. The commission, having written to the Presiding Officer and advising him that it categorises the allegation as one of serious misconduct, is prohibited by the legislation from telling us much more. Under the disclosure provisions of section 152 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act, the CCC is prohibited from telling us much more. If the Premier were, quite understandably, to ask me by way of interjection what the allegation was, I would have to say, “I am sorry, Premier; I cannot tell you the detail of the allegation, because the CCC is prohibited by law from informing any of us.” All we know is that the CCC categorises the allegation as one of serious misconduct. If on the other hand the allegation was not one of misconduct, the commission would, under section 27A, have the publication restriction lifted from it when it reported to this chamber. Mr C.C. Porter: For a purpose. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: For a purpose; that is what I am saying, but the legislation would nonetheless lift the secrecy requirement. When the commission categorises an allegation as one of serious misconduct, it cannot publish to us the evidence behind the allegation because of the provisions of section 152. We then get to a situation in which the allegation has been reported back to this house and standing orders have been suspended to allow a debate as to whether the Procedure and Privileges Committee should be given the opportunity of giving the tick-off—or otherwise—to the Premier’s explanation. The question is then posed—I do not know whether it was a rhetorical question— Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: I take interjections on the law from the Attorney General, but not from the Leader of the House. The question was posed by the Premier—the Attorney General agreed that it was a good question—about who should look at such a matter once it has been referred to the privileges committee. I listened to the Leader of the House, but it is a somewhat complex area of law. The Attorney General, by his nodding, agrees, or seems to agree—I will not bind him—that it at least involves some complexity. When one looks at the scheme under section 27A and 27B, however, it appears clear that it was the intention of the Parliament that the CCC would not investigate allegations of serious misconduct when such allegations arose from performance in this chamber—that is, what is covered by normal parliamentary privilege. That is what the Attorney General referred

5804 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009] to earlier—that it was the intent of the legislation for this sovereign chamber to preserve its own dominion over questions of parliamentary privilege when such questions embraced allegations of serious misconduct. Is that correct, Attorney General? Mr C.C. Porter: That is my point. If you would take this interjection: you would agree that the CCC can refer matters when the allegation is characterised either as “misconduct” or “serious”, where the CCC cannot investigate for the purposes of privilege—correct? Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: That is correct. Mr C.C. Porter: If an allegation of misconduct is referred here, it must be sent back down. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: That is correct, Attorney General. Mr C.C. Porter: But the discretion of the Speaker is preserved if the allegation is one of serious misconduct. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: I do not know that I agree with the last comment—that it is at the discretion of the Speaker. The Speaker informs the chamber, and then the allegation or the report is in the hands of the chamber. Mr C.C. Porter: A discretion resides at the very least in this house of Parliament. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: In this house of Parliament, yes. Mr C.C. Porter: All I am saying to you, member, is that I consider that that is what was intended. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: I agree. Mr C.C. Porter: Okay. You don’t like it, but it’s not an anomaly. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: I do not like it, and I do not think the public, if it fully understood this, would be comfortable if the Attorney General were to be asked on radio by Simon Beaumont or Geoff Hutchison, “Why does the CCC get to investigate minor matters of misconduct, but is prohibited from investigating serious matters?” Mr C.C. Porter: May be prohibited. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: May be prohibited from investigating serious matters. I do not know that it is not actually prohibited; that is the next part. The motion is quite proper: that this chamber refers the allegation back to the privileges committee. The Leader of the House has already indicated, as I understand it, that the government will agree to referring this matter to the privileges committee. Do I understand that correctly? Mr R.F. Johnson: I amended the motion, if you remember. It’s you who wants to waste the afternoon. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: So I can be more expeditious, Leader of the House, I was only inquiring— Mr R.F. Johnson: You could never be expeditious. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: I will work on the presumption that I do not know. My understanding was that the government thinks it appropriate for this matter to be referred to the privileges committee and for that committee to do what it thinks appropriate with this matter. That would be appropriate; it would be utterly inappropriate at this stage for the referral to the privileges committee to be defeated and for the allegation of serious misconduct to expire on the floor of the Legislative Assembly. It would be a totally unsatisfactory outcome for the state of Western Australia to know that if the allegation had been of a lesser nature, it would have gone to the CCC for inquiry, but that because the government defeated a motion to send an allegation of serious misconduct to the privileges committee, the allegation expired on the carpet of the Legislative Assembly. It would be an unsatisfactory resolution for the public of Western Australia for an allegation to have been referred by the CCC to the Legislative Assembly, only for the allegation to go nowhere. Mr R.F. Johnson: Why don’t you just sit down? Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: I told the member that I take interjections from the Attorney General; he is intelligent. Mr C.C. Porter: Thank you very much, member! We may disagree as to what the public would view as an acceptable or unacceptable outcome, but the reason for that is that it is the discretion of the Speaker or, indeed, the Parliament, to preserve privilege. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: Agreed. Mr C.C. Porter: Which may well be, in the long run, to the benefit of our great state and its people. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: Agreed; it may well be. But the point, Attorney General, is that once the Corruption and Crime Commissioner has reported an allegation of serious misconduct to this chamber, this chamber should not just let the allegation expire. I am sure that if an allegation of serious misconduct against any opposition member came to this chamber, it would be sent down to the CCC lickety-split.

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009] 5805

Mr C.C. Porter: Might we not as a group determine to let it expire if, as members on your side have indicated, the allegations were spurious? If the allegations were completely without merit and we could make that determination, might it not be proper for this body to determine that they should expire? Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: That is right, except for one thing. I can see the Attorney General’s prosecutorial experience in trying to set me up here against the member for Midland, but I have been batting these sorts of googlies for some time! Debate interrupted, pursuant to standing orders. [Continued on page 5817.] QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE MR KEN BATES — RETRENCHMENT 589. Mr E.S. RIPPER to the Attorney General: (1) Can the Attorney General detail to the house his personal involvement in initiating the retrenchment of senior Director of Public Prosecutions prosecutor Ken Bates? (2) Did he instruct, request or suggest that DPP Robert Cock finalise Mr Bates’ retrenchment prior to his leaving his office? (3) Does the Attorney General think it is appropriate that taxpayers are funded severance pay for this public servant, enabling him to avoid facing serious disciplinary charges? (4) Will the Attorney General reveal to the house the total amount of money paid to Mr Bates? Mr C.C. PORTER replied: (1)-(4) I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I understand the terms of his question and, indeed, the comments made by him and others in the media about this issue. The background to this question is, obviously, that Mr Bates was the subject of an adverse finding of a Corruption and Crime Commission report. Proceedings under the Public Sector Management Act were commenced against Mr Bates. Those proceedings were effectively put on hold for a period at the request, I understand, of the then Director of Public Prosecutions, Robert Cock, QC, while Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee hearings were also on foot. It was stated publicly by, I think, the then director that, in his view it was unlikely that either the LPCC proceedings or the Public Sector Management Act proceedings would be finalised by the time Mr Bates, in his contract as DLS, had finished his employment—that is, neither of those proceedings might be finished. That appears to be one of the basic reasons why Mr Cock undertook to pay a severance to Mr Bates so that he would leave the position of DLS. I will get to the nuts and bolts of what the Leader of the Opposition has asked shortly, but one of the statements I have read from the member for Mindarie was that this might have, in effect, been some kind of stratagem to allow Mr Bates to avoid some kind of conclusion or disciplinary actions that might have flowed from the — Mr E.S. Ripper: As happened with those police officers. Mr C.C. PORTER: I am answering the Leader of the Opposition’s question. That is exactly the point; that is, what was put by the member for Mindarie in effect was that this might have been some sort of stratagem initiated by me, the Premier or Mr Cock to allow Mr Bates to avoid some form of discipline when the PSM process had finished. The problem with that, even in concept, is that, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out about Mr Caporn et al, each of those individuals left the civil service prior to the completion of the Public Sector Management Act process. The very point is that neither I nor indeed Robert Cock, QC, could force Mr Bates— just as the commissioner could not force his officers—to remain in the civil service — Mr E.S. Ripper: You could refrain from encouraging him to leave. Mr C.C. PORTER: How do we do that? Mr E.S. Ripper: By not offering him a severance payment. Mr C.C. PORTER: This gets to the Leader of the Opposition’s question: did I orchestrate that severance payment? I most certainly did not. Mr E.S. Ripper: Did you instruct, request or suggest that the matter be finalised? Mr C.C. PORTER: Was that a decision of the then Director of Public Prosecution, Mr Robert Cock, QC, wholly and entirely? Yes, it was. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan: After you told him to get rid of him. Mr C.C. PORTER: That is absolutely and utterly incorrect.

5806 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009]

Mr R.H. Cook: What was your involvement? Mr C.C. PORTER: My involvement was to the extent that I had some prior forewarning of Mr Cock’s thoughts on the matters by virtue of a letter, the date of which I can give the Leader of the Opposition. I responded in very brief terms, pointing out what has always been my position; namely, that Mr Cock’s decision was exclusively his decision alone under the terms of the PSM. I cannot, did not and will not have any involvement in those matters. Mr E.S. Ripper: Mr Cock sought your advice and you did not stop it. Mr C.C. PORTER: No. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen to what I say. Mr E.S. Ripper: I am listening. Mr C.C. PORTER: He gave me notification of the course that he was giving some consideration to. I sent back a very short letter to him pointing out that any course and any decision was his own. I say again that I had no role in orchestrating or ensuring that Mr Bates was paid some amount of severance on his leaving. I understand the amount has been reported in the papers. I will take that part of the question on notice, but it is in the vicinity that was reported. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan: Do you think it is appropriate to pay someone to avoid disciplinary charges? Mr C.C. PORTER: I think it is a very, very difficult situation. The point is that with Mr Cock’s departure from the DPP, I consider there exists an opportunity to reinvigorate and refresh that office. It would have been very difficult to advertise nationally and internationally when Mr Bates’ question was left unresolved. I understand why Robert Cock, QC, determined that, as one of his last acts in that role, it was appropriate to resolve that situation. Again, I think this situation highlights many of the deficiencies in the Public Sector Management Act disciplinary processes, most notably, that they are too slow. We cannot do anything about that without rewriting the act. No; I was not part of that decision-making process. MR KEN BATES — RETRENCHMENT 590. Mr E.S. RIPPER to the Attorney General: I have a supplementary question. Has the Attorney General attempted to conceal the fact that the payout, courtesy of taxpayers, was in excess of $800 000? Mr C.C. PORTER replied: No; I have not attempted to conceal that fact. I do not believe it was anything like that figure. I can find out exactly what it was. My understanding, based on conversations after the event with Robert Cock, QC, and what I have read in the media was that the media reporting was roughly accurate. I will find out the exact amount; it was nothing like that amount. UNEMPLOYMENT — GOVERNMENT ACTION 591. Mr A. KRSTICEVIC to the Treasurer: I firstly acknowledge in the public gallery the children from the Carey Baptist College from the member for Darling Range’s electorate. The global financial crisis has led to an increase in unemployment across Australia and is impacting on working families in my electorate of Carine. What is the government doing to address the impact of unemployment in Western Australia? Mr T.R. BUSWELL replied: I thank the member for Carine for his question and for his interest in representing the people of his electorate, especially those who are facing the prospect of unemployment or are dealing with unemployment in what are definitely uncertain economic times. It is a fact that last week’s Australian Bureau of Statistics data showed that the unemployment rate in Western Australia had reached 5.7 per cent, a significant month-on-month increase, albeit still below the national rates. Notwithstanding that or any way that we want to dress up the figures, according to the data, currently 68 000 unemployed Western Australians are looking for work. It is a significant concern to the state government and to the national government. In the budget, Treasury forecast unemployment to grow significantly more than that. This government is committed to working hard to make sure we do not fulfil the expectations around unemployment that were created in the budget. That is why we are focussed on borrowing money and incurring debt on behalf of Western Australians to invest in a massive $8.3 billion infrastructure program this year. It is the most significant infrastructure program — Mr E.S. Ripper: To help the Nationals pork-barrel. Mr T.R. BUSWELL: I am always interested when the Leader of the Opposition opens his mouth. Several members interjected.

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009] 5807

The SPEAKER: Order! Mr T.R. BUSWELL: Last week, he was quoted in the paper criticising the Premier for daring to think about the large projects that will underpin the long-term economic future of Western Australia; for daring to dream that we can fulfil Sir Charles Court’s vision for the Ord scheme; for daring to support Oakajee; and for daring to support the Kimberley gas hub. Does the Leader of the Opposition know what he said? He said they were over the horizon. When he was in government he sent Western Australian jobs over the border in their thousands. He should ask himself this: if Inpex was going ahead in the Kimberley at the moment, how many thousands of Western Australians would have jobs? Little wonder two in 20 Western Australians recognise him. Little wonder they confuse him with Dr Phil. All “Dr Phil” did was export jobs out of Western Australia; that is all he did. I bet when he was over at the Australian Labor Party national conference recently and was sitting up the front, people would have asked: who is that bloke; is it Dr Phil; is it Bruno? Point of Order Mr B.S. WYATT: The member for Carine asked quite a good question on the very, very important issue of unemployment in Western Australia. The house had the opportunity yesterday to reflect upon the Treasurer’s behaviour on a number of occasions over a period of time. Today we have, again, the example of the Treasurer being a complete and utter clown, as he has not yet, after 10 months as Treasurer, grown into the position as required of the Treasurer. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to bring the Treasurer back to the question asked by the member for Carine. The SPEAKER: Take a seat, member for Victoria Park. This is an opportunity to make a point of order, not another speech. I am interested in the question; I think it has a great deal of validity. I urge the Treasurer to return to the question asked by the member for Carine. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr T.R. BUSWELL: Thank you, Mr Speaker. He is a little sensitive, Mr Speaker. Two press releases in two months—not a lot of activity, but we will get to him one day. Record investment — Several members interjected. Mr T.R. BUSWELL: What happened to that freedom of information application? The first strategy was a record investment in infrastructure of $8.3 billion. The second strategy was a $100 million payroll tax rebate for Western Australian small businesses to help them keep their employees in jobs. The third strategy was a $47 million training program. The fifth strategy was a Premier focused on the state building infrastructure projects that this state will be proud of for centuries to come. The sixth strategy was cutting red tape so that Western Australian businesses can get on and employ people. What is the Leader of the Opposition’s plan to protect Western Australians in employment? He has a five-point plan that is not worth the paper that it is written on. He wants to have a task force. He wants to have an audit. He wants to have a strategic review, and, in true Labor style, he wants to set up a committee. Well, “Dr Phil’s” solution would not cure the problem. We are committed, Dr Phil, to keeping Western Australians in jobs; that is what we have done, and that is what we will continue to do. The SPEAKER: Members, protocol in this place—I direct these comments specifically to the Treasurer—is to refer to members in this place by their seat and the electorates that they represent. I will be particularly vigilant going forward to ensure that members refer to other members in this place by nothing other than their title or their seat in this place. STATE BUDGET — SURPLUS PREDICTIONS 592. Mr B.S. WYATT to the Treasurer: Since the Treasurer tabled the state budget, the Premier has announced hundreds of millions of dollars worth of new commitments, including the new Perth waterfront project, the mid-west powerline, the western suburbs police complex and the new rectangular stadium, none of which appear in the budget. I further note parameter movements such as the exchange rate and the iron ore price that have wiped billions in estimated revenue from the state’s finances. (1) Does the Treasurer still expect surpluses of $409 million and $23 million in 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively? (2) Will the Treasurer now finally agree to provide the Parliament and the people of Western Australia with an urgent, honest and accurate account of the state’s finances, including an explicit plan to deal with the state’s exploding debt levels?

5808 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009]

Mr T.R. BUSWELL replied: (1)-(2) Mr Speaker, the shadow minister for arts strikes again! Point of Order Mr B.S. WYATT: Mr Speaker, correct me if I am wrong, but you just made an order about appropriately addressing members of Parliament by their appropriate title, whether it be their seat title or whatever their title may be. I notice that you, Mr Speaker, did not correct the Treasurer. There are a number of things you could call the Treasurer, none of which you would probably agree to or allow under standing orders. I ask you, again, to let the clown of a Treasurer actually answer the question rather than acting like the sexual predator that he tends to be around this place! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I take the member for Victoria Park’s point of order. I have no disagreement in essence with what the Treasurer has said; that is, I believe that you are the shadow minister for the arts. Mr B.S. Wyatt: I am not, and I have not been for some months! The SPEAKER: The member is not the shadow minister for the arts. Mr B.S. Wyatt: I asked the question, Mr Speaker, not him. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Thank you very much. It is good to be informed and to be open in this place. Treasurer, I insist that you refer to the member for Victoria Park as the member for Victoria Park or as the shadow Treasurer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Warnbro! Questions without Notice Resumed Mr T.R. BUSWELL: Thank you for that guidance, Mr Speaker. I was simply assuming that something must be filling up the member for Victoria Park’s time lately because of his absence from debates on any matters to do with the economy in Western Australia. It was a mistake. Mr B.S. Wyatt: What do you mean? I have been in more of the debates than you have, you big fool—many more, you big fool! The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Victoria Park to order for the first time. I urge the Treasurer to get to the core of this question. Mr T.R. BUSWELL: There have been two press releases in six weeks; no wonder some of his friends call him lazy. The question — Mr B.S. Wyatt: Is that how you judge yourself a success—by the number of media releases you make? That is interesting, yes. Several members interjected. Mr T.R. BUSWELL: Is the member ready because here is the answer. I expect that the budget surplus will shift. In fact — Mr B.S. Wyatt: How far? Several members interjected. Mr T.R. BUSWELL: That was the question. I expect that the budget surplus will shift, as it did previously, and as I would expect would be the case every time a budget is brought down. The fact is, shadow Treasurer, that we do not bring a budget down and then freeze the world. We do not bring a budget down and then stick our heads in the sand. We go on and live in a vibrant, dynamic world. As I said yesterday, the price of iron ore moves; perhaps we can influence that! The exchange rate moves; perhaps we can influence that. The volume of iron ore exported to China moves. I know that the Premier is doing a great job. I know that many members opposite look at him as a Messiah-like figure, but the fact is he cannot influence all that stuff! Lift yourself, Premier! Get out there to China and get the price of iron ore up, Premier! Get on the Today show and boost the exchange rate, Premier! I know the Premier is friends with Kevin. Can the Premier call Barack Obama and do something about the exchange rate? Life goes on, shadow Treasurer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs C.A. Martin: Sit down now, Noddy! Come on; we have suffered enough, Noddy. Please sit down.

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009] 5809

Mr T.R. BUSWELL: Such a nice person, and we shared so much together! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! I expressed some disappointment yesterday with both sides in this place. The way all members are going today, this question time is going to finish in about 10 minutes. While I am on my feet, I formally call for the first time the members for Albany, Bassendean, Warnbro and Kimberley. Mr T.R. BUSWELL: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I was saying, we live and we operate in a dynamic environment. We manage the state’s finances in a dynamic way. I expect that the surplus forecast handed down in the budget will shift. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr T.R. BUSWELL: Of course I do. We are working hard to manage those flexible dynamic factors that impact on the budget to ensure that we stay in surplus and to ensure that we deliver debt levels that will keep us within acceptable parameters. That is what I said yesterday, and that is what we will do. That is not easy. I have to tell members that it is not an easy task, yet we are committed to delivering on that task. I just want to close, Mr Speaker, by way of comparison with a shadow Treasurer whose fixation is with the mini- budget. As I said yesterday, the mini-budget is the mini-tool for the mini shadow Treasurer.

STATE BUDGET — SURPLUS PREDICTIONS 593. Mr B.S. WYATT to the Treasurer: I have a supplementary question. Mr M.P. Whitely interjected. The SPEAKER: Take a seat, member for Victoria Park. That is not needed, member for Bassendean, and I call you formally for the second time. Mr B.S. WYATT: With respect to the movement of the surplus as outlined, does the Treasurer expect those movements to be of such significance so as to require him to act pursuant to the Government Financial Responsibility Act and release an updated financial strategy statement? Mr T.R. BUSWELL replied: Mr Speaker, we will release the updated financial strategy statement as part of the midyear review. We will respond to a dynamic environment in an appropriate way, and we will continue to walk a balance between protecting jobs in Western Australia and a manageable, responsible level of state debt. That may require us to make some tough decisions between now and the midyear review, but we will not shy away from our responsibilities and we will invest to protect Western Australian jobs. We will make the tough decisions that have to be made in government to protect the underlying strength of this state’s finances.

ROAD TRAFFIC AMENDMENT (HOONS) BILL 2009 — BENEFITS 594. Mr P. ABETZ to the Minister for Police: I refer the minister to the Road Traffic Amendment (Hoons) Bill 2009 and comments about this legislation made by members of the Labor Party. Will the minister inform the house whether the claims made by the opposition are a true reflection of the benefits of this new legislation? Mr R.F. JOHNSON replied: I thank the member for Southern River for his question and for his genuine interest in road safety and matters related to hoons. Ms M.M. Quirk: That is why he spoke on the second reading! The SPEAKER: Order, member for Girrawheen! Mr R.F. JOHNSON: The member for Girrawheen is interjecting on me, so I will come to her first. I was very interested this morning to hear the member for Girrawheen’s comments on the hoon legislation when she said that my comments had made her blood pressure rise. Several members interjected. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: She was talking to Simon Beaumont on 6PR and went on to say that she thought I was very, very cute. I am flattered, member for Girrawheen, but to quote a famous book, I am just not that into you! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan: Do you realise what a mob of misogynists you are? It comes out all the time. You can’t help it.

5810 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009]

The SPEAKER: I ask the minister to take his seat. I do not know that the sort of interjection from the member for Armadale was absolutely necessary and I call her to order formally for the first time. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: The point I was trying to make is the simple fact that the member for Girrawheen was misleading the listeners of 6PR. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan: No; you are a misogynist, as are half the members on that side! Mr R.F. JOHNSON: If I expressed what I thought about the member for Armadale, I would probably be excluded from this chamber. I have never in my life met a woman like her. I have got to say that. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON: The member for Girrawheen told the listeners of 6PR this morning that the legislation was introduced yesterday. That is a total untruth and she knows it. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Those were the member for Girrawheen’s words—the legislation was introduced yesterday. The legislation was introduced two months ago. Ms M.M. Quirk: Yesterday was the first time we had an opportunity to debate it, minister. The SPEAKER: Member for Girrawheen, I am having trouble hearing the Minister for Police address this question; I am sure that a lot of other members of this place are as well. A little less roar, please. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN: Both this minister and the Treasurer attack members of the opposition as part of their answers regularly. Mr R.F. Johnson: What did your member just do? The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN: That invites interjection, Mr Speaker. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I ask the minister to take his seat. Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call to order the member for Mindarie for the first time. I have given the opportunity to the member for Rockingham to make the point of order. I was taking it. The only person I want to hear talking is the member for Rockingham. Mr M. McGOWAN: Mr Speaker, when a minister attacks a member of the opposition as part of an answer to a question, it invites interjection. I submit to the house that if the minister was not attacking a member of the opposition, the interjections would not be taking place. If ministers, therefore, were to act in a responsible and sensible manner and answer questions sensibly, we would not have these interjections. Perhaps the Leader of the House should have a look at his own behaviour before he starts raising these matters. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Just to clarify matters, I actually responded to an interjection from the member for Girrawheen. The minute I got on my feet, she interjected on me. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I ask the minister to take his seat. I do not want to continue doing this. Question time will finish in seven minutes. While I am on my feet, I formally call to order for the second time the member for Albany and for the first time the member for Joondalup. They might listen to the words of the leader of opposition business. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: The point I was trying to make was that members opposite made lots of comments yesterday evening during the debate on the hoon legislation, and it clearly showed that virtually none of them really understood it. The only sensible contribution, in my view, was made by the former police minister, who actually knew the legislation. The member for Girrawheen has had a copy of the legislation for the past two months. She has had briefings from my office and she should know all about it, but she does not because her comments on 6PR suggested that the hoon legislation would be unfair to employers whose cars were impounded. It was the previous government’s legislation that did that. Ms M.M. Quirk: Yes.

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009] 5811

Mr R.F. JOHNSON: It was the previous government’s legislation that impounded cars for 28 days. Ms M.M. Quirk: Yes. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: The member for Girrawheen is getting confused again. Ms M.M. Quirk: No. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: We go from that to the outrageous comments yesterday evening from the member for Mindarie. We had half an hour of drivel from him when he was picking on lady drivers. He said that if they were caught putting on their lippy when they were at traffic lights or somewhere on the roads, or if they were on a mobile phone, they would lose their vehicle and the vehicle would be impounded for 28 days. He knows that is not true. He is frightening the life out of female drivers in the community and he should be ashamed of himself. Several members interjected. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Let us go on to the member for Midland. The member for Midland started complaining yesterday evening that the penalty of $2 500 is too little for anybody who devalues a vehicle that has been called in for impoundment or confiscation. It was the member for Midland who brought in that legislation! Mrs M.H. Roberts: It should be strengthened. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: The member for Midland is the one who brought it in. Mrs M.H. Roberts: Absolutely! Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Why did she not do it when she was in government? She criticises us but this is all to do with her legislation. Several members interjected. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Mr Speaker, I will have to fix legislation that members opposite brought in. I will be doing that and bringing the bill on tomorrow for consideration in detail. It will be very interesting to see how members opposite react, because they are dealing with this legislation in the same way they dealt with the legislation dealing with assaults on police officers. They go out into the community and say that they support the police and they support the legislation, but when they come into this place they gut it. That is what they are trying to do with this hoon legislation; they are trying to gut it. They told me yesterday evening that it was the number one issue in their electorates but all they are trying to do is gut the legislation. We are not going to let them do it. We will have the toughest hoon legislation in Australia.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING — VOLUNTARY REDUNDANCIES 595. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS to the Minister for Education: I refer the minister to the Department of Education and Training’s circular dated 11 June 2009, which expressly offers voluntary redundancies to staff, and to the minister’s answer in Parliament yesterday when she stated that the main cuts in staffing in her department will come through “retirements and redundancies”. Has the minister misled the house, given that in written answers she also supplied yesterday to a series of questions on notice about staffing levels she stated — No voluntary redundancies have been offered. Is that the truth or has the minister misled the house? Dr E. CONSTABLE replied: A circular was sent to all schools, as part of a statewide seeking of voluntary redundancies, in which the Department of Education and Training sought expressions of interest from employees for voluntary severance. I can tell the member now that the number of expressions of interest from people that have been received to date is 188. I can also tell the member that 13 of those people are employed under the School Education Act, 61 are public servants and 114 are school-based but non-teaching ancillary staff such as gardeners and others. That is the sum total of the answer to the member for Midland’s question yesterday. I would say once again that the member for Midland is trying to mislead. These are voluntary redundancies and part of a statewide program offering voluntary severance to members of the government service.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING — VOLUNTARY REDUNDANCIES 596. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS to the Minister for Education: I have a supplementary question. The minister’s answer to part (10) of three questions on notice yesterday stated — No voluntary redundancies have been offered.

5812 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009]

Is that the truth or is it not the truth? This is what the minister tabled on record yesterday in answer to three questions. Is it the truth or not? I am happy to send the minister’s question over to her. Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: It has the minister’s signature. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I will ask one of the clerks to take the question over. The minister has said that no voluntary redundancies have been offered. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN: Under standing order 75(1), questions may be asked of ministers. In the case of this minister, every time she is asked a question, she gets advised about what to say by the Premier. The standing orders do not say that questions may be asked of ministers and answered on the advice of the Premier. They are ministers. If the minister cannot answer a question on her own, it should be made plain and she should not be coached in the house. I am seeking a ruling on whether a minister can be coached. The SPEAKER: It is my experience in this place that many members speak to many other members about questions and answers, and that members on both sides seek points of clarification. I will give the minister the opportunity to answer the supplementary question asked by the member for Midland. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr E. CONSTABLE replied: The Department of Education and Training has called for expressions of interest and they will be looked at by the Department of Treasury and Finance before offers of redundancy are made. None has been offered at this point. INDEPENDENT PUBLIC SCHOOLS 597. Mr P.T. MILES to the Minister for Education: It was good to see the minister make an excellent announcement on the true education revolution in WA’s schools this morning at Ashdale Secondary College in the electorate of Wanneroo. Will the minister outline — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Take a seat, member for Wanneroo. I thought that the member for Warnbro might have known by now that I am interested in hearing the questions. I was struggling to hear the question being asked, but I was making my way through it until the member interjected. I formally call the member for the second time. Mr P.T. MILES: Will the minister please outline how this significant reform will improve education in Western Australia’s public school system? Dr E. CONSTABLE replied: I thank the member for Wanneroo for his question. The Premier and I visited Ashdale Secondary College this morning. It is the most beautiful of the state’s newest schools. It is beautifully designed and has about 140 year 8 students. I am sure that it will grow into a very large school, given the growth of that part of the state. I congratulate the former Minister for Education and Training for building that school and the many other schools that were built when he was the minister. The design of our new schools is a great credit to those involved in that process, including not only the architects, but also the department and others. It is an excellent school. During the last election campaign exactly a year ago, a major policy commitment of the then opposition was to give more autonomy to government schools. Over the past 11 months we have seen a range of election commitments fulfilled. The first of those was the teachers’ agreement, in which we showed how much this government values our teachers through the successful negotiation of that agreement and the pay increases that were given to the teachers. We now have the best-paid teachers in Australia. Through our building and maintenance program, aside from the Building the Education Revolution’s building program, this government has committed $400 million in this financial year — Point of Order Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: The minister is just reading from her notes verbatim. I think it is called an idiot sheet. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members!

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009] 5813

Mr C.J. BARNETT: From my vantage point, I can attest that the minister has handwritten notes with a few points down the page. It just proves how articulate the Minister for Education is. It is a credit to our education system. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr E. CONSTABLE: There have been a range of other major initiatives, including our initiative on — Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I have let question time continue for four minutes longer than I was going to let it continue for a little while ago. I formally call the member for Mandurah to order for the first time. Dr E. CONSTABLE: It has been a great group therapy session for them again today. The major announcement today about independent public schools will provide our public schools with much- needed flexibility. It will provide flexibility in their financial management, in their curriculum — Mrs M.H. Roberts: Flexibility to a select group. Dr E. CONSTABLE: It will not be just a select group. If the member listened, she might learn something. From today, we will call on schools and school councils in the public school system to submit expressions of interest to become an independent public school. In the very first phase, 30 schools will be selected. I expect that to be a very difficult task because of the number of people and principals who have shown an interest in doing that so far. I expect that a very large number of schools will put up their hands to become independent public schools. In the first phase, we will select 30 schools and during the fourth term this year, the schools that are selected will go through a process of transition and induction to become an independent public school. One of the main purposes of establishing an independent public school system is to enable appropriate decisions to be made on the ground close to the communities. In the first phase, a wide range of schools will apply, including large, small, rural and metropolitan schools. We are even encouraging clusters of schools to work together. When we were at Ashdale today, the community college and three feeder primary schools showed an interest in working together to establish a K-12 setting. We will have a variety of different settings, different schools and school sizes. An independent public school system will provide schools with the flexibility to make sure that the very best opportunities are given to school communities. It will ensure that the schools are able to respond to the needs of the students through the financial management of the school and through the curriculum. It will enable the schools to hire the right selection of staff for the purposes of the particular school. This fantastic and exciting development in our school system is being embraced by many hundreds of schools already. OAKAJEE — PUBLIC INVESTMENT 598. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN to the Premier: I refer to the report today of the analysis by the senior economist for BIS Shrapnel, Richard Robinson, that the $678 million of taxpayers’ money to be tipped into the Oakajee port would only help the Chinese drive down the price of iron ore and that the public money would be better spent on infrastructure that would benefit Western Australia; and, finally, that Oakajee funding was unfair to all other iron ore producers who are required to fund their own port infrastructure, and that that should be left to the private sector. (1) Will port user charges include a fully commercial rate of return on all taxpayer funds invested in the project? (2) If yes, will those commercial charges apply from day one? (3) Will the Premier table the Treasury advice that he received on this project before he made it WA’s top priority for federal funding? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)-(3) I will have to talk to Kevin. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan: No, you will have to explain it. I am trying to help you. A senior economist came out with a scathing critique and I am giving you an opportunity to respond. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Should I sit down while the member asks another question? The SPEAKER: Member for Armadale, I think that the Premier heard the question that you have asked. I would like to hear his answer. Mr C.J. BARNETT: A senior economist. There are a lot of senior economists around. I do not agree with the view of Mr Robinson from BIS Shrapnel. What else does the member want me to say? Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan: I have asked you a specific question. Mr C.J. BARNETT: The assertion that he seems to be making is that somehow China will benefit. Think it through one more step. What would be the situation if China were to own —

5814 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009]

Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan: Is this a commercial proposition? Mr C.J. BARNETT: I am happy to answer the question. Mr M. McGowan: Answer the three questions. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Wow! Is the member not a little gun today! Let us look at it. If China — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Collie-Preston, I formally call you to order for the first time. Once again, members on both sides, there is a genuine interest by the person asking the question. Member for Armadale, I believe the Premier was attempting to answer the question and some people on your side might want to remain silent while the Premier endeavours to do that. I am looking forward to his answer to this question. Mr P.B. Watson interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Albany, I formally call you to order for the third time. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I do not agree with the expression of the senior economist from BIS Shrapnel. He has an opinion; I have a different opinion. The Prime Minister shares my opinion—that counts for something. In fact it counted for nearly $380 million of federal government money, with our money. Think of an alternative scenario, which obviously the member did not. If China and China Inc, if we like, were to own the mine, the railway and the port, and be the purchaser, then I suggest they would have a far stronger not only monopoly but monopsony power over the total iron ore resource of the mid-west. By the state, with the assistance of the commonwealth, owning the critical piece of infrastructure—that is, the outer harbour—we will protect this state’s and this nation’s interests in the development of that iron ore.

OAKAJEE — PUBLIC INVESTMENT 599. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN to the Premier: I have a supplementary question. Will the Premier tell us whether this project will be fully commercial and whether the port users will be required to pay a fully commercial rate of return on all the taxpayers’ funds invested in the project? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: This investment is being undertaken on a commercial basis. Will the port return a positive cash flow in the first couple of years? No. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan: Will they be charged? Mr C.J. BARNETT: No. Mr E.S. Ripper: What will it charge? Mr C.J. BARNETT: If the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask the question — Mr E.S. Ripper: I want to hear the Premier answer it. He is not answering it. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I am attempting to. Opposition members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I think this is probably the worst performance I have ever seen from an opposition. I have been here for a long time, nearly 20 years, and I have never seen such ineptitude and such discourtesy. However, the port will operate on a commercial basis. I would hope that within a period of around 10 years, maybe five optimistically, it will be operating in a surplus position. We will take a long-term view of that commerciality — Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: No; the member has asked her question. It is my turn to answer it. We will apply both user and capacity charges on a commercial basis.

PROHIBITIVE BEHAVIOUR ORDER REFORM 600. Mrs L.M. HARVEY to the Attorney General: The Liberal-National government is in the process of overhauling law and order in this state with a range of measures to address issues of antisocial behaviour and crime that have been neglected over the past several years, especially in my electorate of Scarborough. Could the Attorney General please outline to the house the progress of the prohibitive behaviour order reform and the shape that it might take in the future?

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009] 5815

Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for the question. It was interesting to listen to some of the debate last evening with respect to hoons and how each and every one of us in our electorates has difficulties with antisocial behaviour. I perceived that one of the differences between this side and that side of the house is that we actually think that there is a real problem. It is all very well and good to come in and complain and say that people complain to us. I found it absolutely fascinating that one of the facts and figures that I researched during this winter recess showed that in the past 10 years — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER: This affects all of us. It goes to the dimensions of the problem that we are dealing with. Ten years ago the number of “events”, as the department calls them—individuals going through the Magistrates Court in Western Australia—was 50 690. That was 10 years ago, in 1998. In 2008, last year, the number of individuals going through our Magistrates Court was 103 288. Somehow in this state we have managed to go from a situation where it took us from the birth of the colony to 1998 to reach 50 000, and 10 years to double that amount going through the Magistrates Court. As many opposite would know, the individuals going through — Mr A.J. Waddell: I guess we were not so weak on crime then. Mr C.C. PORTER: The member has raised a good point because this is not only about an expanding pool of criminality at some level. There was a point that occurred in about 1994 to 1998 where a range of investigative techniques came on board—CrimTrac, databases, DNA back-capture, the police TADIS system—and we are finding more criminality, which causes us problems in other areas. What is important about that Magistrates Court figure is that it encapsulates a range of people who are committing what we would call volume crime— antisocial behaviour. There are four points to the prohibitive behaviour order policy. The first is that we will define antisocial behaviour as any act that causes harassment, alarm or intimidation to members of the public or impairs the use of private or public property. That will include such things as graffiti, inappropriate behaviour on public transport, rock attacks on vehicles, hooning and arson—a range of offences that go through the Magistrates Court. Mr E.S. Ripper: What about protest demonstrations? Mr C.C. PORTER: Protest demonstrations have a right to exist in this jurisdiction, as they do in other jurisdictions. If they are lawfully assembled, of course they will not be included. The second point is that we will have civil orders that will flow from convictions for offences that have an element of antisocial conduct. Those civil orders will ban people from doing prescribed things. If a person breaks that ban, he or she will face a maximum penalty in the Magistrates Court of nine months’ imprisonment and/or a fine of $6 000, or five years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of $10 000 if the order is given in the District or Supreme Court. The media have become quite fascinated with this—there will also be a level of publication of these orders that will apply to both adults and juveniles. The types of details that the orders may or may not publish at the discretion of the courts will be the name of the person subject to the order, a photograph or description, the suburb the person resides in and the terms of the order. Publication will apply to both adults and juveniles. This is a system that has worked very successfully in the United Kingdom for many years — Ms M.M. Quirk: It is not conviction-based then. Mr C.C. PORTER: It is actually both. They started out with antisocial behaviour orders and then moved into what they eloquently called CRASBOs, which were the criminal-based orders, and that is the part of the system that we have adopted. That is the part of the system that works. I think the big difference is that we on this side of the house acknowledge that there is a problem. Whilst we see that it is a difficult problem, we are trying to do something innovative to cope with it. For the first time ever, idiots who throw rocks at vehicles on highways can be banned from going near those roads. That is a big step forward in the way in which we manage antisocial behaviour. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH — REPORTING TO DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY AND FINANCE 601. Mr R.H. COOK to the Minister for Health: I refer to the comments of the Treasurer yesterday that the Department of Health must now report to the Department of Treasury and Finance separately, on a monthly basis. (1) Can the minister give details of his failure to deliver health services within the Department of Health’s 2008-09 budget; his failure to meet the three per cent efficiency cuts in the health budget; and explain why he cannot control his FTE numbers? (2) What role does the minister play in major decisions in the health portfolio now that he has been replaced by the Treasurer as the responsible minister on health financial matters?

5816 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009]

Dr K.D. HAMES replied: (1)-(2) It is a very amusing question. I can tell members that the Treasurer and I have worked very well together in trying to look at what happened in the health system over the term of the former government. The member will recall that I passed on to him the information that when I first arrived in this house after the election, Mr McGinty told me that the first thing I could expect was to find a $100 million over budget figure, unbudgeted for, for Joondalup hospital; inadequate funding of $100 million for Midland hospital; and that the health management budget for the first half of the year was going to be at least $70 million over budget. We had an extremely difficult task when we came into government. Not only did we have these huge overflows of expenditure by the former Labor government and mismanagement of that aspect of the health system, but we found that a culture had developed within the department of just spending wherever the demand was—people did not worry about where money was spent, what the requirements were and what the increase in demand was. Some of the growth in spending had far outstripped the growth in demand by those hospitals. We have come up with an arrangement for how we can best move forward. Firstly, in terms of total FTEs, we have agreed that there will be a cap on FTEs. Secondly, I intend to work very closely with the Treasurer, Treasury and our health department to make sure that we keep control. It was not a demand that we meet monthly; it was a request that we have regular meetings, a request that I am extremely happy to fulfil. We will sit down and work with Treasury on a month-by-month basis. Frankly, I think two things will come out of it. One is that the staff within the health department who have responsibility for the day-to-day management of the budget will get a much better appreciation of the international crisis, what effect that significant reduction in funding has had for Western Australia and how we in the health department have to become far more efficient in managing our spending as we move forward, particularly as we get increased growth in demand, and working out how we deal with that. The second thing that I expect to come out of it is that Treasury and the Treasurer will get a much better understanding of the pressures we have within the health department. As I have said on many occasions, we do not control the number of patients who come to the hospital—we do not control that demand. When people come to the hospital, we have to treat them. Therefore, Treasury will get a much better understanding of what those needs are. I think what will happen is that we will have much better control of the budget moving forward. Several members interjected. Dr K.D. HAMES: The three per cent cuts are done and dusted. Those things have been put to bed and the changes that we have put in place have been put to bed. Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, Leader of the Opposition! Dr K.D. HAMES: We have far greater demands, particularly with the pressures of the current swine flu virus and the effect that is having on our hospitals, than the three per cent efficiency dividend that has been and gone. We have to work in a much more efficient manner and if people expected after eight years of a bloated Labor government that our hospitals or any of our government services were running at 100 per cent efficiency, they were just wrong. Neither the health department nor any other government departments were running at 100 per cent efficiency. From now on they will, and the Treasurer and I will work together to ensure that we aim for that target. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH — REPORTING TO DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY AND FINANCE 602. Mr R.H. COOK to the Minister for Health: I have a supplementary question. The minister has rejected the Treasurer’s assertion that the department simply ignores the minister’s directions, so is the Treasurer actually saying that he does not believe that the minister is up to the job? Dr K.D. HAMES replied: The member should ask the Treasurer whether he thinks I am up to the job. Frankly, we have a good relationship; we are working together with Treasury — Mr R.H. Cook: That is not what people say; is the minister sure about that? Dr K.D. HAMES: That might not be what the member says, but I do not listen to him. Mr R.H. Cook: I don’t say that; it’s your bureaucrats! Dr K.D. HAMES: “Mr Three Per Cent” should sit over there and let the member for Mindarie sit in his place— he is the popular fellow, not the member for Kwinana!

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009] 5817

Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: That concludes question time. Points of Order Mr T.R. BUSWELL: I just seek some clarification. A fair issue was raised in question time about the correct titles of people. I wonder whether the Speaker could perhaps inform me about where I can go to find data on the correct titles for members of the shadow cabinet. An opposition member interjected. Mr T.R. BUSWELL: The only reason I ask is that I checked the website and the member for Victoria Park is still listed as the shadow Minister for Culture and the Arts, so I am merely reflecting the information on the website. I am assuming there is a place in the Parliament where I can get that information. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! I think the Treasurer knows the intent of the direction I gave people in this place with respect to their electorates or the titles they might have. Although there might not necessarily be an official, continually updated list provided, if someone is in some doubt as to someone’s proper name in this place, he or she might just refer to the person as the member for the electorate the member represents. Mr T.R. BUSWELL: Thank you for that, Mr Speaker. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: Pertaining to a point of order, Mr Speaker, I am sorry that you found it necessary to call me to order yesterday. The SPEAKER: Yesterday? Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: Yes, and I apologise to the chamber for that, but I just seek clarification of your ruling, if I may. It was during the Premier’s answer that I referred to his newest best friend, the member for North West, as “custard guts”. At the time you called me to order but said you had not yet determined or made up your mind as to whether the term “custard guts” was unparliamentary or whether — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! For everybody’s information, I called the member to order not over the reference he had made, but for what I believe to be conduct in this place that deserved his being called to order. With reference to that expression, I have investigated what it means in several different contexts. If I hear that reference made in this place, members will be immediately called to order, whomever they might be, and no matter what the context, because I have followed this through and my view is that it is a very objectionable and unnecessary comment to make about anybody at all, not only in this place but also in wider society. That was not the reason that I called the member for Mindarie to order, but I have made that decision about that particular expression following on from hearing it for the first time yesterday. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: I wish to make it clear that I did not know what was being said but it was — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: All takers, thank you. There is no point of clarification. I have made it abundantly clear that, firstly, the member for Mindarie was yesterday called to order for an entirely different reason; and, secondly, the expression about which I remarked in this place yesterday that I did not know whether it was unparliamentary — Mr J.R. Quigley: Neither did I. The SPEAKER: The member does now, and I am telling everybody in this place that the expression he used in this place yesterday in reference to somebody who is now on the opposite side of the house is unparliamentary. Everybody should understand that; there is nothing ambiguous at all about what I have just said, so there does not need to be any clarification.

THE CLIFFE — LETTER FROM CORRUPTION AND CRIME COMMISSIONER REFERRING COMPLAINTS Motion Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting. MR J.R. QUIGLEY (Mindarie) [2.56 pm]: In respect of the motion, the Attorney General asked me whether the reference back to the Chair should expire because the member for Midland had denounced the allegation as being false. That, of course, would amount to this proposition — Several members interjected.

5818 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009]

Point of Order Mr B.S. WYATT: The Minister for Regional Development is yelling something over here and I cannot hear the member for Mindarie. The Speaker has time and again called the opposition to order for that exact issue, so I ask the Speaker to direct the Minister for Regional Development to at least be quiet so that we can listen to the debate. Mr R.F. Johnson: Toughen up, princess! Mr B.S. Wyatt: What was that, old fella? The SPEAKER: Order, members! If indeed the Minister for Regional Development was being louder than he normally is, I ask him to stop that particular behaviour in this place. Member for Victoria Park, I know that at the end of question time there is often a departure from this place by various members to other things they have to do. I assumed that that was part of that noise. I did not know; thank you for bringing it to my attention, and I hope that the Minister for Regional Development will desist, if that was his behaviour. Debate Resumed Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: I was just addressing the proposition raised by the Attorney General by way of an interjection question to me, which, of course, I am always happy to accept from the Attorney General. He asked whether, given the Corruption and Crime Commission referred back to this place an allegation that it had characterised as involving serious misconduct, this allegation should simply be allowed to expire on the floor of the Assembly with nothing ever happening to it, given also that if the allegation was misconduct simpliciter as a matter of course—as it was with me and the member for South Perth—it would be sent back to the CCC. Once an allegation of serious misconduct has come to this place, should it simply end here and die on the floor of the chamber? The Attorney General said that the member for Midland had denounced the allegation as fatuous, but of course every person against whom an allegation is brought denies it, except for those who plead guilty at the other end of the Terrace. The mere fact that a member in this chamber would deny and denounce an allegation cannot resolve the matter satisfactorily for the public of Western Australia—surely it cannot! Surely there has to be some process by which the Premier hopefully is given the tick-off that his conduct did not involve serious misconduct. I choose that of the two options because I am extending the full benefit and presumption of innocence to our honourable Premier on this allegation that he has involved himself in serious misconduct. If the motion is not passed, two million Western Australians will witness an allegation of serious misconduct, raised not by the opposition, but characterised by the Corruption and Crime Commission—by the commissioner himself, Mr Roberts-Smith, QC—just vaporise in this room and disappear into nothingness. Although at one level that might be a good outcome for the Premier of Western Australia, I am sure that a far better outcome for the Premier of Western Australia would be a report back to this chamber by the Procedure and Privileges Committee totally exonerating the Premier, as it exonerated me. Mr C.J. Barnett: I don’t want that. I don’t want to be compared with you. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: No, I did not say that the Premier could ever achieve my standard. I was just saying that in terms of the acquittal of the allegation, the Premier could also have that happy outcome. However, if the CCC sends that serious allegation to this chamber and we do nothing about it, this chamber will have failed the people of Western Australia, who look to this Parliament, as the peak organisation in the Western Australian community, for accountability and to set a benchmark of accountability. How will the member for Kalgoorlie— formerly the member for Murchison-Eyre—feel, having been referred to the CCC and having been investigated by the CCC, and then being forced to vote with the government to protect the Premier from investigation of the allegation? He will have to be shoehorned into dispensing with these allegations, which are against the Premier and the member for Midland. As I said at the outset, they are mere allegations—but mere allegations of serious misconduct—for which there has to be a process for proper acquittal. Otherwise, elements within this community will forever and a day accuse the members of having engaged in serious misconduct, and, in support of their defamatory allegations in the wider community, will be able to cite the Hansard from this Parliament in which you, Mr Speaker, reported that the CCC categorised the allegations as involving serious misconduct. There is no other way out for this chamber than to get this letter off to the privileges committee and let the privileges committee deal with it. I am not a member of the privileges committee. I agree with the Attorney. It is more likely that the privileges committee would look at the matter itself than try to send it elsewhere, because it would have to get the concurrence of someone else. It is not mandated by legislation. That is the business of the privileges committee. That is not the motion of the chamber. The motion before the chamber is not who should investigate it, but that it should not just evaporate in this chamber and hang around here like a smelly, noxious emission. I hope that is not unparliamentary. It has to go to the privileges committee, and the committee can liaise with the CCC to see what in the blazes the CCC was talking about. It can call the CCC—I know that the CCC goes before the privileges committee from time to time—to appear before the privileges committee, and it

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009] 5819 can say, “Mr Roberts-Smith, what’s the evidence? Why are you saying that this could involve serious misconduct?” The privileges committee could have a look at it. The important— Mr C.J. Barnett: He did not say that. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: What is that? Mr C.J. Barnett: You said that the CCC commissioner said that this could involve serious misconduct. He never said that. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: He characterised the allegation. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he did not—quite the opposite. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: He did. I will read it again. He said that the CCC “has formed the view that the allegations raised against Mr Barnett and Ms Roberts are of serious misconduct”. [Member’s time extended.] Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, that is correct. That is what he did say, but not what you said previously. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: Then I apologise, Premier, if there was a slip between cup and lip — Mr C.J. Barnett: There certainly was. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: — but it was an unintentional dribble on my tie, and I go back to the actual record, or go back to the teabag, and the message on the teabag is that Mr Barnett and Mrs Roberts are involved in allegations—or are the subject of allegations is a better way of characterising it — Mr C.J. Barnett: Can I ask you one question? Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: Certainly, Premier. Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re an experienced lawyer, well versed in criminal matters, and have experience of the CCC. Do you consider them to be credible allegations? Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: Premier, I hope not, but because of section 152 of the act, which the Attorney General has agreed with, the CCC is prohibited from giving this chamber such evidence that I could make the judgement as to whether they are credible. Mr C.C. Porter: But it has given you the complaint. Mr C.J. Barnett: It has read it. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: That is right. The CCC has given us the complaint, but it has not given us what sits behind the complaint. That is why I am saying that the privileges committee can simply call up the commissioner on a Wednesday morning and say, “Mr Commissioner, is there anything in this? Is this credible?” The Speaker will be there and the member for Rockingham will be there, and they can hear firsthand from the commissioner why he has written this letter and what is behind it and decide whether anything should happen. I am not here to accuse the Premier of serious misconduct, and I do not stand here accusing our honourable Premier of serious misconduct. What I am here to do is to urge upon this house a sensible way forward for the public of Western Australia, so that a letter involving an allegation of serious misconduct—an allegation characterised as serious misconduct—does not just come to this chamber and die on the floor of the Assembly; that the public of Western Australia can see that there was an orderly and proper way to deal with it. I go back, in conclusion, to my final point. Had the CCC written back—I do not know what its evidence was—to the Speaker and said, “This involves an allegation of misconduct”, we would not be here talking about this. If the CCC had put it one rung lower, we would not be here occupying the Parliament’s business time all day Wednesday. If the CCC had just said that the allegation is one of misconduct, section 27B would have been the operative section. The Speaker would have had to refer it to the privileges committee, and the privileges committee would have had its process to deal with it. The privileges committee might have said that it is fatuous too, and decided not to hold an inquiry, as is its right; and if it had said that it was spurious, after hearing from the CCC commissioner, as is its right, and that it would not hold an inquiry, as is its right, it would not have gone back to the CCC. It would have been properly disposed of in the privileges committee, which would have reported back to this chamber, and the chamber could have adopted the report of the privileges committee, or otherwise. I expect, given the constitution of the chamber, it would adopt the report of the privileges committee. Mr C.C. Porter: That is my point, member; that the Speaker maintains his discretion in the more serious matters. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: That is correct. What I am saying is that that discretion should not be exercised in a way that would see the letter from the CCC just thrown in the bin under the Clerk’s table in this chamber. That would be untenable for the public of Western Australia. There has to be some process to deal with it, and the

5820 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009] appropriate process is the adoption of the passage of this motion through this chamber. Let us get it off to the privileges committee. It can deal with it, and I feel confident, having heard the member for Midland, that she will get a merit stamp on her wrist, and I think the Premier might be looking forward to one, too. But there has to be the proper process. MR J.N. HYDE (Perth) [3.10 pm]: We are giving the Premier the chance to speak but he is still not taking it. I have some concerns with this motion. Members of this house need to be fully informed about what we are doing and what our expectations are in referring this matter to the Procedure and Privileges Committee. We need a guarantee from the Premier that he will appear before this committee, that he will answer questions in a full and frank way and that he will provide absolutely all the information identified by the Corruption and Crime Commission. I also encourage the privileges committee to make this an open hearing. This is an issue of transparency and involves allegations, be they spurious or serious, against the highest office in this Parliament of elected non-Speaker-type officials. This matter has come to us because the Speaker has made a determination that it is for the house to decide. We should not be making that decision lightly. This matter could not only have been sent to the privileges committee but also this Parliament could have conducted its own open hearing in a transparent way before the public of Western Australia. The Joint Standing Committee on the Corruption and Crime Commission could have dealt with this matter, either in a closed hearing or open hearing. This Parliament could have directed its officer, the Parliamentary Inspector of the CCC, to gather further information before we make a decision on whether we should screw it up and put it in the bin or refer it on fully. Two issues surround the CCC referring the matter to the Speaker. The first one Mr Justice Roberts-Smith raises is that the allegations centre crucially on the truth or accuracy of what Mr Barnett and Mrs Roberts said in Parliament and the motivation for saying what they did. Earlier today the member for Midland addressed those issues in this place in a full and frank way. Perhaps the Premier could have addressed this place in the same way, attesting to this house that what he said in his grievance was totally true and totally accurate and explaining exactly what his motivation was for raising those issues. The CCC went on to say that these are issues of parliamentary privilege and the allegations cannot be investigated without impeaching or calling into question what was said in Parliament by Mr Barnett and Mrs Roberts and using the Bill of Rights as justification. As we have seen before, there is some conjecture about this. The Legislative Assembly could very well determine that this is not a matter of limited privilege or a degree of privilege and we could request the CCC to undertake actions that we would not see as limiting privilege. The whole area of privilege is very nebulous. As we saw in debate last year, the President of the Legislative Council took a particular view of the primacy and the extension of parliamentary privilege that I certainly do not agree with as a member of the Assembly. As well as needing confirmation of whether the privileges committee will hold a public hearing, we need confirmation of whether the Premier will definitely appear before the committee. The next issue relates to the grievance. This is not an issue about The Cliffe. Many people have a view on The Cliffe. The issue relates to the motivation and the accuracy of the information provided here. Some people on this side of the chamber, me in particular, certainly had stronger views on the prevention of the demolition of The Cliffe and the issue of listing before the issue of the grievance. We have the most experienced former minister sitting in the Parliament who was, to be frank, very much comatose for three years in terms of taking up issues once he lost the leadership. This was an issue about which he had informed information and strong views. We as parliamentarians respected the fact that he chose this as an important issue to raise. Whether he is right or wrong is not the issue. We respected the issue that he raised. It certainly caused me to re-evaluate my view of The Cliffe. On a couple of occasions members have raised grievances without declaring a perception of bias or a perception of association. We had a famous one when a member of the opposition—it might have been the former member for the area surrounding Bunbury — Mr C.J. Barnett: Perhaps the Easton petition might come to mind. Mr J.N. HYDE: I was not in Parliament at that time. Without referring to Bernie Masters and his seat, the issue was about a school cleaner or a school caretaker. A grievance was raised about the connection of the person involved being established in that grievance. That all came out later. All we needed, as we got from the member for Midland, was a public statement from the Premier saying that there were no perceptions of conflict or bias. When we are dealing with somebody in the Premier’s position, we are dealing with perceptions in an allegation, let alone going further with somebody trying to prove that an allegation has merit. As parliamentarians, we have the right to hear the Premier confirm that there were no perceptions or no possibilities of any bias and that any disclosures were made. There is another issue relating to this matter being sent to the procedures committee and maybe one of the reasons why it should have been considered. Perhaps the Speaker may have considered why he did or did not

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009] 5821 send it to the joint standing committee. The Speaker has not spoken on this motion; he has merely tabled his letter. If the joint standing committee is not involved, perhaps the privileges committee needs to establish from the CCC whether there is any evidence, apart from this one letter from one complainant. If the extent of evidence behind any of these allegations is one piece of paper from one person, I would think that that would be a very important piece of information that either the Parliament as a whole would use to determine whether it is going forward or that the privileges committee would use. Speaking without my joint standing committee hat on, given this letter from the commissioner, a copy of which he disclosed to us under section 152(4)(d), we would assume that no other printed material was used to base this allegation. That is a very pertinent fact that somebody should obtain before this matter goes further and before we end up wasting too many people’s time. That is a very important issue if the effect of this motion is that this matter goes to the procedure committee. Clearly, if there was further information behind that allegation other than that one printed letter, that is something that may cause this house to revisit its decision today. Again, we are working on supposition regarding the CCC’s interpretation of serious misconduct. Mr C.J. Barnett: It is an allegation—an allegation that, if it were true, would constitute serious misconduct. It is like an axe murderer. Mr J.N. HYDE: Correct, but I am using that in the terms of the Commissioner of the Corruption and Crime Commission, where he is determining, in dealing with the allegation, whether the allegation is of misconduct or serious misconduct. That is the point everybody is discussing. Again, as we have discovered through the Gail Archer report, the word “misconduct” has been debated and is open to interpretation. Again, we, the Procedure and Privileges Committee, or whoever deals with this matter, should be informed whether the Corruption and Crime Commission has used other material to determine unequivocally that this allegation is of serious misconduct. The other issue on which we need some sort of comment from the government, and which we have not yet received, is the reporting time. What is the view of the house? Is this something that should be looked at extensively? Is it an inquiry that will take three months or six months? Will we impose a reporting date, as is often the case when the house or a minister refers a matter to a committee? The government needs to give its views on these very important issues to the house. I know that the Premier has raised the point that this is the same kind of matter as saying that Joe Bloggs is an axe murderer, but this is very different. If the allegation is spurious or malevolent, the Corruption and Crime Commission Act provides the capacity to impose a fine of $60 000 and a jail sentence of three years, if a belief is not seriously held by a complainant. The house should say to the Procedure and Privileges Committee or whichever body deals with this matter that, if it decides in four minutes that there is no merit in this complaint, it should make a recommendation back to the Parliament that as this allegation comes from only one source with no evidence, the CCC should take action under the act. These are all very important issues the house should be considering in deciding where to refer this matter. Because the motion was amended, the possibility was lost of making a very quick amendment to the act giving the CCC direction that these matters should always be addressed by it. If that were the will of the house and of the other place, that amendment would have made many of these issues superfluous. The present government is only one year into its term. Just as it threw allegations at us when we were in government, it will find that aggrieved people in the community will be making allegations with absolutely no foundation. If this issue gets an enormous amount of publicity, we will start hearing calls by people to take away the transparent responsibilities of the CCC and start doing things in-house, because people’s reputations may be damaged. Mr C.J. Barnett: What do you think may have been the motive behind the person making the allegations? Have you considered that? Mr J.N. HYDE: I am just battling to get the Premier to place his motives on the record. I have never met the person in question. As I have said, I am assuming that this is one complaint in one letter from one person. We really need to have confirmation from the CCC, or whatever group deals with this matter if it is not to be done in this house in full debate, about any extra information. That would surely be something that could be asked of the CCC—that is, what is its opinion on the motivation of the person involved in making the complaint? The other issue that should be considered, and why this is different from a nutter making a complaint about the Premier or someone else being an axe murderer, is that this has figured very prominently in the local newspaper in the Premier’s electorate. The complainant has had some of his suppositions and allegations dealt with by what is normally a serious newspaper. For all the reasons I have outlined, this is not just something that we are handballing to the Procedure and Privileges Committee, expecting it to make a five-minute decision and bin it. I urge that committee very strongly to hold open hearings on this matter and to take seriously the advice and opinions I have offered about what further information the committee should be seeking from the CCC. MR C.C. PORTER (Bateman — Attorney General) [3.27 pm]: In considering the process that we potentially face with the passage of this matter from the Corruption and Crime Commission and, potentially, through this

5822 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009] house, some points raised by the members for Perth and Mindarie seem to me to be fundamentally correct. Other points about the procedure have not been as correct. However, it seems that the starting point here is section 3(2) of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act 2003, which in effect preserves parliamentary privilege. It states — Nothing in this Act affects, or is intended to affect, the operation of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1891 or the Parliamentary Papers Act 1891 and a power, right or function conferred under this Act is not to be exercised if, or to the extent, that the exercise would relate to a matter determinable exclusively by a House of Parliament, unless that House so resolves. That provision was considered in the Archer report on page 220 at paragraph 695, which states, in part — It appears that the section was retained in the form recommended by the Legislation Committee to accommodate the fact that some matters would not be exclusively determined by the House as a result of the proposed section 27B(3) That means that investigations against a politician involving privilege are exclusively the province of the house, except in circumstances where they fall within the ambit of section 27B(1)(a). In summary, misconduct that involves parliamentary privilege will always be referred to the Parliament. Serious misconduct that involves parliamentary privilege should always be referred to the Parliament. However, serious misconduct that does not necessarily involve parliamentary privilege can still be investigated by the CCC. Serious misconduct alleged against a politician that he is running drugs or doing something of that nature, which has nothing to do with parliamentary privilege, can still be investigated by the CCC. That is my understanding of how the process is meant to work. Then I refer to section 27A. It is the case that that section states that, despite any contrary provisions in this act, an allegation of misconduct, not being serious misconduct, against a member of Parliament having to do with the performance and functions of his office—that is, involving privilege—must be sent by the CCC to this place. That reinforces the default position set out by section 3(2) that all matters of serious and non-serious misconduct involving a politician must be sent by the CCC to this place. However, section 27A is meant to interact with section 27B(1)(a), which states that if the matter has been referred by virtue of section 27A—that is to say, it is misconduct simpliciter involving parliamentary privilege—it must be sent by the Speaker to the Procedure and Privileges Committee. That is not an anomaly or glitch or anything of that nature. It was meant to say that in instances of serious misconduct involving parliamentary privilege, which by virtue of section 3(2) must be sent to this place and to the Speaker, the Speaker retains a discretion, as does the house, evidenced in the very motion that we are now debating, as to what to do with it. What the member for Mindarie asserted, and this is where I take issue with him, is that there would never be an incident or an occasion where an allegation of serious misconduct referred to the Speaker should stop here. The point that the member for Perth was trying to make is that if we assume that the only information that has been provided to the Corruption and Crime Commission, or is in the possession of the CCC, is that complaint and the documents that are annexed to the letter sent to this place, we are getting close to the territory where this is so spurious that perhaps it should wither on the vine here. There might be instances and examples where this house considers that the complaint being lodged against a politician is so without merit and so spurious that it is not further investigated. I take what the member for Midland said on face value. If I do that, this matter might well be in that category. I take the member for Perth’s point that we do not know whether further information has been received by the CCC; equally, we know that the CCC cannot investigate the complaint. I base my opinion on what has been sent here; therefore, I am working on the assumption that there has not been further investigation by the CCC. The point is, and this is where I disagree with the member for Mindarie, that there may well be instances when complaints are so vexatious, so without merit and so spurious that this mechanism has been preserved in the Corruption and Crime Commission Act to allow members, by virtue of this motion, to say, “No, it requires or merits no further investigation.” That is not a glitch. Members might think there are better ways of doing it, but it is not an anomaly. Ms J.M. Freeman: I understand it to mean that if they are very serious, then they are not sent up. What you are talking about is vexatious, frivolous allegations and those sorts of things, which is quite different to what seems to be the case. Mr C.C. PORTER: An allegation of misconduct simpliciter might be vexatious or spurious, just as an allegation of serious misconduct might be. This legislation says that, as a Parliament, we preserve the right to nip in the bud a spurious allegation of serious misconduct. I understand the member’s point, but the reason that we might do that is because we want to retain the rights occasioned to us under parliamentary privilege to not put individuals against whom spurious allegations of serious misconduct have been made to further investigation. I know that the member thinks that that is counterintuitive. I tend to view that as being quite proper in the context of parliamentary privilege if we say, “Let the Procedure and Privileges Committee investigate it if it is a minor

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009] 5823 matter, but if it is a serious allegation that is spurious and vexatious, let us reserve the power for this body, after due debate, to determine not to hand it on.” Mr P. Papalia: That is fine if it is a government member. What happens if it is an opposition member? Mr C.C. PORTER: The point is that there are two members involved here. I would assert that the allegations are equally spurious against both of them and that is the reason we have this ability in terms of this debate to determine that it go no further. The point I am making is that that is not improper. In fact, that was precisely what was meant to have been achieved by the terms of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act. Ms J.M. Freeman: The problem is that it can be seen to be improper. We have to be held up to be proper on all occasions. Mr C.C. PORTER: It is, as this debate has shown, a complicated concept to communicate, but there is nothing necessarily improper about the Parliament maintaining, in the most important sphere of its decision making, its own privilege. That is what we are doing. If that is an issue that needs to be communicated to the general public in situations like this, perhaps it can be. It will not be easy. That is the reason why we have this process. It is a quite proper process. Based on what the member has said today it seems to me that we are well and truly in the territory where, by virtue of a motion to be debated by this house, we might decide it not be sent to the privileges committee because, frankly, it lacks any merit that I can see whatsoever. MR C.J. BARNETT (Cottesloe — Premier) [3.34 pm]: I thank members for their comments. These allegations relate not only to me and my son, but to others. The allegations are spurious, frivolous, if we ignore the fact that they cause substantial harm, probably vexatious and probably self-interested, but most certainly false. The question before the house now is: do we continue to use up public resources, as we have today—many thousands of dollars that it takes to keep this Parliament operating—and send this matter to the Procedure and Privileges Committee? Maybe it will be dismissed out of hand if it goes to that committee, but just maybe there will be a further round of investigations, interviews, requests for the Corruption and Crime Commission to assist and thousands of dollars spent on this spurious, vexatious, frivolous and false accusation. This Parliament is now charged with deciding whether these claims or allegations made against me and others have any merit whatsoever. I do not think this matter should go to the Procedure and Privileges Committee because I know they are false, spurious, vexatious and malicious claims. However, I will not stand in the way, but I will hold this Parliament and members in this Parliament accountable for their actions if they choose to do so. I will not let that go through to the keeper. The decision to be made is quite clear: does this Parliament commit more resources to investigating these claims? That is for members to judge. I will go through this and take a little time of the house. Basically, the motion moved by the member for Rockingham was more to do about the CCC. He then tried to substantiate these claims and give them some substance by claiming that in the original grievance that I raised over two years ago on The Cliffe, I somehow misled Parliament. He raised issues of what motive I would have had. I do not think I did. Even so, if there was an error in a grievance, is that a matter for the Procedure and Privileges Committee? I do not think so. However, having checked the facts and the dates I do not believe there was an error, and I will come back to that. The member for Mindarie made the point that the matter could be sent to the Procedure and Privileges Committee because basically that action would clear the air. His argument does have some merit. This matter has received a lot of publicity and in a sense its referral to this committee would clear the air. The Labor Party will get what it wants. I can tell members now what the headline in The West Australian will be, “Barnett under investigation”, and the 200 000 or 300 000 people in the community who read the paper will think I, my son and other innocent parties have done something wrong. The Labor Party will get what it wants. Is that natural justice; is that a proper use of the three or four hours of the Parliament that has been taken up debating this issue so far? Would it be a proper use of the time of the Procedure and Privileges Committee and, indeed, the CCC, if it is brought into it? Is that us using our role as members of Parliament, our responsibility over the administration of this state and public funds appropriately? I put it to members that it is not. That is the reason I do not support this matter going to the Procedure and Privileges Committee. However, in a sense, personally, I do not care because it will go nowhere. Members opposite will be making a decision to waste public time, money and resources on a frivolous, vexatious, malicious and false accusation. The question was asked why I did not walk in here when Parliament resumed and make a statement. I do not believe I have anything at all to account for and that is why I did not and I will not make a statement. When the commissioner of the CCC gave me a copy of all the documentation, my interpretation was that he did not place a great deal of importance on it, but he did what he was required to. He gave it to me and said that he would be sending a copy to the Speaker because he felt obliged to do so. I have no complaint with that. What happened is that he gave it to me and I checked some details with my son, as one would. I was away for a few days but at the first realistic opportunity, at a press conference, and from memory the Attorney General was there, I made a public statement. I made that public statement on 13 July and for the benefit of members I will read into Hansard

5824 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009] the public statement I made in front of a full press gallery and which I made available to anyone who wanted to see it. I said on 13 July, of my own volition, voluntarily, with no fear and nothing to hide, that — On Tuesday 30 June, I was informed in writing by the Corruption and Crime Commissioner, the Honourable Len Roberts-Smith, that the CCC had received a complaint against me. The complaint alleges that there has been some form of misconduct in relation to my role in seeking the removal of ‘The Cliffe’ — a property in Peppermint Grove in my electorate of Cottesloe — from the Register of State Heritage Places. By way of a grievance in the Legislative Assembly on 30 August 2007, I argued the case for the removal of ‘The Cliffe’ from the Register of State Heritage Places I did so as the Member for Cottesloe in representing a constituent. On 14 May 2008, I moved a motion in the Legislative Assembly for the removal of ‘The Cliffe’ from the Register of State Heritage Places. The Legislative Assembly agreed to that resolution. A similar motion was passed in the Legislative Council on 29 May 2008. Removing a property from the Register of State Heritage Places requires the consent of both Houses of Parliament. These actions are all on the public record and I stand by them. The allegation appears to suggest that my motivation to have ‘The Cliffe’ removed from the Register of State Heritage Places was in some way designed to benefit my son, Russell Barnett, who is Chair of a public company. Mr Mark Creasy, the owner of ‘The Cliffe’, is a shareholder of that company. I have only become aware of this association since this complaint has been made and knew nothing of it at the time of taking action in relation to ‘The Cliffe’. This allegation is false and I refute it unequivocally. I take particular exception that this allegation involves my son who is not a public figure and played no role whatsoever in my actions with respect to ‘The Cliffe’. I have been informed by the CCC Commissioner that the CCC has forwarded a copy of the complaint to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly because the Commissioner states that the allegation centres on what has been said in the Parliament and, therefore, the issue of Parliamentary privilege arises. I make this statement today in the interests of openness and accountability, principles upon which this government was elected and which I stand by wholeheartedly. However, I am restricted in what I can say at this stage. I expect that, in due course, the full details of the complaint will become public. That is what I said publicly and openly, not in the sanctity of this Parliament but out there publicly for anyone to read and anyone to report, in front of the full media of Western Australia. That is open, that is accountable and that is honest. Let me refer to the documents. The document referred to the Speaker by the Commissioner of the Corruption and Crime Commission was from one Brian Waldron, a resident of Sydney. He provided a whole lot of material to the CCC commissioner. I am sure that members have not bothered to read it, and I think they would be wasting their time if they did, but let me share with them some of the flavour and the quality of Mr Brian Waldron and his correspondence. I will read from a letter he wrote to the Corruption and Crime Commission dated 15 April 2009. I will select a couple of paragraphs. The first reads — There is nothing in the history of Russell Barnett’s association with Solbec that immediately declares some wrongdoing. Still there is something about it that suggests that something a bit crook may have been involved in these arrangements. I do not have the investigative powers of your commission, but I can imagine a narrative from what little I have learnt that could plausibly explain an involvement between the Premier and his son’s interests. Mr Waldron continues — That in itself doesn’t suggest anything underhand, but it is plausible that Mark Creasy influenced Solbec to choose Kirke Securities as the underwriters of its share issue, with the condition that they then offer Russell Barnett a seat on the board. As Solbec’s largest shareholder he could have threatened to sell his stake at a time when they were trying to raise more capital. It could have sunk the whole share offer and possibly crashed the company. Mr Waldron goes on — In this narrative, Col Barnett tells Creasy that he’ll do what he can about the Cliffe if Creasy can influence Solbec to use Russell’s Kirke Securities in the deal to raise capital and to get him on the board. What would Solbec do? Exactly what they did. They were after the injection of cash and these sort of conditions were just greasing the wheels. They got the money and they continue operating.

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009] 5825

What a scurrilous, outrageous assertion that is from a Mr Robert Waldron of Sydney. What I find outstanding in this house is that the Labor Party and the opposition take it seriously. That reflects on them that they take that sort of garbage, scuttlebutt, outrageous, defamatory material—it is defamatory—and they treat it seriously. That is why I say that I will hold them to account, personally and individually, for their actions in this Parliament. Mr M. McGowan: What does that mean? Mr C.J. BARNETT: Let me go on. The opposition has had its say for three hours. Now opposition members will hear from me. Mr M. McGowan: What does it mean? Mr C.J. BARNETT: It does not mean a damn thing. Opposition members have wasted this house’s time all day and now they will listen for a little bit longer. I contacted my son, as one would, and asked him about this. Yes, he chairs the company. It was about to go through capital raising. My son is highly qualified. He was a stockbroker initially and is now involved in venture capital. He had to immediately act to advise the ASX once these allegations were made, as did others involved in the business. A statement that the company put out reads — Perth, Australia. 13 July 2009: The Board of Freedom Eye Limited (ASX: FYI) announce that they are aware and have read the statement made earlier today by the Premier of Western Australia, The Honourable Colin Barnett. A copy of the Premier’s statement is attached hereto. The Company implicitly agrees with all statements made by the Premier with respect to this matter and hereby reject and deny all of the claims made within the complaint. The Directors of Freedom Eye Ltd are currently receiving advice on what further actions (if any) they may take in regard to this matter and will take whatever action they deem necessary and appropriate to protect the Company from any adverse commercial consequences that might result from these unsubstantiated allegations. Immediately, other people, not only my son but shareholders and directors of a publicly limited ASX company, are involved. Let me make a few comments about my son. He is an adult who can look after himself. Members opposite are not even listening now. That is the measure of the people opposite. My son does not need me to protect him any more. Why was he chair of this company? Indeed, he has also been a director of other companies. It is because he is highly qualified. He is experienced in company governance matters and ASX regulation. He basically in this case is an independent chairman of the company. He is not a significant shareholder, and certainly was not at that stage. He was appointed as a chairman simply to advise the company and handle governance issues. He has a good reputation in business in this town because of his high standard of ethics and his knowledge of ASX. Members opposite have affected his career, and Mr Waldron has affected his career, because my son stands on his principles and his high regard in business. He is appointed to independent directorships because of his skill and knowledge in governance matters. That is what has been questioned in this, as have his fellow directors. May I also state that from my son’s point of view he has never met Mr Creasy. To the best of his knowledge he may have had a telephone conversation with him more than 10 years ago when he was working as a young stockbroker and Creasy was one of the clients of the firm, but he cannot even recall that. He is absolutely certain that he has never ever met Mark Creasy. That is a fact. Let us talk about motive. I know the motive of the member opposite is to try to somehow create the impression that the Premier of Western Australia is under investigation and to try to make the sort of slur that damned the Labor government over its seven years. That is what it is about. That is the motivation. Mr P. Papalia: You are incredibly thin skinned. Mr C.J. BARNETT: The opposition is accusing me of corruption! These allegations are of corruption and the member is supporting it. Mr P. Papalia: No-one is accusing you of corruption. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Waldron is. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: They are now backing off. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Members opposite will listen to me now, for as long as it takes! Several members interjected. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr J.M. Francis): Order! Member for Perth!

5826 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009]

Mr C.J. BARNETT: Accusations have been made against me. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Perth, I call you for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker — Mr J.N. Hyde: You don’t know if it is Robert or Brian. Which one? Have you got a document that we don’t? The ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Perth, I have just called you to order for the first time. Do not push me! Mr C.J. BARNETT: It is Brian Waldron, actually. Mr J.N. Hyde: You said Robert. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I have never met the man, to the best of my knowledge, and have never spoken to him either. I do not know who this character is. When these allegations were made, I went home and told my wife, as one does. She got out her computer and started playing around on it. Within half an hour she had tracked down Mr Brian Waldron. I do not know the guy, and I think his allegations are outrageous, but clearly he was a friend of the Triffids. This is about the Triffids. This is about a music group of the 1980s, the lead singer of which grew up at The Cliffe. Three days after this issue was out, I thought the media would certainly work this out for themselves, but they did not. After an ABC interview, I did a doorstop and I said, “Don’t you get it? It is about the Triffids.” It is about the Triffids. The Triffids is a successful group. It is hardly the Rolling Stones or the Beatles, but it is a successful group. This is about the Triffids. Mr J.R. Quigley: It is about the CCC’s letter. Mr C.J. BARNETT: The member for Mindarie has had his say! Mr Brian Waldron is obviously a friend of the Triffids; he liked the Triffids. He and some of his friends are involved in promoting the Triffids. Indeed, the Triffids have had a great deal of publicity. I even heard that their sales have gone up in recent weeks. They are back out there; the Triffids are back! I understand that many people have a genuine concern about the heritage value of The Cliffe, and I acknowledged that in the grievance and debates that took place two years ago. I can understand and respect that. I happen to think that The Cliffe is an interesting building. It is old, but it is dilapidated and I do not think it is deserving of being on the state heritage register. That is why I moved the grievance. However, to suggest that I was doing it in some way to benefit my son is absolutely scurrilous, outrageous, and will no doubt have its consequences. I find it extraordinary that was taken seriously in the media—I guess I can accept that, as the media is the media and it does its job—but I find it extraordinary that members of Parliament, including experienced members of Parliament, would give the issue the credibility of devoting to it a day in Parliament. Ms M.M. Quirk: It has not been a day. Mr C.J. BARNETT: The opposition has spent three and a half or four hours on it so far. The people promoting this are not the people who quite genuinely care about the heritage values of The Cliffe. The people promoting this are the friends, supporters and fans of the Triffids. It is all about the Triffids. I will read some extracts and material—again from the web—and refer to a few comments as I am talking about this complaint — The complaint was made by a career public servant Brian Waldron - a regular visitor to the wooden Perth mansion — That is, The Cliffe — as a teenager when he befriended The Triffids’ singer and songwriter, Dave McComb Mr Waldron runs the Save The Cliffe website with another friend of the band, rock photographer Bleddyn Butcher, who is writing a biography of McComb, and former Triffids guitarist, Graham Lee. Graham Lee also runs the official website of the Triffids. In 2006 Melbourne based independent label Liberation Blue…released Born Sandy Devotional … The article goes on. These guys are promoting the Triffids. They are promoting reissues of the Triffids’ records. I do not know whether that is their sole motivation, but that is what they are doing. They are interested in the Triffids and the glorification of the Triffids. They may care about the heritage of The Cliffe, but this is about the Triffids. Several members interjected.

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009] 5827

The ACTING SPEAKER: Premier, please take your seat. The member for Midland was heard in total silence by every member in this house this morning when she made her explanation about this issue. I would expect that every member of this house gives the Premier the same right to be heard in silence. Point of Order Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: With the greatest respect, and not wishing to cavil with the Chair, this morning when the member for Midland was heard in absolute silence, it was during a personal explanation. Here we have a boisterous debate, and I have been interjected on during that debate. This is a debate, not the Premier’s personal explanation. The ACTING SPEAKER: On the member’s point of order, this is the debate and this morning it was a personal explanation. I understand the difference, but a very serious allegation has been made against two members of this house and whether it is in debate or in personal explanation, I think that both members deserve the right to be heard in total silence. Mr P. Papalia: It does not matter what you think, it is standing orders. The ACTING SPEAKER: It does when I am in the chair, member for Warnbro. Debate Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT: I do not know Brian Waldron or the other people involved. Their association and all of their activity on the web is all about the Triffids. They might have some romantic notion about the house, but this is being driven by a group of people who are fans, friends and associates of the Triffids. Good luck to them if they think the Triffids are so good, and good luck to them if they want to release their records, but that does not give them the right to accuse me, basically, of criminal conduct, or accuse my son or Mark Creasy. It does not give them the right to do that. This Parliament does itself no good service to give credibility to those sorts of claims. Mr Waldron will be accountable, and that will be a process for others, because it is not simply me who has been attacked under this. It is not me alone who has been defamed under this. To try to give some substance to this attempt by the opposition to attack me over it, or whatever they are trying to do—I do not know what they are trying to do—members opposite said I misled Parliament in the original grievance two years ago and that I got it wrong. People can make mistakes in Parliament, but I checked and I do not think that I did. Everyone knows that a house that was built in the 1890s has a certain amount of heritage value. I do not deny that. It is an interesting house; it is part of the history of Peppermint Grove and it has had a colourful history. It certainly has some architectural and heritage merit but not, in my view, sufficient to have it listed on the state Register of Heritage Places. I made the comment that when the Creasys bought this property, they were not aware of any heritage listing. I was accused of misleading Parliament. The member for Rockingham tried to suggest that was another reason for the committee to look at this issue. A memorial of the Western Australian Heritage Act, F919032, was lodged on 3 July 1995. The transfer of the property to Sharon Creasy, the wife of Mark Creasy, occurred on 17 July 1995. From that piece of information that the heritage notification occurred on 3 July 1995 and the transfer to the Creasys happened on 17 July 1995, the opposition asserts that I misled the Parliament, and that the Creasys must have known about it. The Creasys are not impoverished and this is not a cheap real estate transaction. The Creasys had an agent, Shellabears—well known in the western suburbs— acting for them, and the transfer of The Cliffe from the owner, Dr McComb, to Chris Shellabear happened on 7 April 1995. It was purchased on behalf of the Creasys by the real estate agent well before that listing was made. That is not denying there had been talk over decades about the property having heritage value. That is public information. This assertion, which has been brought in at the last minute by the opposition trying to give substance to its motion, is wrong. If members opposite want it, I have all the title deeds and documentation to show them. This has been the opposition’s day. Members opposite will get their headline. They are getting a news broadcast now, and a lot of people will form the view that Colin Barnett is no better than the Labor Party. Congratulations; members opposite have made their little political point! If the matter goes to the Procedure and Privileges Committee, they will get reports in the media—“Barnett under investigation”, “Premier under scrutiny”—and my son will be dragged through the mud, unfairly and unreasonably, because members opposite have given credibility to these outrageous, vexatious and irresponsible claims by Brian Waldron, Triffids fan and groupie from Sydney. This says more about members opposite than about anyone else in this debate. The government will not stand in the way of the opposition referring this to the Procedure and Privileges Committee. I am not going to stand here as the Premier of Western Australia and somehow deny the opposition that little moment, but I place it on record that I regard this as an absolute affront to this Parliament, to me, to my son, and to other people innocently involved in this issue. I regard this as something that will be accountable to this Parliament and to members. It is outrageous for the opposition to waste public resources, as it has today, by referring this

5828 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009] matter to the Procedure and Privileges Committee. The government will not hinder the motion and will not oppose it, but the opposition does this on its own neck. Debate interrupted, pursuant to standing orders. [Continued below.] Standing Orders Suspension — Motion MR R.F. JOHNSON (Hillarys — Leader of the House) [4.00 pm] — without notice: I move — That so much of standing orders be suspended as is necessary to enable the motion to refer matters to the Procedure and Privileges Committee to be continued and determined prior to entering into private members’ business today. I move this motion because I believe it is the wish of the house for this debate to come to a conclusion. I believe that the Premier has finished his comments, but there may be other comments. Obviously we need to take a vote on this, otherwise nothing will happen; the motion will stay in abeyance, and that is not the wish of this side of the house. MR M. McGOWAN (Rockingham) [4.01 pm]: The opposition is in agreement. Question put and passed with an absolute majority. Motion Resumed MR E.S. RIPPER (Belmont — Leader of the Opposition) [4.01 pm]: I do not want to detain the house at length, but I want to correct a number of the arguments the Premier has put to the house. I can understand his anger and his concern about his son and members of his family. Many members of Parliament have, over the past two decades, experienced similar angst. The Premier is not the first one to have such anxiety about people close to him. The house faces a particular issue; the Corruption and Crime Commission has written to the house in response to a complaint that it has received and has said, “This is yours; we don’t have the power to investigate it.” If it had the power to investigate it, it is conceivable that it could have decided that there was nothing to the complaint; but it did not have the power to investigate it. Only the Legislative Assembly, according to the legislation, has the power to investigate this matter. Are we to do nothing in the face of that correspondence from the CCC? Mr P. Abetz: Yes. Mr E.S. RIPPER: “Yes,” says a member of the Liberal Party backbench! “We do nothing; we leave the allegation unresolved. We don’t give the complainant any chance to make his point. We don’t investigate, we don’t ask any questions.” I do not think that that is satisfactory. I do not think that that is an open, accountable and honest government. I do not think that it satisfies public confidence to take such an approach. The Premier has tried to assert that the opposition has come to Parliament and made allegations. As far as I can recall, the opposition has not asked any questions about this during question time. We have not moved a matter of public interest or taken any other action in response to the fact that the CCC has placed this matter on the table of this house. We at least believe that there is public interest in the institution of Parliament being seen to properly resolve a matter such as this. If we were to take no action and simply dismiss the matter as frivolous and not investigate it just because the Premier said it was frivolous, we would be saying to the public that we cannot be trusted as an institution to deal with allegations of serious misconduct. The Premier has been very precious about this issue. I have been here long enough to have seen the Premier throw allegations at people on this side of the house over and again. I have been personally offended by the Premier’s propensity to refer to all Labor Party members as part of a corrupt organisation. I certainly took serious personal exception to having those sorts of allegations thrown against me as a person because of the Premier’s views, in his former capacities, about the behaviour of other people. The Premier has shown that he has a glass jaw on this issue, but he was prepared to dish it out and make all sorts of allegations from opposition against the Labor Party. He is well known for his self-righteous and pompous speeches about what he believes to be misconduct in the Australian Labor Party. Labor Party people also have sons, daughters, wives, husbands and partners, they have friends and other relatives, and they know that when such allegations are made, they can be hurtful to those people. Nevertheless, this allegation was not made by this side of the house. The opposition has simply responded to a letter from the CCC, in which the CCC has informed the Legislative Assembly that this matter is ours to investigate. The Premier says that it is on the Labor Party’s head that this investigation will occur, and that it is on the Labor Party’s head that taxpayers’ resources will be used. Mr M. McGowan: Neck. Mr E.S. RIPPER: “On the opposition’s neck” was the phrase he used.

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009] 5829

Let us be reasonable here. What scale of resources will be consumed by the Procedure and Privileges Committee, beyond the resources that would ordinarily be consumed anyway when conducting such an inquiry? Would we take that approach to any other allegation of serious misconduct against a member of Parliament? I have heard that there are members who vote with the Premier and his government who have told the Premier that he will have to face the privileges committee or else they will cross the floor. That is what I have heard; I do not have direct evidence of that. However, I would suggest that the Premier may not have all the choices he imagines he has on this issue, judging from the comments I have heard. I do not have direct evidence, so it may be possible that I am corrected on that matter. I return to the issue before the house. An allegation has been made to the CCC that cannot be investigated by the CCC, and the CCC has referred the matter to us. If we are proud of our institution and we want it to have credibility and respect in the community, we have to be seen to be doing something about this. We cannot just leave it. It is just another aspect of the position that the Premier occupies, a position I hope to occupy one day. When an allegation is made against the most senior political figure in the state, it is all the more incumbent upon us as an institution to be seen to be handling the matter properly. I do not need to say a lot more. This debate has taken a lot longer than necessary; it could have been a very short debate had the Premier yesterday made a statement in response to the Speaker’s statement and put a motion on the notice paper that he would refer this matter to the Procedure and Privileges Committee. Had he done that, the opposition would have taken no action and made no complaint. I think the Premier has grossly mishandled this issue, because he has lost an opportunity to demonstrate that he is the open, accountable and honest Premier he said he would be. Instead, he has acted in an arrogant and angry manner, and the result has been an extended debate that, with hindsight, was entirely unnecessary. Question put and passed. PREMIER Procedure and Privileges Committee Inquiry — Portfolio Responsibilities — Personal Explanation MR C.J. BARNETT (Cottesloe — Premier) [4.09 pm]: I do not intend to restate what I have just said. I want to acknowledge that throughout this issue, the conduct of the then Minister for Heritage was absolutely impeccable and correct. The main reason for my personal explanation is to simply advise the house that I have now instituted proceedings to allow the Attorney General to take responsibility for the Corruption and Crime Commission for the duration of the Procedure and Privileges Committee’s inquiry. When that is over, I will resume responsibility as Premier for the Corruption and Crime Commission. RECREATIONAL FISHING — FEES Motion MR E.S. RIPPER (Belmont — Leader of the Opposition) [4.10 pm]: I move — That the house condemns the Barnett government’s unjustified attack on recreational fishing and calls upon the government to withdraw the huge fees it is imposing on ordinary Western Australian families. Madam Acting Speaker, let us be really clear at the outset about what we are really seeing here. We are seeing a new tax on Western Australian families. We are seeing a new impost on Western Australian families. We are seeing it in the context of huge increases in household fees and charges imposed by the government in the last budget. We are seeing it in the context of future huge increases in household fees and charges to be imposed in subsequent budgets by the Barnett government. We are seeing it in the context of a government having serious budgetary and financial difficulties, about which it has not been honest, and serious debt problems, which it is underestimating. The outcome of those serious budgetary and debt problems will be yet more attacks on family living standards in Western Australia and more taxes by this Barnett government. That is what will happen. This is the cost of the government’s financial management. This is the cost of the deal with the National Party. Now, as a result of the deal with the National Party, all people in the south west of Western Australia who want to go fishing will face these new fishing fees. The government has, of course, dressed it all up as a way of dealing with the pressure on fish resources in Western Australia. If the government had an absolutely perfect and credible record on preserving fish stocks, there might be some preparedness to listen to such an argument. If the government’s measures in imposing fees could be linked in some way to an actual reduction in fishing pressure, people might be prepared to listen to the government on this issue. But neither of those facts apply. The government came into office at a time when the previous government, through the then fisheries minister, Hon Jon Ford, had imposed a series of fishing restrictions to protect some of the most vulnerable and some of the most iconic fish species that this state enjoys. Yet the government junked those restrictions. That was one of the first decisions of the new government. We took the matter up because we thought there was inappropriate influence from the member for Scarborough on

5830 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009] the fishing minister with regard to that matter. One of the very first decisions of the government was to irresponsibly drop those fishing restrictions that had been introduced by Jon Ford. Less than a year later, the government has been forced to come back with its own set of restrictions. If the government had adopted and maintained the restrictions imposed by Jon Ford, the government would have more credibility on this issue. The government was irresponsible. The government put those species at risk. We do not know how much damage was done in that period when the restrictions should have applied but did not. The government’s restrictions are slightly less strong than those instituted by Jon Ford. What damage will occur in the future? This government has no credibility when it comes to protecting fish stocks. The government now seeks to impose a fee. How does the imposition of a $30 fee on everyone who goes out on a boat at any time in a year to fish help preserve fish stocks? How does that deal with the small percentage of fishers who take the bulk of the stock caught—particularly the stock caught of iconic and vulnerable species? The fishing fees do not actually do the job—they have been introduced by a government that does not have credibility on protecting fish stocks, and the mechanism does not do the job. I sat on the previous government’s Expenditure Review Committee. I know the aspirations of the Department of Fisheries for additional finance. I was in receipt of the same sorts of submissions from the Department of Fisheries to impose a fishing licence. The department came to us in, I think, 2001 or 2002 with a proposal; namely, it wanted money for its budget and, if the then government would not give it the money from the consolidated fund, it wanted us to give approval for a recreational fishing licence. The department said that it could raise the money with a recreational fishing licence, thereby easing the impact on the budget. We said no. We said, “Go away. We are not going to impose a recreational fishing licence on the tens and tens of thousands of people who recreationally fish in Western Australia.” We were not going to charge children to go out with their parents and fish. We were not going to charge a boat owner’s guests to go out to fish from a boat. We were not going to charge adults $30 and children $15 to fish. We rejected the proposal. This goes to an argument that I made in the matter of public interest debate earlier this week; namely, it is when we see a government’s financial decisions that we see the true character of the government. Is it a government that protects families? Is it a government that protects people who want to engage in the pastime of fishing? Or is it a government that says it will solve its financial difficulties by making yet another grab from the family budget? This government is apparently going to be that type of government. It is going to be a government that whenever there is any financial issue, families and Western Australian households will have to watch out. There will be tax cuts for business. I quite like tax cuts for business—I did a lot of that myself. However, I know that the principal job of any government is first of all to protect Western Australian families; that is, to protect Western Australian households. However, we have a government that talks tax cuts while it taxes ordinary people; that is, it puts up fees and charges on ordinary people. If the government does not think that there is resistance to this, it is very, very wrong indeed. Our members are receiving dozens and dozens, tens and tens, hundreds and hundreds of emails and letters. Lots of people are signing petitions. There is going to be a big campaign on this issue and Labor will be right with those fishing people campaigning to have the fees axed. We will be campaigning to have these fees axed and we will be telling people that the very same proposal came to us when we were in government and we rejected that proposal. We protected families; this government did not. This government took the opposite choice. That is a point of difference between the two parties. Of course, there is a need to protect fish resources. We have to reduce fishing effort otherwise there will not be fishing opportunities for our children and our grandchildren. This is a regrettable outcome of environmental changes, increases in population and improvements in technology. Another factor is increasing wealth. The greater number of people owning boats means that there is also more pressure on fish stocks. Of course we need to reduce fishing pressure; however, it is not done by charging $30 to every adult who goes out on a boat to fish anytime during a year. It is not done by charging minors $15. It is not done by having special licences to fish for vulnerable species. Arguably, the special licences for the vulnerable demersal species will not deter the very people who are having the biggest impact on those species. Those people own the big boats and have a big interest in it. They will be prepared to pay the $150 annual fee and they will not reduce their fishing effort. Ordinary people with small boats and dinghies, who do a little bit of fishing, will also have to pay, but that will have no impact on the fish stocks. The bigger fishers and the richer people will pay the $150 annual fee, which will be a fraction of their fuel bill for a day’s outing. It probably will be a fraction of their bait bill for a day’s fishing. They will continue to add pressure on the fish resources. We will not get the outcome that we are looking for. Instead, we will get an additional tax. There is a real possibility that the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation will recommend to Parliament that the regulations providing for these fees be disallowed. I do not know about the deliberations of that committee but I do know that one of the jobs of the committee is to determine the difference between a fee and a tax. An over-recovery of the administration costs of issuing a licence is not a fee-for-service arrangement but a taxation arrangement, which requires separate legislation. If the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation does its job, it will recommend the disallowance of the regulation for the fee. I believe it is the case that the administration of the licensed scheme

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009] 5831 will result in an over-recovery of the cost required to administer the scheme. Why do I think that? It is because the government itself has said that the money will be used for research into recreational fishing. By definition, the government has already admitted that this is not just a licence fee; it is a new tax. The government has said it would not introduce any new taxes or increase existing taxes. Apparently that is a message for the business community only. It is not a message for Western Australian families and individuals. The message for Western Australian families and individuals is that they can face huge increases in existing fees and new fees, and that the government does not believe that that is taxation. That is the government’s doublespeak between businesses and households. I know that government members must have been receiving many of the same emails that we have been receiving. Opposition members will go to the marginal seats and talk to people about this issue. We will be campaigning with a vengeance. The member for Ocean Reef should not think that his electorate will escape. I am sure that there are a lot of boat owners in the member for Riverton’s electorate. We will be talking to the people in his electorate and campaigning on this issue. We will tell the constituents of those members who do not vote with us on this motion that their member has not stood up for them on the issue of fishing fees. We will tell their constituents that their members believe that the government’s taxation promises apply only to businesses and not to Western Australian families and households. A letter written by Mr Darren Hemming states — I respectfully request you support disallowance of amendments to the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 associated with the introduction of a Recreational Boat Fishing Licence. Recreational fishing from a boat is a social pastime; it is common for a boat owning family to share their boating outings with other families and friends during the course of a year. For most boat owners sharing their boat with others for a few hours is a major aspect of pleasure from owning a boat. Sometimes fishing is the prime reason for a boating outing, but often it is secondary to the pleasure of being on the water or accessing a beach or island. There are more than 70,000 recreational boats in WA, and with an estimated 250,000 persons using the boats the Recreational Boat Fishing Licence could be required by more than 100,000 persons. To require more than 100,000 persons to hold a Recreational Boat Fishing Licence where in most instances they may only fish for a few hours a year for fish that are not endangered (eg trevally, squid, mackerel, crabs) and not subject to special limitations, is unfair and irrational. That is the sort of correspondence that we have been receiving over and again. He says more, and we will be saying it too — There are important issues associated with a Recreational Boat Fishing Licence; including cost and inconvenience for families in WA, disincentive to actively recreate outdoors, disincentive to occasionally hire a boat/dinghy or day fish on a charter boat, disincentive to holiday in WA causing a negative impact on regional WA, inconsistency with non-boat fishing and extension of unnecessary government ‘red tape’. It is vital the Parliament debate these issues, and proper scrutiny should lead to disallowance of the misconceived regulations. They are all powerful arguments. I repeat that the opposition supports the conservation of fish. We support arrangements that will lead to the better protection of those vulnerable and iconic fish species in Western Australia. Mr M.J. Cowper: What will they be? Mr E.S. RIPPER: We introduced a package when we were in government that closed the season for a time. The member knows very well about the regulations that Hon Jon Ford introduced regarding recreational fishing and the member knows very well what Hon Jon Ford and the Labor government did to reduce the commercial fishing pressure on those resources that are so desired by recreational fishers in Western Australia. The previous Labor government did not attack Western Australian families. We did not impose an unnecessary additional tax on them. We did not say that we do not want people to participate in this type of activity if they are not very wealthy. Mr W.R. Marmion: You did. Mr E.S. RIPPER: We did not. Look at what the government has done. The government has closed the season for a shorter time—not a very much shorter time—and it has whacked on these huge additional fees. We will campaign to have these fees disallowed and to see the end of them. We will campaign in every electorate of the state, including the marginal electorates of members opposite. We will be joined by tens of thousands of people. This is a big issue, and the government will lose.

5832 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009]

MR P.B. WATSON (Albany) [4.28 pm]: I have been a member of Parliament for eight years and this is probably the issue on which I have received the most feedback from all parts of my community. One of the best things that can be done on a Saturday or Sunday is to go to Emu Point or Middleton Beach and watch the grandads and mums and dads fishing from their boats in the harbour, catching a few whiting or herring. The kids have big smiles on their faces and the seniors are exercising while they do it. What will happen now? They will not be able to afford to do it. This government is uncaring and it is dishonest because it did not go to the election and tell the people that it would impose these fishing fees. We should be looking after the fish stocks. I must applaud Hon Jon Ford, the previous Minister for Fisheries, for the tremendous job he did. I used to go crook at him because some people in my electorate said that they were upset because they were not allowed to fish in some areas and were only allowed to take a certain amount of fish. However, when we sat with them and rationally explained why that was the case, most people were happy. If I have to pay $30 each time I go out on a boat, I know that I will not catch any fish because I never catch any fish. There are other people who go out in boats and do catch fish. A point that was brought up by one of my constituents was that, as with most other pursuits in life, the 90-10 rule applies to the world of recreational fishers. I am in the minus 10 per cent of that. Successful anglers are the product of learning, experience, thought and lots of hard work. These make up only 10 per cent of recreational fishers but they would account for 90 per cent of the recreational catch. What do we do? We penalise everyone. I like to go out in a boat to Emu Point. Sometimes my mates and I get in a charter boat. It is now going to cost us an extra $30, or it might be more, to go out on a charter boat. Albany is a tourist-operated town. We probably have three or four fishing charters. Every time someone goes out, an extra cost passes on to them. A fisherperson has to consider where he would like to fish. Should he go up north or down south to the great southern or the south west? He may say, “What is this here? I’ve got to pay 30 bucks here and X amount here.” We are trying to encourage people to come to the great southern and to Albany. We are trying to encourage our seniors to get out of the house. We in the Labor Party want to create a family environment for people to go out and be with their families on weekends. We have a government that says, “We’ll give a fuel card to those in the country; 500 bucks for the seniors.” Then we start taking off bills to Western Power, water, all these charges, and now this one, coming in by stealth. We start to see the real picture of this government. It is not a “giver” government; it is a “taker” government. It will give a couple of little flash things that it says it is going to give, but then it comes up with these points here where we have to pay just to go out and enjoy ourselves. It is not going to make any difference to the fish stocks. My paying 30 bucks when I go out in a boat is not going to change the fish stocks. People are still going to go out every weekend because they want to fish, but they are going to have to pay that extra money. No-one has said to me, “The money we get from this, we’re going to do this, this and this.” All the government has said is that it will put it into a fund. That is a bit like the royalties for regions fund. Anyone can do what they want with it—they will shift it here and they will shift it there. The government has not come to me and my constituents and said, “We’re going to look after salmon fishing in your electorate. We’ll put more fishing inspectors on.” There is nothing in here to say that there are going to be more fishing inspectors. I know the ones in Albany do very well. I know some around the member for Collie-Preston’s area that do very well apprehending crustacean offenders. Mr M.J. Cowper: If I had said that, he would have gone crook! Mr P.B. WATSON: We are room mates, and I love the legal crayfish that my room mate provides me with! I cannot see any sense to this new arrangement at all. It imposes licences on people fishing from boats but not those fishing from shore. They are both targeting the same resource. A person fishing in the channel at Emu Point, if he or she is lucky enough, can get the fish coming through that the blokes fishing out in the boats are going to get. A person can fish off the shore at Cable Beach or the Gap, anywhere out there. A person can fish there off the rocks—which I would not recommend. Unfortunately, we probably lose two or three people a year who try to do it. This is discrimination against those people. They can go down and fish, get a couple of dozen fish or whatever the limit is—and a lot of people go over the limit. They are not getting charged at all. It does not matter to me whether I am on the boat or on the land—I am a very good fish conservationist! I feed them all the time and I do not take any home! Mr B.S. Wyatt: That is not what I hear; that the member returns them to the water! Mr P.B. WATSON: I kiss them and put them back in the water. Several members interjected. Mr P.B. WATSON: I was very upset that the member for Mandurah had not interjected. I have been going for six minutes now. I am very concerned that we have members on the other side who are in electorates where people fish. I suppose every electorate would be the same. Just because you live in the inner city or some of these other areas does not mean there are no fishermen there.

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009] 5833

Mr P. Papalia: We would have to be worried about the member for Ocean Reef! Mr P.B. WATSON: If I were the member for Ocean Reef; if I were the member for Riverton — Several members interjected. Mr P.B. WATSON: The Minister for Health has got a lot of things going against him at the moment because he has got the member for Mandurah after him about royalties for regions. He is going to have the fishermen after him. Do not underestimate these fishermen—they have very, very organised groups. We will be out there with them in these marginal seats. Dr M.D. Nahan: Is the member going to support the federal environment minister in putting bans all along the coast? Mr P.B. WATSON: What was that? I cannot understand the member. Dr M.D. Nahan: Is the member going to support the Rudd government’s proposal to ban fishing along the coast? Mr P.B. WATSON: The member obviously wants to get off the subject, but all we are talking about today is the government imposing a tax. It is a tax on pensioners, on young children and on middle-aged people. We do not just have one little group that fish. Everybody in Western Australia goes fishing. I have been in this job eight years and I have had more input from constituents on this subject than any other. We have had pretty controversial things in Albany with the waterfront development and everything like that — Mr M.J. Cowper: More than daylight saving? Mr P.B. WATSON: No. They just did not want it down there, so that was good! When I walk down the street people come up to me to talk about this. It is a huge issue. We are trying to encourage people to exercise, we are trying to encourage people to be with their families, but these fees are a rip-off by this government that will only discourage activity. This is a government that is dishonest and uncaring. It is up to the backbenchers. We will see how strong the backbenchers are. They have come into this Parliament. I went through some copies of maiden speeches last night, when we were sitting late. I think some members should go back and read what they said about standing up for their constituents. They said they will believe in their beliefs and everything like that. As we saw yesterday with Redress WA, they just toed the party line. I know they have got a dictator as a leader who just tells them what to do, but do not ever tell me and do not ever shout across the chamber that the Labor Party follows the line—that is all they are doing over there. MR D.A. TEMPLEMAN (Mandurah) [4.38 pm]: This is a very important issue that I am very keen to speak on, not only because of the impact this new fishing tax will have on people who wish to carry out a pastime that is a tradition of many families in Western Australia, but also it has particular implications for the region which I represent, the Peel, and in particular of course my electorate of Mandurah. I am very interested today to hear, if possible, from the member for Dawesville and the member for Murray-Wellington because I will ask them to join with me in opposing these regulations and support the Labor Party’s push to disallow them. I will be very interested to hear if they make any comment. Like many members, I have also been inundated by members of my community and fishermen and women from other parts of Western Australia over the past month or so since the decision was made—without consultation with many recreational fishers and many boat owners—by the Minister for Fisheries, Hon Norman Moore. It is very important that we understand in this place that Western Australia has a very large number of recreational boat owners and recreational fishermen and women. It has one of the highest rates per capita of any state in the nation. Right along the coastline of Western Australia, from the metropolitan area down to the south west and the great southern, the participation in fishing is very, very strong and is very much a part of the lifestyle of many people, whether they live on the coast, or whether they live in the metropolitan area and travel to coastal areas to partake in fishing. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned the very high number of boat owners in Western Australia. The Peel region has one of the highest—from memory, it is either the second highest or the highest—rates per capita of boat ownership in the state. Mr M.J. Cowper: Karratha. Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN: It has the second highest. If members were to go into the backyards of many houses in the Peel region—including, of course, the Shire of Murray, and Waroona, and down towards the member for Collie-Preston’s electorate, and well and truly within the electorates of the members for Murray-Wellington and Dawesville—they would find that a boat is quite likely one of the assets that those people have. These boats range from the dinghy and small tinnie through to the more elaborate boats that people own. Most of the bigger boats in Mandurah are usually moored at Mary Street Lagoon, Mandurah Ocean Marina, the marina near Mandurah Quay, or across at Bouvard. However, irrespective of that, the Peel region has a massive number of families who are boat owners and are, therefore, active

5834 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009] participants in recreational fishing and in getting out on the water throughout the year to partake in that pursuit. Many of them are pensioners and retirees who are on a low or limited income and therefore do not have a lot of money, but part of their lifestyle and part of the reason that they have settled into and enjoy the Peel region is because of the access to the waterway and recreational fishing. Behind that, many businesses in the City of Mandurah and the Shire of Murray, and in the other coastal locations towards Bunbury, rely on these people for their economic well-being and for the continuation of their business, which is derived from boating, fishing et cetera. I would have thought that a minister who is going to introduce a new tax on fishing would have at least first consulted people about the best way to address the issue of fish stocks into the future. But it appears that the minister has sorely lapsed in his capacity to do that consultation. I would have thought that the minister would have gone even further, because of the political nature of fishing—it is a political issue, let us not deny that—and at least consulted some of his government members who will be targeted by this decision. That may include my two colleagues in the electorates adjacent to mine—the member for Murray-Wellington and the member for Dawesville. These businesses that rely on boating and fishing will be affected. I have not simply sat back and waited for these businesses to come to me. I have, as I have said, had numerous emails and phone contacts. I have met people, as the member for Albany has said, in the street who have said, “Hey, what’s this fishing rubbish that they’re going to try to introduce? They’ve already put up the price of electricity and are going to increase the price of water, we’re already getting laden with extra costs and government charges, and now they’re going to go and tax us again on something that we’ve enjoyed doing for many, many years.” So I started to ring a lot of the people who have contacted me and written to me. I want to mention some of them, because they have given me permission to do that. Some of these people are very important businesspeople in the community that I represent. They told me to go ahead, because this must be said and an action must be mounted against this fishing tax. Not all of them are in my electorate. A lot of them live in the electorates of the Deputy Premier, the member for Murray-Wellington, the member for Kingsley and the member for Ocean Reef, to name just a few. What are the sorts of things that these people are saying? Mr Ryan Arnup is the manager-owner of the Mandurah Marine Centre on Park Road in Mandurah. What did he say to me? I wrote down what he said and told him that I would be repeating it in Parliament tonight. Mr Arnup said that he wants to know how the government came to the conclusion in the first place that this new tax would actually address the very reason for which the government says it is doing this—that is, to protect fish stocks. Why target just one group of people? The problem with targeting one group of people, boat owners in particular, is that, in his view, it will simply shift the emphasis to shore-based fishers and defeat the very reason for which the government is actually introducing this fishing tax in the first place. He said the sorts of clients who come in to get their boat motor fixed, or who might get a bit of a check up on the motor for the tinnie every couple of years, are retired people. Some of them go crabbing only a couple of times a year, for example. Some of them might go fishing only 100 or 200 yards off the coast, and some of them might fish only a couple of times a year. Do members know what they do a lot of the time? If they are older men and women, they go fishing with their grandchildren. The grandchildren come down to Mandurah for a holiday, and one of the great things the kids do with their grandparents is when Grandad says, “Okay, we’re going out fishing this weekend. We’ll go out and try to catch a few fish in the boat.” What has happened? The fishing tax that this government is now imposing on these people in my electorate and in other parts of Western Australia means that Grandad will now have to find $20 for each person who might be fishing from his boat. What will he do? A government member interjected. Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN: It has hurt government members, has it not? They know it! They all know it! Government members know this is wrong, but they will not cross the floor. I guarantee that not one government member—not the member for Geraldton who piped up last night— Mr I.C. Blayney: What would you do instead? Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN: The member for Geraldton pipes up every now and then and does not know what he is talking about. Several members interjected. Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN: The member will do nothing. Will he cross the floor when he sees something that is really wrong? No, he is a coward like everyone else on that side of this place! He is a coward and he always has been! An absolute coward! Talking of one, here is one standing now! Several members interjected. Withdrawal of Remark Dr K.D. HAMES: The member referred to all of us as cowards, which is unparliamentary, and he even referred to me as a coward, which is even more unparliamentary. The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms L.L. Baker): The member should withdraw.

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009] 5835

Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN: I withdraw, Madam Acting Speaker. Debate Resumed Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN: We have hit a raw nerve! What really worried me when I spoke to Ryan earlier today is that he said, “What I’m really scared about, David, is that my business may not be here next year.” That is an honest quote from Mr Ryan Arnup, whom I asked if I could quote him tonight. I am not making this up. This is not made up! This is not made up, member for Nedlands, who sits in his plush little place in Nedlands with all of his little plush areas. The member does not worry about the pensioners who have their tinnies and who will now have to pay extra money for their grandchildren to go fishing with them. The member does not care! He will not cross the floor and come over to this side when these regulations are put forward to be disallowed—he will not! Several members interjected. Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN: Government members will not stand up for the pensioners and boat owners in their communities because they do not care. They will toe the party line. Good old Uncle Norman came down and said, “This is what we’re going to do and you will follow us.” Like sheep—government members are all sheep! I hope that is not unparliamentary. I suppose it probably is. I hope it is not. I could attribute a couple of fish characteristics to some members opposite, but I will not. However, Ryan Arnup told me, and he was very specific, that he honestly—his views are not in isolation—is really worried about whether his business will be here next year. But he is just one person. Another business in Mandurah is Blue Manna Boat Hire—a great business. There are a couple of businesses like it, and the houseboat hires are another example. They hire their boats to people to enjoy the Peel region waterways, and part of what they do is fish. They are on a boat, so these regulations snap them up as well. Mark Swain, the manager of Blue Manna Boat Hire, told me that this is a really serious issue for people in Peel, because one of the jewels of the Peel region is its waterways, and one of the most important things marketed to visitors is activity on the waterways. We must do this responsibly, of course. There is no argument about making sure that we fish for the future, but the way the government is approaching this is in question. The government has decided to use an ill-targeted tax that will not actually achieve what the minister pretends he wants to achieve. Mark Swain covers the same issues. What does he say to people who want to hire a boat for the day, or for a few nights if they are hiring a houseboat? There is an additional cost. Then there are the intricacies and inconsistencies in these regulations that cause confusion. Apparently, from my understanding, a person will not have to pay the fee for fishing from a jetty. However, if I am zooming along in my boat and park my boat at a jetty to go fishing, I have to pay. Mr W.R. Marmion: No, you don’t. Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN: Yes, I do. The parliamentary secretary should read the regulations, because I think he will find that that is what will happen. Does this package include a massive increase in the number of fishing inspectors, which is what we really should be doing to make sure that people are complying with the regulations? No; that is not part of it. The government is going to lumber us with a $30 tax, and then a $400 tax for each boat. People will then find themselves questioning whether they are able to go boating at all. I spoke to another businessperson today, Scott Mounsey of Mandurah Motor and Marine Brokers, in Park Road, Mandurah. One of the concerns he has, based on the feedback he is getting from his regular customers, is why bother to have a boat? People are starting to ask what the point is of having a boat. There will be a few more boats listed in the Quokka. Dr K.D. Hames: Are you helping him sort out his issues with the council? Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN: I will come back to the Deputy Premier in a minute. I want to hear from him, about what he will do about his constituents. I bet he will say that he supports these regulations, and he will do absolutely zilch. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN: Will the Deputy Premier cross the floor? He is in government, and he forgets that. Dr K.D. Hames: I bet you don’t know he has a problem with the local council. Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN: Who cares if he has a problem with the council? Dr K.D. Hames: He lives in your electorate, and who does he come to? Me. Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN: What does that have to do with it? This is about fishing. The Deputy Premier can talk about the council all day if he likes. He is embarrassed that he has to toe the government line here, because a huge number of electors in his electorate own boats and are saying to him that he is hopeless. He will toe the

5836 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009] government line. He will not cross the floor or speak up and vote against these ridiculous regulations. He will not support the disallowance motion. I will take the interjection of the member for Murray-Wellington, because I like him, although that depends on what he has to say. [Member’s time extended.] Mr M.J. Cowper: Have you written to the minister detailing how your constituents would like to see the commercial fishery protected? Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN: I am in the process of writing to the minister about a whole range of issues that have been raised with me by recreational and professional fisher-people. I have already written to the minister about the crayfishing industry, because a number of crayfishermen and their families have met with me, and I have passed on their concerns. I am very interested in the comments of the member for Murray-Wellington, because he has also been inundated with complaints. An article appeared in the Mandurah Coastal Times on Wednesday, 29 July, headed “MLA inundated with fishing fee complaints”. It reads — Murray Wellington MLA Murray Cowper says he has been inundated with complaints and queries about the State Government’s fishing fees, which he claims could act as an impost for hundreds of recreational fishers in his electorate. Earlier this month, the State Government announced new rules to protect WA’s most popular recreational fisheries, including new licences and further restrictions. … Fisheries Minister Norman Moore said revenue raised from the new licensing system would only be spent on recreational fishing. But Mr Cowper last week questioned the new fees and agreed with residents who labelled them as an additional tax. I thank the member for that. Good on him! But will he come over here? That is the big question. I know he is upset with some of the members on his side, and he does not like some of the ministers because they are not listening to him. I know he is a very strong member, but I still do not know whether he will have enough gumption to come over here when the vote is taken to disallow these regulations. I hope he will do what he is quoted as saying in this article—that is, agree that the new fees are an additional tax. I quote again — But Mr Cowper last week questioned the new fees and agreed with residents who labelled them as an additional tax. Mr Cowper said a similar increase in driving licences applications would be more warranted. The member has suggested another way there. The article continues — “If we are going to charge people more to catch fish and crabs why don’t we do the same with driving licences?” he said. “To me, it’s a bit of skewed logic.” I agree absolutely. The member should come over here and vote these regulations down when they are presented to this Parliament. He will be a hero in his electorate. He will be applauded by the many hundreds of his constituents who are boat owners and go fishing. Just as he fought on the Logue Brook dam issue, he should be able to stand up proud and cross the floor to support the disallowance motion for these regulations. I will not miss the day when that vote comes on. I will be here come rain or shine; I will not miss it. I want to see what my two colleagues from the opposite side, whose electorates are adjacent to mine, will do when the big question comes. I think heavy boy, big Norman, will put his hand on their shoulder, and the Premier will probably do the same, and they will say, “Settle down fellows; you can’t do this. You’ve got to toe the line.” They will be judged for that, if they choose to do it. I will refer to another email that I think sums up the feelings of many of my constituents. This is from a resident of the Deputy Premier’s electorate of Dawesville named Sam Trimbell. He told me he was very happy for me to quote from his email. He lives in Halls Head and works locally in the Fire and Rescue Service of Western Australia. He is married with three children aged 15, 12 and 10. He wrote to me to express his concerns about the new arrangements, in the hope that I and my parliamentary colleagues—including, I hope, his own member—would do something about this new tax. He highlights that the current economic climate is having an effect on families. The member for Albany mentioned that. The cost of entertaining a family can be steep. He estimates that in holiday time, to take his family out to Hungry Jack’s for lunch and then go to a movie can cost up to $140. That is just for one day’s activity. He then highlights what the proposed costs will be, and discusses how the imposition of this tax would affect his family, if he wanted to take his kids out fishing four to seven

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009] 5837 times a year. He goes on about the confusion and the problems with even obtaining a $20 day licence if he wants to take some people out on his boat. Mr Trimbell asks how he can obtain a licence and what happens if he does not have home internet access. What would happen if he woke up on a beautiful Saturday morning, with the sun shining and the water brilliant for going out with a boat? He would have to go and get a licence. Dr K.D. Hames: He could go to Russell’s Totally Wild Fishing and Camping, and he would be able to do it. Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN: That is for those who know. Dr K.D. Hames: He could get some bait there and keep Russell in business. Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN: The minister is making excuses for this decision because he knows it is wrong. He knows that the people in his electorate hate it, but he will defend it. I find that absolutely ludicrous. At least the member for Murray-Wellington has the gumption to put out a press release and say quite clearly that he reckons it is bad. Mr M.J. Cowper: I did not. Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN: He did; he said he agreed that it is a tax. He said last week when questioned about the new fees that he agreed with residents who labelled it as an additional tax. Did they get it wrong? Mr M.J. Cowper: I did not do it. Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN: I will ask them for the press release of the member for Murray-Wellington of Wednesday, 29 July. I have a lot of time for the member for Murray-Wellington, so I will not put him on the spot. I have so much more to offer. David Trimbell goes on to write — HOW WILL LICENSED PARTICIPANTS ON BOARD A BOAT BE POLICED? — This is a joke. How in the hell will you know if everyone on board is actually fishing at any one time? Especially if the boat is 20, 30 or 40 kms. offshore. The bloke out with his wife and 16 and 17 year old kids should be and easy target just offshore if he hasn’t paid the $120 for licenses and $80 for the day and the policing officers have been watching them through binoculars for a few hours. That is a good point. He then asks — HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT TYPE OF FISH HAS BEEN HOOKED BEFORE IT IS BROUGHT TO HE SURFACE — My own experience in catching demersal type fish is very limited. (One Snapper and Dhufish in 6 yrs. of boat fishing) People might hook a fish but the chances of that fish surviving when they return it to the water is negligible because there is an almost 90 per cent mortality rate. He then writes — These are just a few of the problems I can see with the new regulations and that is without even mentioning the impact on :— — Boat Selling Businesses — Boat Chandlery Businesses — Small Bait and Tackle Businesses — Local Town Tourism (eg. Mandurah, Dunsborough, Lancelin, Geraldton, Bunbury, Busselton) — Fish and Chip Shops … David makes some very good points. He puts in bold this big warning, and the member for Dawesville, the Deputy Premier, should take note because I reckon this is the sort of feeling that is out there in his electorate. He might hold his seat with a reasonable margin at the moment, but when members anger fishermen, margins can be peeled away pretty quickly. David writes — SURELY, AN IMMEDIATE 12 MONTH BAN FOLLOWED BY BANS WHICH ARE LONGER THAN TOKEN BANS TO BE IMPLEMENTED FOR 2 OR 3 YEARS FOLLOWING WOULD HAVE A SIMILAR IMPACT. I FOR ONE WOULD BE PREPARED TO PAY A $50 / YEAR ONE OFF FISHING LICENCE AS WOULD A LOT OF PEOPLE I HAVE SPOKEN TO ON THESE ISSUES. AS THEY SAY — SOMETHING IS BETTER THAN NOTHING — AND THAT IS WHAT YOU WILL GET FROM ME AND THOSE PEOPLE I HAVE SPOKEN TO. This is the big clincher — WHATEVER POLITICAL PARTY PUSHES THESE REGULATIONS — THEY HAD BETTER ENJOY THEIR TIME IN POWER. I agree with David Trimbell. I have not met him and I do not know him, but I have spoken to him once on the phone. He is a passionate bloke who took the time to write that letter because this will affect his family. We are

5838 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009] not talking simply about people in big flashy boats, such as the member for South Perth’s friends. He is not here and I should not talk ill of him when he is not here. He is a good friend of mine. We are not talking about those people but the average, family person, such as a grandfather and grandmother who have the kids down for the weekend. They may be grandparents who see the kids only once or twice a year. One of the things they do, particularly in my electorate, is to pull the old tinny out, pack up the esky and head out to try to catch a few crabs and maybe a few whiting just offshore. We should not forget that those people are as important as anybody else who might want to catch a few fish off the coast. I had hoped that the member for Kingsley would be here tonight. I am sure that she received Bob Grant’s email. Bob lives at 1 Ibis Court, Kingsley. He is obviously a very experienced angler. In his email he included a whole lot of issues. He has determined the sorts of anglers there are. He has put a very strong argument for why this will not work. I will conclude with his comments. He writes — I appeal to you, as an elected representative to the Western Australian parliament, to resist and to do your upmost to oppose — He then refers to the introduction of these licences that will clearly not achieve a significant reduction in the take of vulnerable species. He continues — I would also ask that you promote the following — • The introduction of a more appropriate and sensible West Coast Demersal Scalefish Licence that does not deter the majority of recreational anglers from fishing from a boat; is more easily administered and policed; and is a component of an integrated approach to management rather than a cornerstone. • Advocate for the introduction of large scale permanent sanctuary (no take) zones in the West Coast Bio Region … Mr M.J. Cowper: What do you think about that one? Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN: Yes, of course. Mr M.J. Cowper: What about closing seasons? Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN: I think we should be considering all these things, but we should do it in consultation. I think one of the problems is that the minister made these decisions. The main point that people make to me is that no-one consulted them. Most of those people understand the pressure that fish stocks are under in Western Australia. No-one has denied it. Mr Grant has mentioned it. David Trimbell mentioned it in his email. The gentleman whom I mentioned in my presentation this evening mentioned it. He is a businessman in Mandurah. They all understand it. However, this is a tax of no return. The member for Murray-Wellington has unfortunately been put in a position where he will have to support it even though he came out very strongly and said that he thought it was a tax and agreed with the people who had contacted him that it was a tax. He is now unfortunately in a position where he might have to defy government, and I think he should, because I think he will be lauded for doing it. I hope that he does. I will put out a press release saying “Good on you”. I put out one the other day for the Minister for Education, because she did a great job for education when she came down to Mandurah. I wrote a press release and I said that her visit was great and absolutely brilliant. Mr M.J. Cowper: Did you get to Meadow Springs? Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN: She is working on it. I reckon she will come to the party. The member for Murray- Wellington knows how important it is. I will not go into that because I have one minute to go. I appeal to the Deputy Premier, the member for Dawesville, and to the member for Murray-Wellington, as hard- working members of our neighbouring electorates, to seriously consider the ramifications of this new fishing tax and, if necessary, support the disallowance motion when it comes before this house. They would be doing a great service to fishers in the Mandurah-Peel region, but they would also being doing great service to those businesses that rely on fishing being a viable activity that is promoted in our region as well. I am very pleased to make this contribution to this very important debate on behalf of what I believe are thousands of people in the Peel region who see fishing as an important part of their lifestyle. MR F.M. LOGAN (Cockburn) [5.08 pm]: I will make a short contribution to this debate. In question time today, in the Treasurer’s apoplectic response to some interjections, he started screaming and yelling about his being a Treasurer who would cut through red tape. He has said it on numerous occasions in this house. When speaking on the impact of these new fishing taxes on families and the issue of red tape, let us take the example of a family of mum and dad and a couple of children who decide that they will buy a boat because they want to fish for snapper, groper and some deep-sea fish. This is what they have to pay to get a line in the water. First of all, they have to get a licence to operate the boat.

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009] 5839

Mr M.J. Cowper: A skipper’s ticket. Mr F.M. LOGAN: A skipper’s ticket; I thank the member for Murray-Wellington. After this year’s adjustments to the fees, the total cost for the skipper’s ticket, including the registration book, is $272.90. Dr M.D. Nahan interjected. Mr F.M. LOGAN: It does not matter who brought it in. I ask the member for Riverton whether he thinks that the ability to operate a boat safely is a good thing. Dr M.D. Nahan: I have one. Mr F.M. LOGAN: He has one, so he clearly thinks it is a good thing! That is the first part of the example I am providing. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr F.M. LOGAN: We will have a chat later on, member for Dawesville, after I go through this example. The second thing they will have to do once they have their boat is to register the boat, which will cost $40.10. They then need a boat licence, which costs $76.10. They now also need a licence to fish from a boat, which is $30. Anybody who goes out fishing for demersal fish, regardless of their age, will also have to pay $30. They may not go out every weekend, but they might go four or five times over the year, so they get an annual licence, which costs $150 a person. I will summarise. It is a pity that you are in the chair, Madam Acting Speaker (Mrs L.M. Harvey), because I know that, with your close association with the fishing tackle industry, you would love to contribute to this debate. Mr M.J. Cowper interjected. Mr F.M. LOGAN: I will say nothing, Madam Acting Speaker. The ACTING SPEAKER: I will have my turn later! Mr F.M. LOGAN: Yes, exactly. I am sure, Madam Acting Speaker, that if you were not in the chair, you would probably love to vote on our side of the chamber. I will go back through this again. I am talking about an average family with a couple of kids that just wants to go out and fish four or five times a year from their boat. It will cost them $272.90 to get a skipper’s ticket, $40.10 for the initial registration fee, $76.10 for the boat licence, a further $30 for a fishing boat licence for every person in the boat, and $150 per person to go out fishing for— Mr M.J. Cowper interjected. Mr F.M. LOGAN: We will not get into the cost of tackle, member for Murray-Wellington! I am talking about red tape; I am not talking about the equipment. There is now also a fee payable for a licence to fish for demersal fish, which is $150 per person. That is five separate charges before there is even a line in the water! Five separate charges by a government that wants to cut red tape. Government members sit there asking, “What’s the problem?” They will find out what the problem is very shortly, when those recreational fishermen come banging on their doors. The member for Murray-Wellington knows that they are already up in arms. They will be banging on doors, going off their heads, talking about the same issues I am talking about now—red tape and the cost of going out to fish for a few fish. This is not about sustainability. Nobody in this house would disagree that we have to be absolutely on our guard to ensure that the future of fishing is safeguarded for all generations in Western Australia. Everyone understands that commercial fishers have hit fish stocks pretty hard over the years and that catches have been reduced significantly by various fisheries ministers over various governments, particularly over the past eight years. No significant evidence has yet been provided by the Department of Fisheries about the total take of the recreational catch. There are no specific figures; it is thought to be somewhere between 300 tonnes and 500 tonnes a year. It is not really known. Nevertheless, this tax is being introduced to hit all families in the belief that somehow the take by recreational fishers will be reduced. There is no evidence to back that up at all, and no scientific evidence whatsoever that the fish take will be reduced as a result of the introduction of these new licences and the costs imposed by their introduction. The Department of Fisheries admits that there is no clear relationship between the introduction and cost of these new licences and the overall reduction of the take by recreational fishermen. As members know—I am sure there are members who personally know fishermen who do this—there are fishermen who go out regularly, every weekend, to fish. Those types of fishermen will continue to go fishing. They have boats, tackle and equipment the scale of which justifies their type of sport, which is going after deep-sea demersal fish. They will pay $150

5840 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009] and target those fish anyway. Given the fact that they now have to pay a boat licence fee to fish from a boat plus $150, they will probably go after them pretty heavily. Those people who regularly fish are the ones who contribute to the overall recreational fishing take, and they are not going to change their patterns of behaviour; they will pay it, and as the member for Eyre just said, they probably will not get value for money. The introduction of licences and the attendant fee increases will hit everybody else in the fishing community—the occasional fishermen; people like me! Not only am I an occasional fisherman, I am a bad occasional fisherman! The very fact that I will have to pay $150 for the pleasure of not catching anything is really going to hurt me. Obviously there are tens of thousands of people just like me who occasionally go fishing. Mr W.R. Marmion interjected. Mr F.M. LOGAN: It is nice when the catch is a little bigger than whiting, member for Nedlands! This will hit people like me, and many families out there will be caught up in this. That is why the opposition argues that this is a tax. It is not the introduction of a scientific method that will lead to a reduction in the recreational fish take. Woodman Point boat ramp is in my electorate. Members who know anything about fishing in Western Australia will know that that is the busiest boat ramp in Western Australia, according to figures provided by the Department of Planning. Everyone uses it to get into Cockburn Sound or beyond the islands into the deep-sea fishing areas. I can assure the government that I will be targeting Woodman Point boat ramp to bring this tax to the attention of all the people who use that boat ramp. I will ensure that they are aware of what the government is doing to them and their families through the introduction of this tax. It is not only the people of Cockburn who use that boat ramp; but also people from the member for Riverton’s area, the member for Jandakot’s area, and from the southern suburbs generally. Some also come from the northern suburbs, because it is the closest point to get a boat into the water along the west coast metropolitan area. As a result of that, I and some of my colleagues will be targeting the users of that boat ramp to highlight to those fishermen and fishing people that the government in this silly move by the Minister for Fisheries is introducing another tax on families. We can see what has happened here. There are other options. The member for Murray-Wellington asked which other options were available. He actually indicated one himself. Large no-fish-take zones can be established. They have been thought about and talked about in Western Australia for many years. They could be established around the coast. Mr M.J. Cowper: What if you’ve got a tackle shop or a caravan park or chalets, let’s say, at Horrocks? Mr F.M. LOGAN: Yes, that came up before. Mr M.J. Cowper: That’s what your government was going to do. Mr F.M. LOGAN: Of course. However, the government must negotiate through those issues. If the government intends to establish a large no-fish-take zone, somebody will be affected unless it is established somewhere like the Montebello Islands. That is another option for a no-fish-take zone: establish one where there are no people and no commercial activities. Obviously it would be very difficult to negotiate with people living very close to a no-fish-take zone, but it is not impossible. It has been done elsewhere in the world, for example in New Zealand. Another way of doing it is with fishing closures. For example, a fishing closure between October and December could possibly result in a 15 per cent reduction in the fish take of demersal fish during that off-season. There is a suggestion that a fishing closure for four months between September and December could result in a 40 per cent reduction. Mr M.J. Cowper: Do you know when the breeding season is for dhufish? Mr F.M. LOGAN: That is the reason it is being put forward as an option. Mr M.J. Cowper: That is why we need the research. Mr F.M. LOGAN: That is the reason it is being put forward. I am not going to get into a debate with the member for Murray-Wellington about the breeding habits of fish. Mr M.J. Cowper: It is important and relevant. Mr F.M. LOGAN: Of course it is important. However, the suggestion is that those closures would result in an increase in existing fish stocks and, of course, reductions in the overall fish catch. Were those options looked at by the minister? We do not know. Were they options put forward by the Department of Fisheries? We do not know. Mr M.J. Cowper: That is what your government was going to do. Mr F.M. LOGAN: Perhaps they are the sorts of questions that as a backbencher the member for Murray- Wellington should be asking of his ministers.

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009] 5841

Mr M.J. Cowper: I have. Mr F.M. LOGAN: If that is the case, the member for Murray-Wellington should stand in this place and tell everybody what he has found out. Mr M.J. Cowper: I will. Mr F.M. LOGAN: We do know that even if those options were before the minister, he dismissed them, took the easy option and said, “Let’s slug people for more money. That’ll do. If we charge people more, maybe they won’t go fishing.” That is exactly what the minister has done, and it was an option that was put up by the Department of Fisheries. If the Minister for Fisheries was a thorough, thoughtful minister, he would have challenged the Department of Fisheries about that option, he would have argued with the Department of Fisheries about that option, and he may well have rejected the Department of Fisheries’ recommendation. However, as a lazy minister he said, “Oh well, people can just pay more.” He just copped the departmental recommendation because it was the easy and lazy option, and said, “Let’s just slug people more and we’ll cross our fingers and hope they won’t go fishing.” That is what has happened. We have seen ministers do it in the past. Mr P.T. Miles: Isn’t that what you did? Mr F.M. LOGAN: We will continue to campaign in support of recreational fishing against this tax that has been introduced on recreational fishing. I point out before I conclude my speech that other increases have occurred in other areas of fishing. The new licence fees for normal activities in rock lobster, abalone, marron, south west freshwater and net fishing have all jumped significantly from the current fees. A rock lobster licence, for example, was $38 and is now $45. All the other licences, which ranged in cost down to $26 for a marron licence, are now $45. Therefore, the fee for the same fishing licence like the one I have in my pocket for the full range of fishing activities, which was previously between $90 and $100, will now cost people $180. I use my licence probably five or six times a year. I put it to you, Madam Acting Speaker (Mrs L.M. Harvey), that there are many people in Western Australia in the same position as I am: they are occasional fisherpersons who want a licence to ensure they comply with the Department of Fisheries’ regulations. They also want to do the right thing so that if they get an opportunity to go marroning, put in a rock lobster pot or take abalone, they have a licence to take those species. Now they will have to pay $180 a year for that privilege. It is a silly, silly proposition put forward by the Minister for Fisheries and one that will lead to a significant backlash against the government. I ask members of the backbench to think very carefully about what their position will be when the disallowance motion comes before this house for debate. If they go along with the minister’s recommendation and support the increase in these fees, it will come back to bite them. I can assure members that it will come back to bite them. Mr M.J. Cowper interjected. Mr F.M. LOGAN: I can assure members that we will be supporting those recreational fishermen in the community and we will ensure that support for the minister’s recommendation bites government members really hard. MS A.R. MITCHELL (Kingsley) [5.26 pm]: I am very pleased that there is such a great recreational fishing capacity in Western Australia. We are very fortunate in that regard. Members know that I am a firm believer in sport and recreation pastimes that are sustainable and that will last into the future. I must also declare that I do not fish, but I do appreciate that many people do and that there is a reason we must look after the recreational fishing sector. It is our responsibility to make sure that not only our generation, but also future generations can fish in a recreational way. It is important that we achieve that through the best possible means. That is what we are talking about in this place today. I will be honest. After the initial inquiry about what we were doing introducing an increase in recreational fishing licence fees, not many people have come to me complaining about them. After a bit of discussion on the subject, most sensible people understand that we have a resource that we must look after carefully. I have had more discussions on the west coast demersal fisher licence; there are good parts to that as well. Let us go back to the recreational fishing sector. There is some feeling—a perception more than anything—that it should be free. In many ways not too many pastimes nowadays are free. Another aspect that is more important is that people do not understand the sector. Just as we do with any other sport and recreational activity, we should be informing people about the fishing sector so that they understand what their industry is about, who their industry is and what the future of their industry is, and asking them whether they are planning for their industry. Those sorts of understandings are absolutely essential if we are to preserve the ability to fish recreationally for future generations. A few people have said that they will not be able to take their grandson or someone else out fishing. Of course they can. This is not about preventing people from fishing, but about making sure that we manage fishing

5842 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009] appropriately and know what is going on. People can certainly take other people out fishing. People do not need to get their grandson a fishing licence to go fishing once; they just need to fit in with the compliance procedures on bag limits. Let us not go into those sorts of arguments; they are just furphies. We can always work around those things. Let us face it: most people have things organised and plan when they go fishing. They do not decide suddenly at four o’clock in the morning that they will go fishing but they do not have a licence. However, if they do, they can go onto the website and get a licence anyway. I do not think that we need to spend too much time on those sorts of arguments. However, I believe that we need to focus on planning for the future. We need to ensure that we understand the problem so that we can fish in the future. This is not about a tax. This is not about those sorts of things. This is about the demographics. Not everything is free nowadays. I encourage and support — Mr D.A. Templeman: Do you have Mr Grant’s email—from your electorate? Ms A.R. MITCHELL: I certainly do have the email from Mr Grant and I spoke with him on Sunday morning. We had a lovely conversation. Mr D.A. Templeman: And what did you say to his suggestions? Ms A.R. MITCHELL: We had a lovely conversation. I am talking about the recreational fishing takes here; I referred earlier to the fact that I was not talking about the west coast demersal scalefish. Mr D.A. Templeman: And what did you say about his suggestion? Ms A.R. MITCHELL: Thank you; I have said that I am talking about the recreational fee. Several members interjected. Ms A.R. MITCHELL: As I have said, I see these fees as a proactive measure. They are not about getting more fishing inspectors. That is the negative aspect; that is, getting more fishing inspectors to deal with things that are a problem. Let us get proactive. Let us use these fees so that we can get a better understanding, and let us remember that not too many sport and recreation pastimes are free now. I am not saying that they should all be, but there is not a problem here. This is about understanding the industry. MR M.P. MURRAY (Collie-Preston) [5.31 pm]: Having been in the amateur fishing game for many, many years, I understand the many tricks that are played in the game. Mr D.A. Templeman: Some would say that you were a rank amateur! Mr M.P. MURRAY: I certainly expected a bit of the catcalling that is going on! I fondly remember my early fishing trips. When I was about four or five years old, we fished off the bridge at Duranillin in fresh water when the rivers were fresh enough to fish. I caught many perch with my father. We used to throw rocks into the water and see the fish swim up to our hooks. It was good enough to pull out half a dozen perch before going home. Dad always said half a dozen was enough; however, at one time or another, that advice must have slipped my memory! Over the years, I have certainly been a keen fisherman, diver and general boater enjoying the rivers. To have to pay a $30 tax just to use the water is, I think, very, very unfair. Over the years, I have seen many families go down to the water’s edge with the old tinnie and a motor that gets pulled out of the shed once a year. They have spent money to service the engine so the family can putter up the river or the estuary for a day out. Even if families just want to wet a line over the side, not really sure what they are going to catch, that day out is now going to be an expensive option. Another part of the family unit will be broken down. We have fly in, fly out workers and 12-hour shifts, and we are talking about longer retail hours, resulting in mums spending more time away from their families. Now we are not going to have any way for them to spend time with their families on the weekend because, when families can have a special day together, it will be too expensive to go fishing. What will they do instead? They will go to the fun park down on the corner and tell the kids that they can have 20 bucks worth of fun on the amusements. When that fun is finished, they go home. They will get no exercise and there will be no family bonding because families will just not go tenting or camping. If families chose to lay out for a full licence, it will cost them $405; it is very expensive. I know that that would have been too hard for my family to afford in the early years when my four children just popped out one after the other. Even then, going camping required a bit of a decision about fees and buying another bit for the tent. Today, families have to spend $400 on top of all that. I do not think this is the way to go. I honestly believe that these fees have come about not because of the Minister for Fisheries’ concern about the ocean fish stocks, but because of his concern about the poor report he received from the Auditor General. That report said there was no compliance and the minister is wondering how he will get the money needed to resource Fisheries. The money supply has tightened—we all know that happens at times. But this is not the way to go about it. If the minister wants better compliance, he should put a better case to the Treasurer for more money. He should argue for the money to come out of general revenue. The price of a licence for a boat trailer has been put up. Perhaps the

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009] 5843 overall licence fee could be increased by a small amount. I think that I paid $95, or around that mark, for the total licence in the last round, and that fee is going up to $405—plus the $30 that I have to pay for my boat licence and the $30 for anyone else who goes fishing with me. Many different scenarios could be played out. People could choose to get a day licence. What happens if they choose a day licence and there is a storm and they cannot go fishing? Some people will take a risk and go anyway. That is a real concern of mine, having lost two friends over the time that I have been fishing—both of whom drowned. It comes back to people taking risks when risks really do not have to be taken. This fee is going to force people to say, “Well, it is not really that rough. We have paid a couple of hundred bucks to go, so we are going to go.” What will be the cost of that decision to sea search and rescue? It is said to be about saving fish stocks; we might save it by drowning recreational fishers. There will certainly be an option for people to choose to go fishing when they should not. I know that some of my mates in their earlier days—they do not go out so much now; we are getting a bit long in the tooth—went out many times when they should not have. I know that if they have to pay this fee, they will go out when perhaps they should not. I know younger people who may be a bit blasé about the sea and the ocean conditions and will just say, “Oh, the weather front is forecast to come through later today” and go out and be blasted off the water. People will get hurt. People will drown. This fee will really make the decision difficult. Will the people who have paid for a one-day fishing licence get a refund if a storm comes through and they are unable to go fishing? I do not think they will. As other people have asked, will people be able to source a licence if their mates drop in on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon and decide to fishing? I do not think they will. If that is the way that we are thinking about conservation, we are going about it in totally the wrong way. As has been said, we should be looking at breeding cycles. Not enough studies have been done on breeding cycles—there is still a lot of guesswork, but dhufish spawn from late December through to February. We have seen a very good recovery program put in at Cockburn Sound where snapper fish had been fished nearly to extinction. The same has been done at Shark Bay. We worked on the problem. We put bag and size limits on the catch. The fish have come back. Both Cockburn Sound and Shark Bay fish stocks have recovered. Why could we not work this out in the same way? I am sure that any reasonable fishers would agree not to fish during spawning season if we gave them technical evidence—based on water temperature changes and visible fish bunting and the like—and not guesswork about the spawning season. There will always be exceptions because of water currents, but in the main breeding areas we should be able to tell fishers that we are shutting the waterways from 2 January to 1 February each year. That would allow those fish to spawn. I know very well that when the fish are spawning, the professional fishermen sit over the top of them and start fishing as soon as spawning has finished. Those fish do not survive. They get pulled out of the water by the professionals. There are no rules to stop the professionals doing that. However, I am sure that if we imposed a spawning exemption time, the professionals would work with the whole industry—as much for their own sake as that of the recreational fishers. There are many different places along the coast where we can observe fish, such as in marine parks and in no-take areas— for example, under the Exmouth jetty. Believe me, the water beneath that jetty was a spear fisherman’s paradise. They could shoot what they liked up there. Then that water was closed. Now it is one of the most pristine fish- viewing dives in the world. It works. It is not overcrowded with fish. The divers can swim through because the fish move off to other reefs as they get bigger. These are good conservation measures. I know that some of the green groups are working hard on these issues. There is a lot of work to be done about where those conservation areas will be, but down on the south coast, in areas such as Walpole, that work is starting to gel together. However, there are other problems. We have imposed fishing licences between Exmouth and Augusta. We have not imposed no-take zones between Augusta and Albany. Where will the keen fishermen go? They will move into areas where there are no limitations. Fishermen are already talking about moving to Windy Harbour, Walpole and other such places. The guys who I know to be really keen fishers will say, “Stuff the limits. We have paid the money; we may as well go down there and catch a few fish, but we will go where there are no restrictions.” It will be far easier for them to go there. Then we will have another problem in another area. How do we work it out? It has not been very well thought out at all. The marine park issue has been used in many other parts of the world. I am certainly proud to say that on the crayfishing side of things, one of my recommendations many years ago was that females over a certain size should be returned to the water because they have the biggest tails for spawning. Someone can say, “You’re a rapist, you have taken whatever is there”. It is not true. Many people underneath have the will to conserve for the future; for their kids. We have heard that many times today. Many of my spearfishing mates do not come out and knock over the big, old groper that is about 75 pounds. They let that go past because they are quite rank to eat. They are a beautiful looking fish and, many times, very friendly. A lot of the contest now is who can pat one; not who can shoot one. Seventeen and 18-year-olds get a bit pumped up and away they go and try to bowl one over, like we have all done. These people are being taught to look after the breeders at a younger and younger age. The message is return fish to the water. Not every fish that Rex Hunt kissed would have survived, I am sure of that, after he had kissed them! He was one of the first to come out and say “return fish to the water”. That has been working.

5844 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009]

We talk about barotrauma for the dhufish, which is certainly a problem, but even in my boat, if someone has got a small fish on, they are told not to wind the line up very quickly. By winding up slowly, the fish can adjust to a certain degree and get away. That is another teaching issue that should go in. If there is a small dhufish on the line—one generally knows by the way they wriggle—wind it up slowly and then let it go. Sometimes the fish will survive. At the moment, because of size limits, they cannot stay on the boat so they are thrown over the side. They float away and the birds pick their eyes out. I do not see much sense in that either. The others that will really suffer are the industries surrounding that. The member for Mandurah has already received complaints. I have certainly had emails from people worried about their business. One fibreglass business owner is now thinking about shutting down because he believes that people are turning to aluminium boats a bit more than before. He said that the new fishing limits will probably be the end of his business in Bunbury. There are those sorts of people who are concerned because it is not sustainable. It is a money grab. There is no real science in it at all. There are many inconsistencies. It is $45 for a marron licence and it is $45 for a redfin perch freshwater licence—and they are called vermin. Fishers are encouraged to catch them and throw them onto the bank but the government is going to charge $45 for that! My same kids can go and fish off the Busselton jetty for nothing, yet they cannot fish off the bank of the Collie River. That is an anomaly that has been there for some years and should be fixed up. Why should 14, 15 and 16-year-old kids have to pay $45—I think it is half price for kids—to go to the local river and maybe catch one or two redfin perch that are classified as vermin? It is just unfair. I do not think I have seen a crabbing licence in there. There is a crayfish licence. I wonder why? I wonder who has a big electorate running around the side of the estuary? I do not think there is a crabbing licence in there. Dr K.D. Hames: Yes, there is. Mr M.P. MURRAY: I stand to be corrected. Mr D.A. Templeman: Member, this is where it is strange. Fishers can actually go crabbing in a boat and be liable for a fee, but if a fisher is actually crabbing with a scoop net, he is not. However, if a fisher is in a boat and he has a scoop net, and he actually moors the boat or just puts the anchor out and gets out and wades for crabs, he will be contravening the regulations if he does not have a fishing licence for crabs. This is where the confusion comes from. Mr M.P. MURRAY: Thanks for that. The anomalies in there are very silly because who is checking on who is where? Those sorts of things confuse people. People will be wrongly convicted. I can only go by what I have read on this, but 75 per cent of the people who eat fish buy it. We have got 25 per cent of recreational fishermen catching their own fish. There is no tax on the people who buy those fish. If we are going to be right across the board, should there not be a fishing licence for — Dr K.D. Hames: The member wants to introduce a tax on buying fish! Mr M.P. MURRAY: We might be able to put a levy, like a GST, on the back of a bit of fried fish! But we would not know whether it came from Vietnam or wherever. That is another anomaly. Why should the 75 per cent who eat fish not pay a fee for it? Mr I.C. Blayney interjected. Mr M.P. MURRAY: They have a licence, yes. Then a fisher has to pay a water licence of $30 for everyone who goes in the boat. Instead of taking the little boat, it drives blokes to go shares in bigger boats and fish harder. They will share fish—they do it now. A person can buy a half share in a boat but instead of having a 16 or 18- footer, in boat terms, he will go and buy a 30-footer that can go out through the swells, get out behind the breaks and fish deep, and overnight, if possible. The government is changing the fishing culture again to fish harder, because we have paid for it. That is the rule—“I’ve paid $400 this year; I’m going to get my share.” I do not mind paying the $100 over the other levy but when it gets to the $400, if we take our mates out they will say, “Have we got our money’s worth?” It is not about conservation, and that is the problem. It is about people who will fish hard, and harder than they have ever done before, including going our overnight. When fishers trade in the little boats for bigger ones, is that going to reduce the fishing effort? No; it is not going to do that. The government is not winning overall. Get back to proper research, get back to education and get back to more people policing the areas, whether they be volunteers or not. Think about this: in the Shark Bay region the Department of Environment and Conservation had 130 people working in that area. Do members know how many fisheries officers work in that area? Two. That is a disgrace! They have got to sleep some time! People know where the inspectors are. Mr P.B. Watson: That is when you go out! Mr M.P. MURRAY: No way; I do not! But it shows the anomaly that is there—100-odd DEC people there against two fisheries officers. That is just stupid. Dr K.D. Hames: We need more. In order to pay for them, we need more money.

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009] 5845

Mr M.P. MURRAY: This is all about money to cover the Auditor General’s compliance request. It is not about conservation. [Member’s time extended.] Mr M.P. MURRAY: I am all for conservation in any way, shape or form. I certainly practise that. We talk about 75 per cent of people eating fish that are caught professionally, but why are we not working harder on the aquaculture side? We are $200 million a year in returns behind Queensland, which is a comparable state. Three or four reports have been done, and some are still being done, on the issue of aquaculture. Why are we not working harder in that area where we can take some of the pressures off the sea fish? We have acres of land here where we can do it, under pristine conditions. I was recently in Vietnam and saw a toilet block over the top of a fish pond, which was not too nice, but the fish did not taste too bad anyway! People do not want to see that sort of thing. Much research is being done. They have been hampered by red tape. They need help. Let’s get some of that money out of general revenue and give them help. Change the red tape and get them on stream straightaway. Some areas are moving slowly, but in the main a lot of them have gone broke over the years because they are trying to comply with red tape and should be moving on. I have been given a list from a petition that has 581 names. I have selected a few examples. It is a petition that allows a person to make a comment. I will start with the top one — This is the worst attack on our life style i have seen in over 50 years. The next one states — i usually dont do much fishing. On the odd occasion i will be invited along on a boat on short notice. Would be great if i could just throw in a line without all the hassles. The next comment is: “complete rip off!” Rob Miezis, a person I do know, commented — The $30 dollar licence is revenue raising. How can you charge people to catch a few herring, whiting or crabs maybe once or twice a year. “RECREATIONAL FISHING”???? I will not read the next comment; it is not too nice—there are a few of those. A comment from a Mr Tony Moore at Offshore Marine states — Very short sided way of handling things. Yes we need to maintain fish stocks but lets try and educate the fisherman of today and tomorrow to be responsible for the resource we have. I have no problem with a licence but maybe you should have a look at a system that has worked in say NSW. Why try to re-invent the wheel. The next comment is — mr. moore please explain why one of the supermarket— I think this is a fair comment, too — chains is selling what is clearly undersized snapper coming from carnarvon @ $9.99 a kilo hope your decision stands the test of time come the next elections The next comment is — very silly i think, how can a family now go out and enjoy themselves doing something they love, and used to be realistically affordable. The next comment is from Peter Evans — Typical short sighted cash grab by a govt, I am a swinging voter and I think labor are looking good. This govt has cost me, power water gas boat rego and now fishing. So, it is starting to bite. Another comment is — Why not have a red day! If the unfair licence fees are not removed for those not targeting the endangered fish species, The week before the fees are set to begin, we paint every liberal Mps office with the Nazi cymbal off repression of the people, I am pretty sure that will get global media coverage? A Gary McCormick commented — YES! Minister Norman Moore has got it very wrong again. No matter which portfolio he has he gets it upside down. Gee get it right. I will still pay the price to catch fish—even though it is a money grab by the Government and I will still catch fish. No winners here. That is some of the story that I have been telling. A comment from Shane Malycha is —

5846 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009]

This is so wrong. PLEASE take views from actual fisherpersons and bring in overall fishing licence and voluntary logbooks to get a real picture of what is being caught. The drift of these comments is that people are not against conservation; they welcome that. However, they do not see running out and having to spend $400-plus is the right way to go about it. Some have put it in very good terms, I suppose, but I will dodge them. This is a comment from a Tim Froome — Being the owner of two boats and a family of 4 fishers, it looks like fishing will become another activity killed off by beaurocratic stupidity. The lack of insight and understanding of the strenght of the recreational boat fishers market has been overlooked as we spend $1000.00s & $1000.00s on fuel, repairs, bait, tackle, literiture, accomadation moorings ect let alone the purchase of our boats surely we have paid our dues already. These fees will be felt by all the above retailers as they see sales decrease from these actions. COME ON NORMAN THINK AGAIN The next comment is — Financial discrimination wont save dhuies. people will just make sure they get there monies worth. That is something I also spoke about. It just goes on. I will read out a couple more comments because I have a few minutes left. Here is a comment from Tracey McKenzie — Unbelievable….will the fisheries offices be open so that if we decide to go fishing on a weekend when friends drop by and we decide to go fishing on the spur of the moment, as we have done many times, we can get them licenses??? One of the many inconveniences, besides the cost, that have crossed my mind!!! The next comment is from Paul Kerry — I agree in principal that something has to be done to preserve the stocks however, the fee is too high. This has to be the most over taxed society in the world. Car and trailer rego, fuel, insurance, skippers ticket, bait, Epirb, flares, maintenance, pfd-1— Which are lifejackets — VHF radio ticket the list goes on. Fishing has always been a sport for the common man, now it appears only the rich will be able to afford such luxuries. I simply cannot say enough about what these people are saying—it is just so true. This is a comment from Ian Hall — Apply time bans on species and restricted areas. Applying a fee indicates it is a revenue raising project not interested in the actual purpose. To top it off, one comment is — Soon we will have to pay to sit on the beach! I just hope that they do not have a smoke on the beach, as that will cost them as well! Another comment is — I would agree with reducing the bag limit per day, but how about putting more fisheries officers on to police this matter rather than penalising the honest people! I think that has been a very common comment as well. To finish off, one more comment is — I am in favour of preserving fish stocks however, the proposal appears to be a gratuitous attempt to raise revenue. A longer ban would be more appropriate. There are another 500 comments that I could read, but I will not. My personal view is that the government has certainly stepped down the wrong path. I remember going into Scarborough and seeing a big sign, a huge sign, on a fish shop criticising the Labor government about its views — Mr R.H. Cook: Good Lord, no! Mr M.P. MURRAY: I do not know who has that sign. I have just seen that big sign—I liked it so much I would even pay for one that big! However, there was a big sign on the side of the wall. I will not mention names, but I just hope that the sign is changed to reflect the current situation in the near future or that someone does some very, very hard work within the party room so that the sign does not need to be changed. I simply hope that that sort of work is done. But all things aside, I think fishing is one of Australia’s great pursuits. To make the fees too high for family groups to go fishing—which I do not think is going to result in any improvement in the fish stocks, because the science is not there—is the wrong thing to do. To go out and simply chase revenue by doing that is also wrong. Let us think about it again; let the minister have the gumption to come back and say, “Righto, I might have got it wrong.” Let us have the Liberal party room be strong enough to roll its minister and for Liberal members to say

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009] 5847 that the government has got it wrong, as many have indicated, including a few who are sitting in this place tonight. Let us have another look at it. Let us keep this family tradition so that we can go camping and fishing at an affordable cost—I am not saying at no cost but at an affordable cost for families. MR A.P. O’GORMAN (Joondalup) [5.58 pm]: I have a few words to say on this fishing tax that is being introduced in this state. I say at the outset that I am not a fisher by any measure of the imagination. The last time I fished was about 15 years ago when I visited my father in Ireland and he took me to the west coast. We pulled in 96 mackerel in an hour and a half and that was enough fishing for me. Mr R.F. Johnson: Ninety-six! Mr A.P. O’GORMAN: They protect their fish stocks and they are there all the time; they do not have licences. They still manage to protect their fish stocks on a huge coastline with many, many fishers right around the coastline. The thing that struck me about this tax being introduced is that not only did the minister not consult with the industry, which is quite apparent, he actually did not even consult his own backbenchers; he did not consult his own party room. I would like to know whether he actually took the matter to cabinet or whether he just went out and put it in the media and then cabinet had to support it. We had the member for Murray- Wellington saying that $180 a year is a ridiculous amount. An article from The West Australian of Monday, 20 July this year, states — Fisheries Minister Norman Moore faces a backlash from Liberal backbenchers fielding complaints over plans to charge anyone who fishes from a boat a fee of up to $180 a year. Murray-Wellington MP Murray Cowper said he outlined his concerns over the policy to Mr Moore after being inundated with complaints from constituents. He had offered his contacts within the industry but was not consulted before the announcement. He goes on quite a bit about it and then the article quotes the member for Wanneroo — Wanneroo MP Paul Miles said he had had only one complaint from a constituent but was aware of the backlash some colleagues faced. He agreed with the policy but said backbenchers should have had more information. Quite clearly, the minister did not consult the backbench. There are many fishers in the electorate of the member for Wanneroo, and many of them will be knocking on his door in the next few months when they have to start paying this fee. The article further states — Ocean Reef MP Albert Jacob said he expected uproar within his electorate — I expect it, too, because he is right along the coast. I represented most of his electorate at one point in time. There are huge numbers of boats, and a very large fishing community. There is a very large sea sports club out there, and it is holding its annual general meeting tomorrow night. I expect that some motions will be moved at that meeting condemning the Liberal government for the extortionate tax it has just introduced. Mr D.A. Templeman: Is the local member going along? Mr A.P. O’GORMAN: I doubt that the local member will be there. In fact, I think the local member is elsewhere. Mr D.A. Templeman: I will give him a pair if he goes. Mr A.P. O’GORMAN: He will not need a pair, member for Mandurah. The newspaper article quotes the member for Ocean Reef as saying that he had not received a single phone call about the fee. The reason he has not is because they are ringing me very hard and strong. Mr A.P. Jacob: That was the week before. Since the article was printed, I have had many phone calls. Mr A.P. O’GORMAN: He has had many phone calls; okay. I would like to place on record some comments from a number of my constituents and a number of people around the state who have emailed me or contacted my office in one way or another. This is the first one I picked up the other day. It reads — As a resident of Craigie I would like to voice my disapproval at the potential new fishing regulations. This grabs the essence of what the industry is about. Most people in the industry accept that we have to protect our fish stocks. They do not agree with the way it is being done because they were not consulted. The minister was very arrogant to not only the community but also his own backbench, by not even consulting them or giving them the opportunity to have their say in the party room before he announced this. The email continues — I am happy to accept a seasonal closure for the Demersal Scale fish Fishery in fact I think it must be done. Better still, give it a years closure before seasonal closures start and reduce bag limits on top of that, but to charge people for a fishing licence for fishing from a boat is over the top.

5848 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009]

Even a small fee is too much. I regularly take out friends or family in my small dinghy but they would come out only once a year. To expect them to purchase a licence is ridiculous. I strongly believe in preserving fish stocks and we only ever catch what we eat immediately I have had a number of emails in that vein. As I said before, I do not fish but I do go caravanning up and down the state, right along the coast. Every time I go to a caravan park, from Exmouth to Esperance, I notice that families in caravan parks all talk to each other. They talk around the barbecue at night, and they make friends. Some people have caravans and others camp. They have boats, and they invite each other out in the boats. This fishing licence will prevent that, because it will not be possible to invite somebody else out in the boat who does not have a licence and is not prepared to pay $30 for a day. This will impinge on the fabric of our community and how people interact with each other. It is a really ill-thought-out licence that shows the minister’s complete arrogance. I cannot stop saying that. It shows absolute arrogance to people around the state and to the government backbench members that he did not even discuss the licence with before he brought it in. I will go on and read from some of the other letters and emails that I have received. I emphasise that people involved in recreational fishing understand that we must conserve. They understand that there may be a fee, and that the government has to put fisheries officers out there and declare no-take zones. This letter was sent to my office. It is quite a long letter but I will read only certain parts of it. It reads — Excessive and unfair The proposed cost of licences is $30 per annum per person fishing from a boat, plus a further $150 per annum per person fishing for demersal fish. The combined licence cost is $180 per annum per person, discounted to $90 for pensioners and children under 16. I would like you to note the following: — (a) the cost of the equivalent licence in Victoria is $24.50; (b) the cost of the equivalent licence in New South Wales is $30; (c) neither Queensland, nor South Australia, nor Tasmania nor the Northern Territory has an equivalent licence; (d) under the proposed arrangements, Western Australia would be the only state or territory in Australia where children under 18 will be charged to fish; That is pretty outrageous. That is just one part of the letter that was sent to me. A further part of the letter is headed “Alternative strategies”. We have heard members opposite asking what we would do to protect fish stocks. In a moment I will read the words of a long-term recreational fisherman who says that this licence will not help at all because 90 per cent of the catch is taken by 10 per cent of recreational fishers. I will read his comments shortly. Dr M.D. Nahan: That is pure hypothesis. There is no evidence to support it. Mr A.P. O’GORMAN: The government also does not have any data to support bringing in a licence the way it has. It has not had the decency to consult. I am quoting from a letter. Dr M.D. Nahan interjected. Mr A.P. O’GORMAN: The member for Riverton comes in here and mouths off all time, and he quite often does not have any facts either. I am quoting from letters that have been sent to me by constituents who felt they should have been consulted. If the member is quite happy for his minister to come in here and whitewash him, belt him around the ears and say, “Accept what I’m telling you”, that is his prerogative, but people in this state will not do that. I will shortly read some more of the comments from the electronic petition that was sent in. The government will soon realise that people will not put up with its arrogance. The letter reads — Alternative strategies In their readily available publications, the Department of Fisheries concedes that there are alternative management strategies for recreational fishing, — We know that they are already there, because the department has told us — but for some unknown reason are reluctant to pursue measures that are guaranteed of success. One current proposition is to close the demersal fishery from October 15 to December 15, a period of two months, with an expected catch reduction of 15%. These sorts of measures work and are understood and accepted by the public, in the same way that the Western Rock Lobster season is effective and accepted. There are other strategies. Earlier on I was hearing members opposite saying, “What would you do?” All they could suggest was to hit the electors of this state with another fee. Let us hit them in the hip pocket again. We have hit them for electricity and water charges, so why not hit them with fishing fees? What is coming next?

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009] 5849

What is the next tax this Liberal government is going to bring in? Why is it having to bring in all these extra taxes? I think it is probably to pay for royalties for regions, because that has never been budgeted for properly. It is just a cash cow for the National Party to go out and pork-barrel in the regions. The electors out there know that, and I will read one of the comments on this electronic petition that says that. I will first refer to some of the comments that have been sent to me by Bob Grant. He is talking about the 90-10 rule. He writes — As with most other pursuits in life, the 90/10 rule applies to the world of recreational fishers. Successful anglers are the product of learning, experience, thought and lots of hard work. I would agree with that. As I said right at the start, last time I went fishing was 15 years ago, with my father. We pulled in 96 mackerel. The funny thing about that was that we were about 50 metres up a cliff. Mr P.T. Miles: No wonder there are none left. Mr A.P. O’GORMAN: The member for Wanneroo has only ever lived in Australia; he has never got out and broadened his mind. In Ireland they actually do it quite well. There are still plenty of fish in Ireland, and I can prove that if the member likes. Mr M.J. Cowper: Let’s go! Mr A.P. O’GORMAN: We might have a bit of a problem with the member for Murray-Wellington over there! Success comes with actually knowing how to fish, where to fish, what types of line to use and what types of bait to use. That is done by experience built up over a long time. The funny thing about it when I was fishing with my dad was that the guy fishing about 50 metres along the cliff from us could not get a bite, while we were reeling them in. We were worn out from reeling them in. Mr R.H. Cook: I would have been that other bloke. Mr A.P. O’GORMAN: Mostly it was my dad, and not me, because I would have been the other bloke as well. In his email, this gentleman, Bob Grant, reckons the 90-10 rule applies. He states — They fish very frequently, have invested in expensive boats; have the latest technology and over many years of experience have accumulated a detailed knowledge of fish habitats. These 10% of anglers will not be deterred by a $150 per annum licence—they spend considerably more than just on bait each year—and would average over $150 worth of fish every time they go fishing. The West Coast Demersal Scalefish Licence will not affect the 90% of demersal species accounted for by this group. Indeed, it is very possible this licence could have the opposite result with some experienced recreational anglers fishing even harder to justify the additional outlay for the licence. This is already getting into the psyche of these fishers if they have to pay excessive amounts for a licence. They all agree they should pay a licence fee, and most are happy to pay for a licence but agree that it should be a nominal amount. Most fishers agree there should be a way of closing the fishery so that we can allow the fish stocks to regenerate. I will be quick as I know some of my colleagues want to speak in the debate. I refer members to the electronic petition that has come in. I will edit this, because it contains quite a lot of four letter words, and I know that Mr Speaker will sit me down if I dare to utter them. The SPEAKER: Fish is one four letter word. Mr A.P. O’GORMAN: I should say inappropriate four letter words. Comments in the petition read — its a money grab to pay for the nation party deal barnett coned all the fools who voted for his...no money for this no money for that no money for average poples need or plesures its all for barnie rich mates — And I will not read the last bit — this is wrong. you are trying to kill off a healthy outdoor activity. would you rather have the kids sit in front of a playstation/tv all day?? shame on you! no comment needed—this is obviously another rediculous political money grab. This is what people are saying in the community. To continue — Can you honestly expect us to believe this is the best way for you to preserve our fish stocks? You all need another round of think-tankering. this is an absolute rort. i will find myself doing illegal things to pay for this license. That is one comment that really concerns me. To continue — An absolute joke!!! This is just a money grab. No way I am voting Liberal in the next election!!!

5850 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009]

The petition contains numerous comments like that; and I have underlined numerous comments, but I will not go through all of them because I know a number of my colleagues want to speak. Realistically, members opposite need to grab their ministers and give them a big shake. Once the community becomes aware of this type of arrogance from the government, they do not forget. They will vote against the government at the next election. Many times when we sat on the government side we were jeered by the Liberal opposition on this side. We used to read in the newspaper how Liberal Party and National Party members could vote freely in this place according to their conscience. This is the first opportunity for members opposite to prove to us that they can vote freely. All members of the Labor Party admit freely that we sign a pledge to vote with our party, and we stick with our party. We often took the opportunity in our party room to argue with our ministers, and now our leadership. We have done it many times, but we are a united front. What I can say about our leadership and our ministers is that when the back bench spoke about issues in the caucus room, and made their points strongly, they listened. The legislation that came to this Parliament was changed in order that every person in that room could vote without worrying his or her conscience. That is the most important thing for me in this place. If I have to vote on something and it is not feeling right in my gut and is playing on my conscience, then I have to fight it in the caucus room; and fight it I do. I ask each and every government member to do that as well. All government back benchers should have Hon Norman Moore, the Minister for Fisheries, over a barrel in their party room, because clearly he did not consult with them or with the general public. Dr M.D. Nahan: How would you know? Mr A.P. O’GORMAN: A colleague of the member for Riverton said it. The member obviously has a problem with his hearing. Does he want me to read it out again? I will read it again! This is a quote from The West Australian — Wanneroo MP Paul Miles said he had only one complaint from a constituent but was aware of the backlash some colleagues faced. He agreed with the policy but said backbenchers should have had more information. Members opposite have not been consulted. [Member’s time extended.] Mr A.P. O’GORMAN: The member for Riverton is running out; he knows he is wrong. He did not stand up for this policy in his party room and he is not going to stand up for it in this place. Every person who owns a boat in the electorate of Riverton will come out and vote against the member. The member for Riverton is typical of Liberal Party MPs. He is typical of the lily-livered people on the other side who will not stand up for their electorate. Members opposite will not stand up for their electorate when they are pushed to it. In opposition they kept having a go at us, but we can all stand and put our hand on our heart and say that we have had the argument in our party room, and by the time we get to this chamber we all know that we can vote the right way without having pain in our gut or a guilty conscience. MR J.R. QUIGLEY (Mindarie) [6.15 pm]: I shall not take long because I know that other members wish to speak. The electorate of Mindarie has a very active fishing community, and before I was the member for Mindarie I was the member for Innaloo. And when I had hair, which goes back about 30 years or more, I used to be on the committee of the Marmion Angling and Aquatic Club. I have received a lot of submissions from such clubs, and recently received one from the Quinns Rocks Fishing Club. I would like to tell members a little story that relates to the lead-up to the election that was called last year, when I attended at the Quinns Sportsmans Club—a very active club of over 800 people. When I went into the bar and started to hand out my card—I know them all up there: the RSL members, bowlers and down in the north-east corner of the premises, the Quinns Rocks Fishing Club—I got a roasting because of the limitations that the former government was going to put on catches. We were all having a few beers and as a laugh they took my membership card off me, put it up on the dart board and started throwing darts at it. One has to take these things in good humour on the campaign trail! They said to me that I was reducing the Australian right to fish and they would not support me because of what the Carpenter government was doing to protect the fish stocks. Without being vain or boastful — Mr R.F. Johnson: You do not know how to be! Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: Have I ever been vain or boastful in this chamber? Thank you, members. In sincere humility, I remind the house that I still pulled a four and a half per cent swing towards me in an election that went the other way for the then Labor government, and I did that in spite of the opposition of the Quinns Rocks Fishing Club. Recently, members of the Quinns Rocks Fishing Club were beating a path to my door to apologise. They were led by the president, Mr Bert Straw. Bert came in to say, “We are sorry. We did not believe you when you said that the Liberals’ policies would be worse if they ever got into government. You were right, John!” Bert said, “I have got grandchildren, and we like to take them out fishing, but we do not like to take all of the grandies at once. We take one one day and one another day, and when we go out we have to buy them these exorbitant demersal licences —

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009] 5851

Several members interjected. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: Under 16? Those kids are not 12. They are his grand kids; they are young adults. When he takes them out, he has to buy them fishing licences. If he takes another grand kid out, he has to buy another fishing licence to do what families have been doing in Western Australia forever. I am not much of a fisherman, so fish are fairly safe around me. However, I have watched fishermen with good tricks. Mr R.F. Johnson: How old are Burt’s grandchildren? Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: They are over 16. He told me. Mr R.F. Johnson: Are they over 18? Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: I have not got their birth certificates here. The member can come with me to Quinns Rocks Fishing Club on Friday night and explain the government’s position. He should be careful of the darts, however, because they are now aimed at the Liberal Party and not the Labor member for Mindarie. People see this as an out and out tax. They justifiably explain it to me as an out and out tax because the fees are in excess of the administration costs. The fees create a surplus of funds at a time when the government is withdrawing patrol days for fisheries officers. These new tax measures will not protect the species. When I look at the boats parked on the lawns throughout my electorate I wonder where the money has come from. They probably belong to all the miners who have benefited from the boom. There are far more trailer craft in Mindarie than there were in my former electorate of Innaloo, now Scarborough. There are a lot of families in my electorate. The young guys like to buy their boats, come back from the mines and go out fishing. They are not the ones who will be deterred, slowed down or stopped by more tax. The new west coast demersal fishing licence will cost $20 for one day, $60 for a fortnight or $150 for a year. This will not save fish. As the member for Scarborough will tell us, a spool of braid line would cost about $150. Mrs L.M. Harvey: It would depend on the quality. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: At the member’s shop I know it would cost a couple of hundred dollars, but I was talking about Amart All Sports where we could get it for $150. I know that at Harvey’s Tackle in Scarborough it would be a couple of hundred dollars and it would cost more than a licence. People could get through a spool of line in an afternoon by snagging it. This tax will not protect demersal fish. The price that Harvey’s Tackle in Scarborough is charging for the gear would do more to protect demersal fish. Mr M.J. Cowper: It is now Bluewater Tackle World. I would not shop anywhere else. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: I have nothing against Bluewater Tackle World. It is a nice business in a lovely area, with very helpful staff. Mr M.J. Cowper: They also have shops at Willagee and other places. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: I do not know about that; I am a north coast man. Our preferred shop on the north coast is Bluewater Tackle World. When we look at the price of gear to fish and the outlay that people are prepared to pay for tackle, $150 will not slow down the wealthy. Mr R.H. Cook: Bluewater Tackle World is under no threat, I take it. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: None whatsoever. Bluewater Tackle World is a thriving, successful and well-known business, which is not under any threat by these licences. The sorts of customers who buy at Bluewater Tackle World can afford these licence fees. Mr Speaker, that is the second time in a day that my phone has rung. You will be calling me to order unless I get rid of its battery. Then I will be out of the chamber before I have made my comments. I do apologise to all members for that oversight. The working class mums and dads who have to do it on the cheap, who go to Target to buy gear in this economic climate, and who cannot afford whale oil and good burley so they go to the kitchen cupboard to get custard powder to bring the bottom feeders up, will find these sorts of extra taxes the straw that breaks the camel’s back. They will not be able to participate in fishing as a family. As the member for Collie-Preston pointed out, people can buy a scoop net, drive to Mandurah and park near Dawesville Cut. Members will know the shallow, yellow estuary there just north of Dawesville Cut and on the western side. Mr M.J. Cowper: It is Wannanup. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: I thank the member. We go there only for the raids: one slab, a baby bath on a bit of cord behind us and a scoop net. We can do a walk and put the catch over a shoulder and into the baby bath. That is not captured by this of course and there is no fee involved, because it involves not a boat but a baby bath. If we were to go across to the other side of the estuary in a dinghy to get to the shallow water there — Mr M.J. Cowper: It is Boggy Bay.

5852 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009]

Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: I do not know all the names, but if we went over by boat and got out with a baby bath and a scoop net, we would be caught. It does not make sense. This is a straight out and out tax. A tax slows down or stops only those people who cannot afford to pay the tax. It will not stop anyone who can afford to pay the tax. The same applies to smoking and beer; in fact, the alcopops tax is a classic example. The last figures that came out showed that everyone is back drinking alcopops. People forget about a tax or get cheesed off with the government for imposing it. Dr K.D. Hames: Are you having a go at the commonwealth government? Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: I am just referring to the reality of tax through the years. The Deputy Premier might ask if I am having a go at the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister and the alcopops tax, but have we stopped buying and selling investment properties because of the introduction of capital gains tax? The answer is no. People got brassed off and then paid the tax and hated it. This proposal has nothing to do with enterprise, capital growth or capitalism, where everyone ultimately accepted that if people are generating wealth through capital appreciation, there should be a tax attached, even though they were brassed off about it. This is about the most popular family pastime in Australia. Would the member for Scarborough agree? Mrs L.M. Harvey: We do not know because we do not have the data. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: It is the most popular family sport. There would not be a sport that has the participation of fishing. Several members interjected. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: I took all those interjections without getting named. I am very happy with myself. Dr K.D. Hames: When you get out in the water you might see five or 10 boats in the vicinity but that is about all you’d see. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: That is right. It is not like a footy field, the ocean field is enormous; people are located even 20 miles away from each other. It is not like a bowling rink. Dr K.D. Hames: You can tell when you go to the boat ramp. To get the boat out you have to have a boat trailer so you go to where the trailer is parked and see how many boats are out there. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: If the member came to my electorate — Dr K.D. Hames: There are not as many boats as there are kids at a soccer game. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: There would not be as many cars in the boat ramp as there would be kids at a soccer ground. Dr K.D. Hames: That is one ground. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: Each boat would have about three people in it. Dr K.D. Hames: Yes, but there are lots of soccer and netball grounds. What do you think? Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: With your leave, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Order! I have given you a lot of leave. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: Can I withdraw my unjustifiable assertion that recreational fishing is the most popular sport and say that it is a very popular sport. I will take out the pejorative, “the most” and say that it is very popular. Dr K.D. Hames: It’s very popular with me, I’ll tell you. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: Thank you! We do not say that, because the Gumblossom Reserve pumps out a lot of water onto the oval to allow kids to participate in their sport of soccer, we must tax all the kids who play soccer. What I think I might do is gauge opinion at the boat show this weekend from all those boat owners who go along to the boat show to look at all the $50 000 to $60 000 craft there. They are not owned by the people who buy their tackle at Target. Dr K.D. Hames: $60 000 and the rest. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: Yes, and the rest. They will all be cashed-up Liberal voters. Mr R.H. Cook: See what they have to say. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: I want to go down there on the weekend and see what they have to say about the Liberal proposals. Dr K.D. Hames: What are you worried about then? If they are all Liberal voters I am surprised that you are even talking about it.

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009] 5853

Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: I get elected on the back of the Liberal vote in Mindarie. I am concerned about the Minister for Health’s constituency just as I am concerned about families in Mindarie. I am concerned about everyone in this chamber and what adverse effect the licence fee may have on my friend from Scarborough and her tackle shop. I am concerned for the Minister for Health, although I understand that, given his ministerial salary, he will not even break into a gallop as he clears the hurdle of $150. That tax is just a little speed hump to the minister because he has the wherewithal and economic resources to pay for it. To Bert Straw and to that rowdy, boisterous, loveable, fun and entertaining north-east corner of the Quinns Rocks Sport Club where drink the Quinns Rocks Fishing Club, I say to all of them—Liberals one and all—that I will stand with them hip to hip and shoulder to shoulder to rail against the Liberal government’s decision to tax fishing in this way for no sensible purpose. I will see Bert there for a beer on Friday night. MS A.S. CARLES (Fremantle) [6.34 pm]: I, too, have been lobbied by what the member for Albany referred to as the organised groups. Of course I have, because I am from Fremantle. However, rather than being populist and being pressured by them, I have had to seriously consider this issue, and I am concerned by the big picture at stake here, which is that our fish stocks are in crisis. Many constituents in Fremantle are very concerned about the state of our natural environment. They are concerned about the dire state of our fish stocks. This debate is not as simple as saying “support the fisherman or be damned”. Previous fisheries minister Hon Jon Ford moved to reduce the recreational catch by 50 per cent to prevent the collapse of the fish stocks. After an initial delay, the current minister has accepted the overwhelming scientific evidence from the Department of Fisheries and agreed in July this year to somewhat weakened restrictions. Recreational fishing is one of the last activities in Western Australia to which the user-pays principle is to be applied. The Greens support the new licence fee. I do not believe the fees are prohibitive, as we have heard from members opposite. It is $30 a year for a recreational fishing licence and $15 for a child or pensioner. A family cannot even go to the movies for that. This is an annual fee; a fee that sends a message that this is not an infinite, free resource. Mr M.P. Whitely: Occasional fishers such as me might fish once every five years. If I am going to pay a $30 licence fee I will want to make sure I get value for my money. Do you not think the fee will be counterproductive? Ms A.S. CARLES: No, I do not. Mr M.P. Whitely: It will encourage people. It is not an ad valorem tax; it is a one-off payment. Don’t you think it will encourage people to go out and fish to get value for money? Ms A.S. CARLES: No; because I think that fishermen will understand that if they do that, the stocks will deplete even further and, in several years, they will not be able to go fishing. Commonsense will have to kick in. Mr M.P. Whitely: That will be the net effect of this tax. If people pay a fee — The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Fremantle took the member for Bassendean’s objection. He should allow her to respond now. Mr M.P. Whitely interjected. Ms A.S. CARLES: I listened to what the member said and I have responded. I just do not agree with his point of view. I notice that these arrangements will be reviewed in 12 months, and I will be very interested to see the report of that review. The Greens support the measures imposed by the Minister for Fisheries to protect the five finfish populations in the west coast bio region that have been identified as being vulnerable to eminent stock collapse. There is an urgent need to implement adequate no-take reserves. Species such as pink snapper, dhufish and groper are slow growing and long lived and, therefore, particularly vulnerable to overfishing. Not that long ago these particular fish used to be relatively abundant. They are highly targeted in the west coast fishery adjacent to the most popular parts of the WA coast. The increasing number of recreational fishers, combined with the use of sophisticated electronic equipment such as sonar and global positioning systems, have put the population of these species at risk of collapse. These species are also relatively sedentary, making them particularly vulnerable to fishers using a GPS. Existing management tools have proven inadequate with the Department of Fisheries recording a rapid decrease in the size and age of the catch of these key species over the past few years. This argument is a bit like the peak-oil demand dilemma we face. Oil reserves are depleting, so we need to reduce our oil use and acknowledge that oil prices are going to skyrocket in the future. We are dealing with a finite resource here and we are overusing it to the detriment of future generations. We urge the government as a matter of urgency to implement adequate no-take areas in the west coast bio region and elsewhere on the WA coastline to achieve a representative marine reserve system. The multiple benefits of no-take areas, including maintenance of fish stocks as well as biodiverse conservation, are now well researched and understood. Successive governments have failed to implement no-take areas and we are now seeing the consequences of ignoring this important management tool.

5854 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009]

MR J.J.M. BOWLER (Kalgoorlie) [6.38 pm]: Whilst I generally vote with the government, and that is my default position, I must say that I support this motion that condemns these fishing boat licences and licences for fishermen to use. I am in one way surprised and in one way not surprised. I am not surprised that departmental people have proposed a licence that will see them gather more power, more money and the capacity to increase their staffing levels to administer this licence. That is the way of the bureaucracy. I am not being derogatory of our public service. That is just the way they generally work. I am surprised that the Minister for Fisheries, Hon Norman Moore, has agreed to this, particularly as I was part of an industry working group that today released in Parliament a review of approval processes in Western Australia. Basically, it was a review of the red and green tape that the mining industry has been inundated with in recent years. When we become ministers, the public servants who serve us come up with very good ideas for various projects or reasons that we need another approval slip of paper or another licence, and, as ministers, it is very easy to just say yes. Sometimes a minister has to step back and ask, “Is this really necessary? How much money will this raise? What is the good of it?” I do not think these licences will achieve what they are intended to achieve on any one of those counts. They will just increase red tape. The Acting Speaker who vacated the chair before you, Mr Speaker—Mrs L.M. Harvey— is part of another government inquiry into red tape across government processes. Here is a government that is very keen to reduce red tape, but in these areas I believe all that it is doing is producing more red tape. As the member for Fremantle said, these are very small amounts of money. The cost of the increased bureaucracy that will be needed to administer it will probably be double the small amount of money that will come in, so why have it? All we will do is make criminals of Western Australians who do not hold this licence, and it will create no real net financial gain for the Department of Fisheries. It will make criminals of people who may be ignorant of this law or who will try to avoid it. I am philosophically opposed to any new licence per se. I am particularly opposed to these licences. I would like it if, for example, driver’s licences never needed to be renewed. In other words, when people apply for a driver’s licence, the initial price should be increased, and it should be a licence for life. The driver’s licence renewal process in Western Australia results in many Western Australians breaking the law. In my electorate such people, particularly the Indigenous population, end up in jail for driving a vehicle while under suspension. I am not saying that people who break this law will end up in jail, but if people forget to renew their licence and are caught fishing a year later, they will find out that they are breaking the law and it will be just bad luck. Once again, there will be no net gain for the Department of Fisheries, and I do not think it will result in fewer fish being caught. There are other ways to do this, as demonstrated by the previous government, through having no- fishing zones or by imposing catch limits on species of fish that need protection. That is what should be done; the government should police that to ensure that it is done better. People may say that I am the member for Kalgoorlie and ask what I have to do with fishing. Ms J.M. Freeman: They go to Esperance. Mr J.J.M. BOWLER: Exactly. People in my electorate go to Esperance or Perth to fish. Once again, that presents a problem, because they usually go there just for one trip a year. They may be there for only a weekend and be totally unaware of this. They will take their tinnies and go out to the ocean, and they will be breaking the law. Even if they do not break the law and they pay for their licences, it will be a damned expensive couple of fish that they catch. I am opposed to this, and, if it is put to the vote, I will vote with the opposition. I believe this is departmentally driven. I believe the minister is in this case acting against all his normal instincts, because in all the dealings I have had with Hon Norman Moore, he has always tried to reduce red tape and improve government efficiency, and this goes against that 100 per cent. There are other ways to achieve what he is trying to achieve, and I call on the government to scrap these laws in next year’s budget and look at other ways of achieving the same result. MR M.J. COWPER (Murray-Wellington — Parliamentary Secretary) [6.44 pm]: In order to allow other members to speak in the limited time we have, I will try to make this speech as quick as possible. I like fishing. I remember catching my first fish at Walpole when I was a young lad. It was a herring. Since then I have been fishing up and down the coast, including in the Kimberley, chasing barramundi. I got into fishing to such an extent that I became involved in international game fishing, and in 1991 my team won a master’s competition. Prior to that, I also worked on crayfish boats. I have a master 5 skipper’s ticket and a bit of an understanding of the commercial industry. However, my real love of fishing revolves around being with my family and friends. Without being too much of a brag, I am very keen to pass on to my son what I have learnt about fishing. I have here a picture of the first dhufish he ever caught, a couple of years ago. Spending time with my family fishing is something that is very near and dear to me. I think that that is what fishing is about; it is about spending time with friends and family. I am very fortunate that I have a little 14-foot tinny—it can be seen in the background of this photograph. It is only a little Quintrex 15-footer, with a 30-horsepower outboard motor. We have a nice little spot we go to; I am not about to divulge its location, because I am very protective of my fishing spot!

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009] 5855

At one time I had a big 20-something-foot Westerberg boat, and I did a lot of game fishing out of Broome and Dampier when I lived in those places. I got right into sports fishing. At that time the big target was pelagic fish, particularly sailfish and black marlin. I recall that after one of the fishing tournaments held out of Dampier called the Dampier Classic, I went to the rubbish tip and saw all these beautiful sailfish that had been caught, weighed and thrown away. To me, that was disgraceful. These are beautiful animals; the fastest fish in the ocean. In consultation with a group of like-minded people, I strove to protect this particular fishery because I knew that this type of fishing was not a sustainable thing to do. We looked at ways in which we could influence others, and we came up with a tag-and-release system. We used fisheries tags, and when we caught a sailfish we would tag it, release it and enter its information onto a data form. The data would then be sent to a central database in Newcastle, and information was therefore gathered about the health of that particular fishery. I am very pleased to report to members that the days of killing fish in that manner are pretty much gone. The types of tournaments that are now run in Western Australia revolve around the tag-and-release system, of which I am very proud to have been one of the pioneers. Mr D.A. Templeman: Do you have a fish finder? Mr M.J. COWPER: I have an echo sounder in the boat, but the battery does not work. I have one, but I am pretty familiar with the area where I go fishing! I used to spend a fortune at Bluewater Tackle, and the rods that I still have were custom made by the member for Scarborough’s husband. They cost me a great deal of money, but they are very near and dear to me. I have put them away in a safe place so that at some time in the near future, I will be able to pass my knowledge on to my son and perhaps go back and do a bit of game fishing in the north coastal regions. I will be able to pass on to him the knowledge of how to tie a Bimini twist, an Albright knot or a Homer Rhodes loop knot or, for that matter, even do a bit of fly fishing. I enjoy doing a bit of saltwater fly fishing, in particular for sailfish. All in all, if we are to have a fishing industry in the future, it is the recreational fishermen who need to understand that they need to protect our fisheries. I would hate to have been the Minister for Fisheries, either former minister Hon Jon Ford or the current Minister for Fisheries, because they have had some very difficult decisions to make. I have heard the debate about how terrible this tax is. It is a tax; I do not retreat from that. There will have to be an appropriation bill brought to this place, and this debate will obviously take place at some time in the future. I have some difficulties with this, which I have raised with the minister. I have spoken to him in person, I have written to him and I have spoken to him on the phone about this. I am not convinced that the way that this money is raised will save the fishery. That is exactly the concern I have. I have the documents on which the minister based his decision. Anyone who wishes to access them can grab them if they are interested. The fact remains that we have a declining fishery. Everyone agrees that something must be done but no-one likes the outcome that has occurred. I have received numerous calls from constituents and from people across the fishing industry about the closing of the season, but I was getting those before we formed government. I know what the previous government promised, and the member for Mindarie touched on what that might have been. He said that he had received some negative comments. If we are to have a licensed fee arrangement, I want to know that that money will be used to save the demersal fishery by being spent on establishing a breeding program or on better education or better research. That would sit more comfortably with me. Although this matter is partly about raising revenue, it is primarily about trying to reduce by 50 per cent the number of fishermen who catch our demersal fish. Some members have said that 10 per cent of the fishermen catch 90 per cent of the fish. That is not quite right. At the briefing on this matter, I asked the research officer what the figure was and he told me that 30 per cent of the fishermen catch 70 per cent of the fish. Reducing the number of fishermen by 50 per cent will not reduce the number of fish that are caught by 50 per cent. I believe that what the new member for Fremantle has said will happen will eventually happen, although I am not convinced that that is necessarily the way to go either. Certain things can be done. We could prohibit fishing in particular regions, limit the season, introduce licences or reduce the number of fish that people are allowed to take. Currently a person can take only two demersal fish, but that number could be reduced to one. We could also introduce a breeding program and look at the issue of barotrauma. We must revisit whether we can get rid of size limits. For the uninitiated, when an undersized fish is brought to the surface from 40 metres underwater, it is released back into the environment, but inevitably it will die. Someone could catch two, three or four of undersized fish before catching one that is the right size. Potentially, four breeding fish would not reach full maturity and help replace the fishery stocks. We must examine a range of issues. The minister must engage more on this matter. I am happy to help the minister in any way, shape or form. Like many other people in Western Australia, I like to go fishing with my mates or with my son to pass on those traditions. I am concerned that the current licensing arrangement will not achieve what it is meant to achieve. I believe that in fewer than 12 months we will continue to be faced with the massive problem of a disappearing fishery and that further action will be required. I would like to think that we could take a step backwards and

5856 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009] examine a holistic approach to the problem and attack it from there. This is a short-sighted remedy to a problem that will not go away. It is in all of our interests to do what we can to save the fishery. I understand that the opposition has moved this motion to beat us around the ears. I suspect that if we were on the other side of the chamber when Hon Jon Ford introduced his regime, we would have moved a similar motion. However, at the end of the day we are just arguing semantics. All members are here to represent their constituents so that in the future they can enjoy fishing with their families. The one-upmanship and who did what is irrelevant because that will not save the fishery that we all like to enjoy. MRS L.M. HARVEY (Scarborough) [6.55 pm]: I am very fond of recreational fishing. Looking at the time, I realise that there is far too little time for me to address every aspect of the proposed changes. I am probably different from other members because my husband and I have a significant financial interest in the recreational fishing sector. Indeed, I have derived my income from the recreational fishing sector for the past 16 years. Some members might be surprised, therefore, to learn that I am a great supporter of recreational fishing licences. My support comes from a number of different angles. I support the member for Kalgoorlie’s stance on deregulation and believe that it is probably good to apply for a driver’s licence only once. However, upon obtaining a driver’s licence, a person does not hit the road and drive non-stop for three months to get value out of the $50 or whatever was spent getting the licence. The suggestion that someone will act similarly because they have paid $30 for a recreational boat licence is utter nonsense. My support for recreational fishing licences comes from cruising the Department of Fisheries website and looking at the available data on the “State of the Fisheries” reports. I invite other members to do that because it is quite illuminating. The “State of the Fisheries Report 1998-99” asserts — Western Australia’s recreational fisheries are a major community asset, and contribute in excess of $500 million a year to the State’s economy. Since 1987 the participation in recreational fishing of all kinds has more than doubled from 284,000 people to between 500,000 and 600,000 people a year … How much are 100 000 fishers worth to a fishery each year? This is the kind of data that we have about recreational fishing. I went through all the “State of the Fisheries” reports thinking that surely the data has improved over time. I read the “State of the Fisheries Report 2004-05”, which is the same report as the 1998-99 report. The same figures are quoted. There is no improvement in the data or in the statistics. I believe that another creel survey was conducted over a 12-month period by 2005-06, which has helped to contribute to a little more information. Two surveys were done 10 years apart yet still there has been no improvement in our knowledge of the people who are accessing the recreational fishery. I have heard some wild accusations in here, including the assertion that 90 per cent of the fishing catch is caught by 10 per cent of the fishers. Prove it. Where is the data? There is no supporting empirical evidence to show that that is a fact. Saying it over and again does not make it true. It is the same for the assertion that 30 per cent of fishers catch 70 per cent of the catch. There is no data or statistics to support that. The only way that we can get a true picture of who is accessing the recreational fishery is to have a licensing system. We need to introduce a licensing system so that people must declare it if they access the fishery. Mr M.J. Cowper: And a logbook. Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Talk about regulation, member! Whether it is a voluntary logbook or a compulsory logbook, personally, I do not want to go out on a boat with my husband and two kids and watch them with their life vests on while at the same time I am filling in a logbook for every fish they pull up. Talk about regulation and red tape. That would not help either. A voluntary logbook is like a voluntary gym membership. I pay through the nose for that but I do not get to use it every week either. We are relying too much on people’s ability to shake themselves out of their apathy to contribute to the science. Clearly, we can no longer rely on the “State of the Fisheries” reports. Since 1998, we have not found any more evidence or put in place any better mechanisms than before and therefore we still do not know who is using our fishery. If I sound passionate and upset about this, it is because I am. I have been making my living out of this industry for 16 years. Still there is no better data than there was in 1998 and no-one can tell me how many people use the fishery. Other options are available. The minister has said time and again that a licensing system is one of the mechanisms that will be used to help manage the fishery. The other things we must look at are reduced bag limits and seasonal closures. We are introducing a seasonal closure. The reason that I was so vehement about the previous minister’s proposal is that we were looking at a shutdown of the fishery for the four most lucrative months of the year. A shutdown of that industry would have killed our four businesses, the charter boat industry and everyone else in the industry from the north of Kalbarri to the tip of Augusta. That would have been the end of the industry—game over. That is not a viable solution. Perhaps in 12 months that is where we will be at. Let

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 August 2009] 5857 us find out who is accessing the fishery and how much they are catching. Let us put their names into a database. We must find out the names of the 10 per cent of people who go fishing every week and ask them what they catch and where they catch it. We might then have some relevant data that we can use to make decisions instead of relying on conjecture and rhetoric. I do not like excessive regulation. The member for Cockburn admitted that we do not know what the take is because there is no scientific evidence to support it. Debate adjourned, pursuant to standing orders. House adjourned at 7.00 pm ______