Legislative Council

Tuesday, 5 May 2009

THE PRESIDENT (Hon Nick Griffiths) took the chair at 3.30 pm, and read prayers. BILLS Assent Message from the Governor received and read notifying assent to the following bills — 1. Prisoners (Interstate Transfer) Amendment Bill 2009. 2. Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill 2009. FIRST HOME OWNER GRANT AMENDMENT BILL 2009 Statement by President THE PRESIDENT (Hon Nick Griffiths): On Wednesday, 8 April 2009, the First Home Owner Grant Amendment Bill 2009 was read a first time, and debate on the bill was adjourned at the conclusion of the parliamentary secretary’s second reading speech. Standing order 230A applies to the bill. I advise the house that the bill now stands referred to the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review. ESPERANCE PORT — LEAD CARBONATE REMOVAL Statement by Minister for Transport HON SIMON O’BRIEN (South Metropolitan — Minister for Transport) [3.32 pm]: I would like to update the house on the removal of the Magellan Metals lead from Esperance. Members will recall that the town of Esperance was contaminated with lead carbonate during the handling and loading of this concentrate at the Esperance port during the period April 2005 to March 2007. On 15 March 2007, the Department of Environment and Conservation—DEC—issued a prevention notice under section 73 of the Environmental Protection Act prohibiting the export of lead carbonate from the Esperance port. Since that time, about 8 500 tonnes of lead carbonate have been stranded at the Esperance port. Magellan Metals, in association with the Esperance Port Authority, developed a lead removal plan for the safe removal of this stranded lead. That lead removal plan was ultimately approved by DEC in conjunction with other relevant agencies such as the Department of Health and the Department of Mines and Petroleum. The plan has been adhered to in the removal of this stranded lead. The lead carbonate has been placed into double-lined two- tonne bulka bags, which have then been placed into shipping containers and subsequently sealed. These operations have been carried out in the shed operating under negative pressure. The emissions from the exhaust system of the shed where this bagging operation has been carried out have been continually monitored during this process. There has been no detectable lead in the exhaust emissions during the bagging and containerisation process. This is most important to the Esperance community. I am pleased to advise that the lead carbonate has now been exported from Esperance. The first shipment of 600 tonnes was exported in late March. A second, larger and final shipment of 329 containers of about 8 000 tonnes departed from Esperance to China last night. The shed in which the lead had been stored will now be dismantled, and the shed materials will be disposed of safely. Consideration of the statement made an order of the day for the next sitting, on motion by Hon Ed Dermer. METROPOLITAN RAILWAY — ELLENBROOK EXTENSION Statement by Minister for Transport HON SIMON O’BRIEN (South Metropolitan — Minister for Transport) [3.35 pm]: I rise to update the house on developments in the government’s election commitment to an extension of the rail network to Ellenbrook. I advise the house that this government is progressing plans for a study of rail services to Ellenbrook. To honour the government’s election promise, the Public Transport Authority—PTA—called for tenders in December 2008 to define a rail route to Ellenbrook. Tenders closed on 22 January 2009, and bids were received from eight consultants, with prices ranging from around $500 000 to $1.5 million. The PTA considered that before that level of expenditure was committed, some more basic preliminary work was required and advised me accordingly. The PTA has recommended to me that a pre-feasibility study should now be undertaken to provide strategic advice to the government to assist the government in making a decision about how best to serve the area with

3188 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009] public transport. I have since agreed to this recommendation. The PTA commenced the required work at the end of April and will provide the government with a preliminary report by the end of August 2009. I assure the house and the community that there is no cancellation of plans, nor is there any decision not to proceed with planning for public transport links to Ellenbrook. Before construction of any railway, strategic advice is always sought by the government to study issues such as the likely patronage; the social, environmental and heritage issues; and alternative public transport options. That work is required before proceeding to a more detailed planning and design stage of any feasible transport option that may emerge. Consideration of the statement made an order of the day for the next sitting, on motion by Hon Ed Dermer. PAPERS TABLED Papers were tabled and ordered to lie upon the table of the house. COUNTRY AGE PENSION FUEL CARD Statement by Minister for Regional Development — Tabling HON WENDY DUNCAN (Agricultural — Parliamentary Secretary) [3.39 pm]: As the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Regional Development, in accordance with section 82 of the Financial Management Act 2006, I seek leave to table a statement made by the minister on Tuesday, 5 May 2009. Leave granted. [See paper 707.] CITY OF WANNEROO STANDING ORDERS LOCAL LAW 2008 — DISALLOWANCE Notice of Motion Hon Shelley Eaton gave notice that at the next sitting of the house she would move — That the City of Wanneroo Standing Orders Local Law 2008, published in the Government Gazette on 21 November 2008 and tabled in the Legislative Council on 3 December 2008 under the Local Government Act 1995, be and is hereby disallowed. BILLS Notices of Motions to Introduce 1. Statutes (Repeals and Minor Amendments) Bill 2009. 2. Child Exploitation Material and Classification Legislation Amendment Bill 2009. Notices of motions given by Hon Simon O’Brien (Minister for Transport). PUBLIC TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE Urgency Motion THE PRESIDENT (Hon Nick Griffiths): Members, I am in receipt of a letter in these terms — Dear Mr President Pursuant to Standing Order 72, I hereby give notice that today’s sitting I intend to move; That the Council consider as a matter of urgency, the current Liberal National Government’s lack of ongoing planning for and construction of public transport infrastructure in Western Australia. The letter is from Hon Ken Travers. In order for Hon Ken Travers to move his motion, at least four members should stand. [At least four members rose in their places.] The PRESIDENT: I invite Hon Ken Travers to move his motion. HON KEN TRAVERS (North Metropolitan) [3.42 pm]: I move the motion. I move this motion because we have long had debates in this state about public transport. To develop and enhance our public transport system requires constant planning and construction work. Two significant issues currently face this state, and probably the world—one is climate change, and the other is providing job creation stimulus for people in the community. It is generally accepted these days that infrastructure projects are a good way of creating jobs because they have a very high multiplier effect and flow-on impact throughout the community. One way of dealing with those issues in Western Australia is to build public transport infrastructure. It would address the problems of climate change and create jobs for the future. The previous government had three different public transport infrastructure projects on the go in the metropolitan area, and a number of emerging projects in regional Western Australia that would build and enhance our public transport infrastructure.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009] 3189

The metropolitan area projects included the extension of the railway line to Butler and Brighton; the development of the Ellenbrook railway line; and the development of the airport railway line. The airport railway line has been often talked about, but it would actually be more than an airport railway line; it would also be a foothills railway line. The plan was for it to run via the airport and also service a large section of the community situated behind the airport whose access to Perth is effectively blocked by the airport. At the beginning of the year, I actually began to think that the government had finally got it. Hon Simon O’Brien: What was the third project? You mentioned the rail line to Butler. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Butler, Ellenbrook and the airport—three railway line services. At first it looked as though the government had cancelled the Butler rail service project, but in February the Premier announced that, as a result of the review and in recognition of the need to provide stimulus, the government would get on with the job of extending the railway line to Butler and Brighton. That was part of a package of measures designed to create economic stimulus. The heading of an article that appeared in The West Australian on 13 October 2008 suggested that the Premier would make the rail link a top priority. Another article was headed “Barnett full steam ahead”. Sorry; those were the wrong quotes. However, in February there was a general acceptance that the Butler railway line would go ahead and that it would become a priority for the government to get on and build the Butler and Brighton railway line. In question time recently, I asked the Minister for Transport what was happening with the railway line extension to the northern suburbs: when would it start, and when was it likely to be completed? One would expect that if these projects were a priority, the government would be getting on with them. The minister answered that the government was considering the matter, along with a number of other infrastructure priorities, in framing the state budget. In February, we were told that this project had become a priority; by 8 April, it was suddenly back into the mix of projects for the purposes of considering the budget. When I asked the Minister for Transport about the cost, I became even more concerned about the answer I was given. He said that any announcement to extend the northern suburbs railway line would include an estimated cost of the works. Did that mean that the project was not going ahead? I also asked for details about estimated patronage, and was given an answer outlining estimated patronage for 2016. Media reports that came out at the time of the Premier’s announcement back in February referred to completion of the rail line by as early as 2010; the previous government had anticipated to have it completed by the end of 2012, and 2016 is another four years on. We need to find out from the government whether it is still committed to the Butler railway line, whether it is a priority, and whether it is a project that the government recognises as a stimulus measure for creating jobs in the community. Is the government going to get on with it, and is it definitely going to happen? The minister needs to guarantee to the house today that construction will start on the Butler railway line and that it will be completed during this term of Parliament. Will it be open during the term of this Parliament? This is a project that could create a significant number of jobs and help to reduce greenhouse gases. If this stimulus package project was urgent back in February, the government should be getting on with it now. The minister should not be providing the sorts of answers he has been giving to the house, which lead us to question whether this project will even go ahead during this term of government. It was interesting that the minister today tabled a statement to the effect that the government was completely committed to the Ellenbrook railway line, and that claims by the opposition that the government is walking away from its commitment to the Ellenbrook railway line are false. However, let us examine this in a little more detail. During the election campaign, the Liberal Party made a commitment, as did the Labor Party, to commence construction of the rail line by 2012. That is a very important date, because the construction project for the Butler rail line would have created jobs up to 2012 and then, to provide continuity for workers in that area, there would have been another opportunity to create jobs on the Ellenbrook rail extension. That was the approach. During the last sitting of Parliament it was revealed that a planned study had been cancelled, which the minister referred to earlier today. My notes taken from the Tenders WA website state that the Public Transport Authority is to develop a railway link from Ellenbrook to connect with the existing train services on the Midland line. This involves railway alignment definition, engineering definition of structures and impacts on roads and utilities, location and concept development of stations, integration with land use, examination of environmental social heritage and costs for the rail link. That is a very detailed study designed to actually get on and build the railway line. Hon Simon O’Brien: Did you kick off any of that when you were in office? Hon KEN TRAVERS: We said we would be getting on with it. I do not have the time this afternoon to go through the history of the Liberal Party’s record on public transport infrastructure—particularly with railway lines—but I hope one of my colleagues will be able to give the house a little reminder, and compare the Labor Party’s record on it. We stand proud; the Liberal Party has never delivered a centimetre of railway track in its time.

3190 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009]

Hon Simon O’Brien: I shall be delivering some centimetres of railway for you; don’t worry! Hon Ken Travers: It has never delivered a centimetre of railway track in the metropolitan area—full stop! Hon Sally Talbot: It closed them down. Hon KEN TRAVERS: The Liberal Party closed railway stations down. A very important definition study had been planned that would have gotten right into the detail of where the route would go, where the stations would be situated, how the route would interact with the existing road network and the like. The study the minister has spoken of today is not a study along those lines. It is a study that will decide what public transport system the government will provide to Ellenbrook. I note that in its budget submission the Royal Automotive Club of WA suggested that the way to go was to actually cancel the railway line and commission a study to ascertain the best public transport system. If that is the case, the government should at least be honest about it. If it has decided to explore the public transport options for the Ellenbrook area, it should be honest and admit that it is breaching its election commitment. It should not try to tell us that it is still building a railway line if it knows it is doing a study into whether there should be a railway line. Let us be honest and say that we know this government will deny that and claim it is still building a railway line—deny it, deny it, deny it. Then a document will be produced that states that the best way of serving Ellenbrook is by some other public transport system such as buses. If it had been up to the Liberal Party, the Murdoch railway station—the busiest station on the Mandurah line—would be serviced by buses, not the fast, direct train route that is there today. If the Liberal Party had had its way, we would have had a bus service down the Mitchell Freeway instead of the railway line. All of those are now great success stories. This study is about ditching the railway line and moving towards servicing Ellenbrook with bus transport. It is not about developing the railway line; it is about deciding how to best service the area with public transport. That is not a commitment to a railway line; it is a study into trying to get out of an election commitment, minister. Be honest about it! Do not try to hoodwink the people of Ellenbrook because they understand where this government is heading. Another great disappointment is the shelving of the airport railway line that would have also serviced the foothills east of Perth. A combined federal-state study had been undertaken, and what happened? The Premier walked in on day one and during his first interview on 6PR said that it was off the agenda. The federal and state governments worked on this proposal to examine the timing involved and to develop the proposal for an airport railway line, and it is now off the agenda. I want the minister to tell me today whether the Liberal Party is still considering a railway line out to the airport; or is the line that was taken by the Premier now the line of the government, which is to can it? Unfortunately, time does not allow me to talk about the numerous other regional projects that will not go ahead, but will the government give a commitment today that the Australind rail service will continue to operate? Will it give us a commitment that it will buy the rail carriages that need to be replaced during this term of government because of the ageing rolling stock on the Australind line? Will the government give that commitment today? If it gives these commitments, is the minister prepared to stand and say that he will resign if they do not go ahead? We have regional rail freight and the Greenbushes project, which are not public transport, but they are still very important transport infrastructure projects. Hon Simon O’Brien: What about the railway you shut? People in glass houses! Hon KEN TRAVERS: We were well on the way to getting it back up and running again. Hon Simon O’Brien: No, you weren’t! You tried and failed umpteen times! Hon KEN TRAVERS: There are numerous projects that will help deal with the greenhouse gas issues and the climate change issues that we are faced with today, but, more importantly, there are a range of projects that would create jobs. If the extension of the northern suburbs railway line to Butler, as well as to Brighton—as proposed by the government, which is fantastic—is started, it could be completed by 2012. The government could then move on to the construction of the Ellenbrook railway. We need a clear commitment from this government today because we are getting mixed messages, such as about the study to even have a railway line to Ellenbrook. We know the record of the Liberal Party on these matters: it has had a history of promising and never delivering. I remember when I was a new member of this Parliament and I used to challenge the then Liberal-National Minister for Transport about the railway line to Clarkson. I kept being told it was going to happen, but it did not happen until Labor was elected. It was the same situation with the Greenwood railway station. The very same pattern is occurring today with the way this government is operating. HON JON FORD (Mining and Pastoral) [3.56 pm]: I thank Hon Ken Travers for moving this urgency motion, because it is very important. I will talk about boating facilities such as ramps, moorings and jetties. Hon Simon O’Brien: In a public transport sense, Jon? Hon JON FORD: In a public transport sense.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009] 3191

Recreational facilities and public transport facilities—the way that people access the water for a whole range of things—are important. They must be strategically managed. Some weeks ago I listened with interest to the minister talk about increasing licensing fees for boats, and then talk about reinvesting those fees into boat infrastructure facilities such as boat ramps. The interesting thing about that and how it relates to this motion is planning. As a former fisheries minister, one of the things I have always objected to in answer to the steady call for more boat ramps is that it can be an input control. It is important to consider overall access and placement of boat ramps. Who uses boat ramps? Depending on where they are, the users may be commercial water taxis or recreational fishers. I notice that the Swan River now has a motorised Venetian gondola that goes up and down the river. Hon Simon O’Brien: Gondolas, gondolas, gondolas! Hon JON FORD: That is the word! I thought it was a little out of place but it is quite cute! The placement of boat ramps is important, as is how many vehicles are allowed into those areas, and that should be covered in the planning. One of the reasons there has always been difficulty in dealing with those issues is which category it comes under. The minister talked about whether it is a public transport issue or a recreational issue. Is it the responsibility of the Department for Planning and Infrastructure? When I was Minister for Fisheries I was always asked that question, and as the opposition spokesperson I am asked the same question. We need to sort out where it fits. It is also important to consider access to water when planning major developments. Karratha is a great example of what happens in a big resources boom when cashed-up people move to an area and buy lots of big boats and there are no corresponding plans. There is no ability to plan for the future. Commercial fuel jetties are another issue. The Department for Planning and Infrastructure enters into contracts with consortiums of people, some of whom are recreational people and some of whom are commercial people. They pay a large amount of money to go into partnership to supply fuel to all manner of vessels, whether they be recreational or commercial vessels or whatever. However, there is no consistency in how cost-recovery arrangements are applied. I understand that cost recovery in the metropolitan area is between 1c and 2c a litre, and cost recovery in areas further north is between 5c and 7c a litre. Because there does not seem to be agreement on how to police cost recovery, people bypass the infrastructure that has been paid for by taxpayers in partnership with commercial entities and fuel their vessels from tankers and out of drums in their cars, and that undermines the original cost-recovery effort that was planned. I also refer to marinas for commercial boats. The new marinas are typically being used by large vessels, such as ferries, charter boats and private boats. I am advised that people are being told that if they want to buy a pen, they must buy a five-year lease up-front, because that is the amount of cost recovery that is required. If they go out of business within two years, they will lose their lease, which cannot be transferred. The message in all of that is that there does not seem to be a coherent plan for managing these facilities. This is a problem that successive governments have not been able to address. It is becoming a bigger and bigger issue every month. The government needs to address this problem in a coherent manner. My colleague Hon Ken Travers was worried about not being able to go into the history of rail and other public transport, so I will touch on that matter. As Hon Ken Travers has said, the history of this state shows that successive Liberal governments have never invested in a single inch of rail line. Hon Simon O’Brien: Centimetre, actually; you’re out by 250 per cent. Hon JON FORD: Were we talking about centimetres in 1977? Hon Ken Travers: Centimetre, inch—you haven’t done either. Hon JON FORD: No. The Leader of the House was elected to this place in 1977. In 1979 the then Liberal government closed the Fremantle railway line. In July 1983 Labor reopened the Fremantle line. Hon Simon O’Brien: Good old Burkie. Hon JON FORD: I looked at all the people who were in Fremantle for May Day and imagined what it would be like trying to get to Fremantle if there were no Fremantle railway line. It is the centre for festivals. An incredible number of people catch the train to the Claremont Showgrounds. I do not know what the government of the day was thinking at that time. In November 1987 Labor committed to the northern suburbs rail line. In 1987 Labor introduced the new Australind service. In September 1991 Labor introduced electric trains to the metropolitan rail system. In December 1992 the northern suburbs railway line commenced. In 1998 the Liberal government sold Westrail Freight Pty Ltd. I think it sold the Midland railway workshops at the same time. It was probably the biggest training base for hard metals trades in the state, and we have struggled to supply skilled tradespeople ever since. I think the Liberal government promised that it would not do that, but that is a different story. In October 2004

3192 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009]

Labor opened the Clarkson extension. In August 2005 Labor opened the Thornlie spur. In December 2007 Labor opened the Mandurah line. Importantly, one issue in the state that needs to be addressed is the grain rail, and there was a bit of talk about that. There have been various commitments from various ministers in the government to address that issue. Hon Simon O’Brien: You’re straying away from the subject a bit. Hon JON FORD: I hope that during the Liberal Party’s time in government, it will have an opportunity to break its record and build a bit of rail line. I encourage the government to think much more broadly in a world which is suffering environmentally and which needs good public transport. Every time I am in Kings Park and I see the train going south, I think that we are finally cracking it as a modern city. However, there is a lot more work to do. We would like to see a coherent transport plan for the state. HON RAY HALLIGAN (North Metropolitan) [4.06 pm]: It is interesting to hear from the first speaker, Hon Ken Travers, about this situation, knowing full well that he is my colleague in the North Metropolitan Region and he would be aware of some of the issues associated with infrastructure, or the lack thereof, in that region. One such issue is the lack of car parking around some railway stations on the northern line, particularly at Warwick and Greenwood. The second speaker, Hon Jon Ford, mentioned planning. I believe that might well be seen, certainly by members on this side of the chamber, as somewhat hypocritical. I just spoke about the lack of parking around some railway stations. Where was the planning associated with that? Where was the planning associated with the Mitchell Freeway and the number of lanes that were made available? If sufficient planning had been done, space would have been made available for additional lanes to be used or otherwise. We are aware that a great deal of money has been allocated to and/or spent on two iconic pieces of infrastructure, both of which are south of the river. I have spoken in this chamber about them before. If the planning is to utilise all the surpluses in one year on one project, I do not consider that is in the best interests of all the people of Western Australia, particularly when there is an argument that there is a lack of planning for infrastructure and, more importantly, now that we are in an economic crisis that is a world phenomenon. This country and this state are caught up in this crisis, whether or not we like it. This government does not have the surpluses that the previous government had for so many years. Where was the planning for the infrastructure back in those days? It was non-existent, except for these two iconic pieces of infrastructure that individual ministers wanted to ensure that they put their thumb print on. While I am talking about planning for one of those iconic pieces of infrastructure, the then Minister for Health had to agree that the plans for Fiona Stanley Hospital were changing repeatedly because the initial work was not undertaken. There has been criticism of this government looking into the pre-tendering process, for want of a better term, and undertaking a cost-benefit analysis of all the variables associated with what is being proposed. When Fiona Stanley Hospital was being mooted, it was proposed to be one of the best hospitals in the state, and no doubt it would have been, but at that point in time the number of operating theatres to be included was unknown. The previous Minister for Health had to admit to Parliament that the number had changed because the doctors suggested they wanted more. What happened to the consultation? What happened to the planning up to that point in time? It appears that it was non-existent. If we are talking about transport infrastructure and its benefits in the light of climate change as it is called, do members opposite agree with Mr Rudd that all the moneys that have suddenly been sent to a great number of people throughout Australia is the way to go? Why was some of that money not used for transport infrastructure? Hon Ken Travers: Your government didn’t ask the federal government for any money for public transport. Hon RAY HALLIGAN: Dear, oh dear! So are Mr Rudd and Hon Ken Travers’ colleagues in Canberra blinkered and know nought about what is happening here in Western Australia or in other parts of Australia? Several members interjected. Hon RAY HALLIGAN: That is a ridiculous argument. The federal government, at a parliamentary level, is wanting to take over all the government operations throughout Australia. Hon Ken Travers: Who said that? Hon RAY HALLIGAN: They do; they are all centralists. They want to take over the running of this country. Many of them want to do away with state government and have only local government with one federal government in control. If they are going to sit blinkered over in Canberra, who will ask them the questions that the current opposition suggests need to be asked? Who will make the requests that should go forward? No federal member from Western Australia spoke up. I know not where it would need to come from. Hon Ken Travers interjected. Hon RAY HALLIGAN: It was possibly from letters to the editor of The West Australian. Is that where they expected to receive the request from? There are plenty of federal Labor members in this state. What have they been doing for this state? I suggest that they are doing absolutely nothing. Several members interjected.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009] 3193

Hon RAY HALLIGAN: Members opposite are putting forward the argument. I suggest they get to their feet later and explain to members — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Put your pen down. Hon RAY HALLIGAN: It is a pity it is not a paperclip. The PRESIDENT: Order! A number of us have been in the house for quite some time, and by that I mean a number of years. We all know that the best way to assist members to deliver their speech is to interject on them. Hon RAY HALLIGAN: The argument being put forward by the opposition is a spurious argument. All members opposite ever do is refer to railways and suggest that that is the only form of public transport. If the opposition had its way, we would not have any aircraft, particularly not jet aircraft; our planes would be propeller driven. That is the only possible way they can see people moving around this state. Hon Ken Travers: Are you saying that we should consider a bus way to Ellenbrook? Should we consider that? Hon RAY HALLIGAN: We must consider all forms of transport. Everything must be considered. We have to undertake a cost-benefit analysis. We must determine the variables. We certainly need to know the likely numbers associated with the movement of those people. A cost-benefit analysis must be done or we will end up with a situation similar to that with the Mandurah railway line. Members opposite continually talk about how good it is. They have spoken about a success story. They should define success. Hon Ken Travers: People are using it. Hon RAY HALLIGAN: Big deal! If two people a day are using the Mandurah line, are members opposite saying that is a success story? Hon Ken Travers: Are you saying that it is not a success? Hon RAY HALLIGAN: No. This is exactly what members opposite do each and every time. When they cannot provide an answer, they try to put it back on the member who is questioning them. That is exactly what is happening at the moment. I asked for a simple definition of success and it cannot be provided. Are members opposite suggesting that the cost of $2 000 million for a railway line to Mandurah, which will cost millions upon millions of dollars every year in operational losses, is a success? Prior to members opposite calling it a success, they have yet to determine how many people need to use it. But they are unable to do that. They have calculated nothing; they have planned nothing. All they ever wanted was to put their thumb print on a railway line to a particular destination. The cost to the people of Western Australia this year or for the next 50 years matters not. All members opposite want to be able to say is, “We built it.” It matters not to them that it might bankrupt the state. They do not plan; they do not manage. Hon Ken Travers: Ellenbrook railway is not going to bankrupt the state. Hon RAY HALLIGAN: I ask again for members opposite to give me a definition of success. I hear nothing; it is non-existent. It never came through because they cannot provide it. They have not defined success. They have not determined what a successful operation is. Hon Ken Travers interjected. Hon RAY HALLIGAN: I have asked three times. Hon Ken Travers: The success of the Mandurah rail line is determined by the fact that more people are using it than was predicted by either your master plan or our master plan, and the numbers are way up on it. HON PAUL LLEWELLYN (South West) [4.16 pm]: I find it interesting to see where this debate takes us. The wording of this motion simply refers to the government’s lack of ongoing planning for and construction of public transport infrastructure. However, the motion is far too broad; it might have been better for the wording to refer to a more focused proposition. The Greens (WA) are very committed to planning for transport and for public transport infrastructure. However, I would like to put on the record right now that that does not mean just rail. It means we must have a rational network of rail, bus transport, light-rail services, good public cycleways and pedestrian access with appropriate densities in our urban areas. This is not an all-or-nothing rail or bus argument; this is about what we should be doing to get the right mix. I refer back to first principles: why do we need a public transport plan for Western Australia? The two overarching reasons in the Greens’ view are as follows. It is true that we need to address the energy intensity of our current transport system and the long-term security of our energy in terms of peak oil. We need to get ready for the impending decrease in our oil supplies. We also need to address climate issues, but that is not absolutely essential to a good public transport strategy. We also need to look at the implications of economic stimulation and job creation through new infrastructure proposals. In the Greens’ view, there are a number of compelling reasons that we should be going down the path of a good transport infrastructure plan, not the least of which involves consideration of energy—I refer to peak oil—climate change and the creation of liveable urban areas.

3194 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009]

With the movement of people, we must avoid congestion in our urban areas, for example, and achieve some rationality in the way we organise our cities in terms of public transport. The motion refers generally to public transport infrastructure; it does not really address rail freight and so on, although we have strayed into those areas. If we were to take public transport infrastructure and look at what would be required, we would want it to be networked, convenient, fast and reliable. We would want to have connectivity so that people can easily interconnect between buses, trains, bicycles and pedestrian access, which means we must have proper population densities. The Mandurah railway line extends from Perth right down to the south. I travel on that railway line from time to time. There are four-lane highways on each side of the railway line. The rest of the land is sterilised by very large transmission lines, which means that people cannot live near the railway line. This creates a whole series of problems about the usefulness of the railway line. It means that people must drive their cars to the railway nodes. The railway nodes become congested because there are not enough parking lots. There are therefore some serious problems with the way in which the Mandurah railway line was set up in the first place. Senator Scott Ludlam, the Greens senator for Western Australia, has put forward “Light Rail for Perth”, a light- rail transit plan for Perth. In that plan he sets out plans for a whole series of light-rail radial spurs along arterial routes. Those radial spurs would be interlinked with good bus services. A good public transport plan must have all the elements of good connectivity, good population density, reliability and meaningful destinations. Currently, some of the state’s railway lines, and particularly the Mandurah railway line, do not have meaningful destinations. We need to look at that whole matter. Hon Ken Travers: You need some spur lines to be developed and then fill in the network. Hon PAUL LLEWELLYN: We spent a lot of money, and I tend to agree. My view, which is not necessarily shared by all Greens, is that we should have spent that money on radial and light-rail networks that were interconnected with good bus transport and so on. We should then have good urban densities and good connectivity, so that we have meaningful destinations for the public transport infrastructure. This is good public planning. This is what the Greens have put on the table through Senator Scott Ludlam’s light-rail plan for Perth. I encourage the Minister for Transport to look at Senator Scott Ludlam’s light-rail plan for Perth, because it is one of the most well-thought-out propositions on the books at the moment. Another consideration is how we pay for large-scale public infrastructure. I would like to introduce the topical issue of emissions trading. Emissions trading will result in a significant revenue take across all energy transactions in the economy, which could go into funding rail transport infrastructure; that is, not only rail transport infrastructure for population centres and public transport, but also rail transport infrastructure for freight lines, the agricultural region and so on. I would like to put on record right now that this is a federal and state responsibility. If emissions trading came into being and a price was put on carbon, part of that resource would go into funding large-scale public transport infrastructure and building an enormous network for light rail and heavy freight transport and would also help reconfigure the urban landscape so that transport would become cost effective. If we are talking about good investment, we need to be investing money in a cost-effective way, not on a wing and a prayer that somehow or other the area around the Mandurah railway line will be populated in the future, because that assumes that the current bad urban planning will be extended into the future. We believe that there should be more consolidation of the urban landscape to accommodate public transport in a rational way, because we simply cannot do it like that again. Hon Ken Travers: That is what we were doing. That is what Wellard railway station is about. Hon PAUL LLEWELLYN: I fully accept that we should look at the light rail proposition from Senator Scott Ludlam, which is on his website. I will briefly touch on regional transport because we need to look at it. We should not be gutting the regional rail networks—not right now, because right now is the most important time for us to be consolidating the regional networks. As a member representing the South West Region, I believe that the Australind rail link should have five or seven services a day, not two. We should have a program for building the use of that service. The Bunbury to Manjimup line should be re-opened and it should have rail freight as well as public transport. The rail network in the wheatbelt should certainly be kept. I come back to the fundamental argument of who pays for all of this and what are the consequences. My view is that the funding should not simply come out of state consolidated revenue but really needs to be funded by large- scale national programs, such as the emissions trading arrangements. That will generate the economic stimulus that we are talking about. Last night on the Lateline program Don Voelte of Woodside said that he would lose the opportunity with emissions trading of $30 billion worth of gas fields. That may well be true, but there will be $30 billion worth of other investment that will happen, not necessarily in gas fields but in public transport infrastructure and renewable energy technologies across Australia, so there is no loss.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009] 3195

HON SIMON O’BRIEN (South Metropolitan — Minister for Transport) [4.28 pm]: I rise to offer a response to some of the issues that have been raised by the mover of the motion and others. The substance of the question is indeed very broad, but specifically it refers to planning for and construction of public transport infrastructure. In addressing the question, the mover did not talk about busways or ferries—a most cost-effective and pleasant form of public transport in this state. He did not talk about the taxis and taxi infrastructure mess that had been left by the last administration. He did not talk about the structure of the state’s regional airports or issues relating to intrastate air routes. He did not talk about free public transport for seniors. He did not talk about infrastructure associated with the NightRider bus services, which are there to assist in trouble spots — Hon Ken Travers: Move for an extension of time, and I will be happy to. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: The member had his time—50 per cent more than I have. He moved a broad motion, yet he did not want to raise all these important matters. He did not even mention cycleways. One of his colleagues, Hon Jon Ford, who is normally a thoughtful person but must have just about been sent to sleep by Hon Ken Travers who was his lead-in, wanted to talk about recreational boating. Again, I am quite happy to talk about that as well. Members opposite all have notes to remind them about 1979 and a decision to close the Perth to Fremantle train service. That was 30 years ago. They should go back to high school and get over it. Plenty of occasions can be demonstrated when a government of this persuasion did this, this and this, and plenty of other occasions when a government of another persuasion did this, this and this. It does not matter what the broad areas of public policy are; I am sure that those involved in the debate could come up with some aspect of public policy and achievement for which either accolades or criticism could be given. I will not waste time responding to Hon Jon Ford by pointing out how it was Labor that cancelled the Canning Vale railway without any consultation and all the improvements that railway would have meant for people along the whole length of the Armadale railway line. Members of the former government do not want to talk about how they delayed the completion of a train service to Mandurah, Thomsons Lake and Rockingham, and all places in between, by several years and blew out the cost by a factor of 100 per cent. They do not want to talk about other elements of infrastructure that they tore down at great public expense for that particular exercise. I do not particularly want to talk about it either; I want to address the motion, which talks about the future planning and construction of public transport infrastructure. My colleagues and I made an election commitment to develop a master plan—a blueprint, if you will—to integrate future public transport services in Perth. The work to develop a master plan commenced just after the government took office. There does not need to be any fanfare about it, but the work is going on. The work is going on because it was not done by the former government. I want to address all those matters that have been raised—and then some—in due course. I have raised most of them in my brief remarks so far. Perhaps Hon Paul Llewellyn and Hon Ray Halligan came closest to alluding to the need for rhyme and reason in what we are doing. That is what proper planning is all about. If the Labor Party had understood that one of its great failings was that it always tried to get the media and the publicity right before it even started to think about the correctness of its policies, Western Australia may have made more progress. However, Hon Ken Travers wants to talk about only three projects that were on the go at the time of the change of government. Three projects that were on the go! I listened to hear which three projects were on the go only to find that none of them was on the go under Labor. None of them at all! Let us take them one by one. The first was to extend the railway to Butler. Hon Ken Travers wants to know whether we have now reneged on an undertaking given by the Premier in, I think, early February that we would extend the northern rail to Brighton. That was a public undertaking! The budget will be out next week, and Hon Ken Travers wants to know where are all the plans, what date the project will start and what time the first person will put the kettle on! I do not have all the details and I am not prepared to table that information right now because the planning for the rail to Brighton has not finished, as the member well knows. Brighton is where the railway should be extended to. I look forward — Hon Ken Travers: You could start construction to Butler today. It is all there to go to Butler today; it is ready to go. Your department has advised you of that. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: The trouble is that when the member’s colleague, the former minister, gees him up about some of these things, she forgets to tell him certain things that he needs to know before he comes in here and starts leading with his chin. One of the first things that the member will be acquainted with—he will not have to demand it under freedom of information or come in here and demand to know—when I make sure he is briefed, as soon as it is available, about the rail extension to Brighton and about the compelling business case — Hon Ken Travers: But why don’t you start on construction to Butler now? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Hon Ken Travers does not understand that there is a compelling business case for building a rail line to Brighton that far exceeds and is superior to the case for building only to Butler. Why does he not know that? I will show him all the figures, and I will brief him nice and gently and — Hon Ken Travers: I know the arguments.

3196 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009]

Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: No; he does not know the facts because he did not do his homework! While Eric and Ljil were at Exmouth having holidays in August, the then Premier visited the Governor, without any reference to his colleagues. That is how well organised and how good Labor Party planning is! The former Premier visited the Governor and called an early election, ensuring members opposite had to make policy on the run, saying, “We’re going to build a railway to here; well, no we haven’t got a master plan, yet but we are sure there is something coming.” Point of Order Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Mr President, I do not think it appropriate for the member to refer to “Eric and Ljil”; it is Hon Eric Ripper and Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich. Hon Ken Travers: Or the member for Belmont and Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich. The PRESIDENT: Please continue, Minister for Transport. Debate Resumed Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I had no idea that my dear shrinking violet of a friend was so sensitive about such matters. If she does not want me to involve her in debate, that is fine. Hon Ken Travers has also tried to beat up the Ellenbrook situation. I made a ministerial statement in the chamber today. I can tell members something else about Ellenbrook; it was raised as a — Hon Ken Travers interjected. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Does the member want to hear this or not? Ellenbrook was raised as a last-gasp, another on-the-run commitment by the Carpenter government, during the last election. I remember seeing Hon Graham Giffard, as he was then, whacking in a post somewhere out there in a seat that Labor did not, in the end, win—probably because people saw through them. The Liberal Party matched that commitment for $53 million to commence construction, but when we came to government we found that there had been no planning work done at all. Figures had been plucked out of the air. The likely cost, and this is without escalation, is going to be more than $1.285 billion. We came to government and said, “Righto, let’s have a look at the plans”, but there were no plans! The Carpenter government made a promise and committed itself to another colossal amount of expenditure, having done no homework at all. The reason we are having to do that work now is that Labor did not do it before the election. Furthermore, although the then Labor government had not done its homework and we now have to do that work, members opposite want also to know about an airport railway. This is another thing that we are examining for which those opposite again did not do their homework. That is why we are pursuing the public transport blueprint—so that this can be investigated properly. HON SALLY TALBOT (South West) [4.07 pm]: Hon Simon O’Brien is remarkably agitated by this debate. He was actually looking reasonably calm. While members have been following the debate on this excellent motion by Hon Ken Travers, the minister remained relatively calm and, indeed, made some quite constructive interjections and got his notes together; that is, until his colleague Hon Ray Halligan stood and gave us the most extraordinary commentary on the Liberal’s policy, approach and attitude to public transport. I could see Hon Simon O’Brien getting more and more nervous about the direction his colleague was taking. Hon Ray Halligan seemed to be completely mystified by the way a public transport system is judged to be successful, which is whether it is meeting the needs of the passengers who are using the system. I suggest that Hon Ray Halligan take a train trip to Mandurah at any time of the day or night — Hon Ray Halligan: I have been on more trains than you have had breakfasts! Hon SALLY TALBOT: I doubt that, Hon Ray Halligan. I doubt that. I suggest that if the member takes a trip any time of the day or night, he will see trains full of people. He can see them from the freeway. He does not even have to catch a train if he is allergic to them. For heaven’s sake! What on earth is the member saying when he talks about building new trains and bankrupting the state? The Labor Party built the Perth-Mandurah railway debt free—something that we on this side of the house will always be proud of and something that will always be appreciated by the electorate. I do not know how members opposite can express any doubt about or be mystified by the success of the Perth-Mandurah railway. The Public Transport Authority and Transperth websites demonstrate the public satisfaction ratings. The section about trains demonstrates that between 86 and 92 per cent of passengers are satisfied. If we break the figures down and look only at passengers on the Mandurah railway line, it is clear that 96 per cent of Mandurah passengers are satisfied with the system. I would like to spend five minutes with the remaining four per cent talking about things such as the trains running on time, the availability of seats and the quality of the transport. We have heard an absolute string of nonsense from the other side, so I am not surprised that Hon Simon O’Brien was a little rattled when he got to his feet.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009] 3197

The other thing that I think must be very disconcerting when one has the misfortune to be sitting in the seats opposite us is the truth of the fact that these people who are now in government never built one centimetre of train track during their last two terms in office—not one centimetre of train track! Indeed, not only did members opposite not build train tracks, but they sold off what we had and they closed it down. It is no good for Hon Simon O’Brien to say that that was a long time ago. The people who use that train system today do not think it is a long time ago; they associate the minister’s party with closing train lines and they associate our party, the Australian Labor Party, with building train lines. I will not take up much more of the house’s time because I know other people want to make a contribution to close this debate. HON KEN TRAVERS (North Metropolitan) [4.41 pm] — in reply: I would have been more than happy if we had had the time to have the debate about all the different levels of public transport infrastructure, such as whether the government is getting on with ordering the buses that we need and all the other issues, because an integrated system is needed. I do not disagree with that. Light rail is a part of it, but we need to develop densities to sustain light rail. However, we need the spine—namely, the heavy rail system, which means putting in place the Ellenbrook, Butler, airport, Mandurah, northern suburbs, Midland and Fremantle lines. They are the key spines of our public transport system and we must work to integrate those and mix them together. However, I thought two very telling points came out this afternoon. Even though he cannot quite bring himself to say it, it was made very clear that what the minister is talking about is that the government is not committed to an Ellenbrook railway line; it is committed to a study into whether to have an Ellenbrook railway line, which is very different from its election commitment. Its election commitment was to build the Ellenbrook line starting in 2012, and the minister has made it very clear today that the government is now looking at whether to build a railway line or to provide some other form of public transport. The other issue that I thought was interesting — Hon Simon O’Brien: We will provide an appropriate solution. Hon KEN TRAVERS: An appropriate solution, but that may not be a railway line. Is that not right, minister—it may not be a railway line? Hon Simon O’Brien: Are you committing a future Labor government to spend whatever it costs? Are you? Because you haven’t done your homework, mate! Hon KEN TRAVERS: I am holding the minister accountable to his election commitments. He gave them and he cannot sit there and say, “Oh, but we were just copying Labor so you can’t hold us responsible now for our election commitments because it wasn’t really my commitment; I was just copying.” If the minister was at school, he would be sacked for that! He would be kicked out; he would be expelled for copying. Another thing that came out very clearly is that the government is not committed to the Butler railway station, but only to a Brighton railway station. Motion lapsed, pursuant to standing orders. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COUNCIL (WESTERN AUSTRALIA) AMENDMENT BILL 2009 Introduction and First Reading Bill introduced, on motion by Hon Donna Faragher (Minister for Environment), and read a first time. Second Reading HON DONNA FARAGHER (East Metropolitan — Minister for Environment) [4.44 pm]: I move — That the bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the National Environment Protection Council (Western Australia) Amendment Bill is to implement nationally agreed minor amendments to the National Environment Protection Council (Commonwealth) Act 1994. The bill is uniform legislation and its amendments will ensure Western Australia’s legislation complies with the 1992 intergovernmental agreement on the environment, which called for commonwealth legislative changes affecting the commonwealth act to be incorporated into corresponding legislation in all states and territories. The National Environment Protection Council is responsible for making national environment protection measures with the objective of ensuring that all Australians enjoy the benefit of equal protection from air, water, soil and noise pollution wherever they live. The National Environment Protection Council also works to ensure that decisions by businesses are not distorted and markets not fragmented by inconsistencies in the adoption or implementation of environmental protection measures across jurisdictions.

3198 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009]

For its part, Western Australia will continue to contribute significantly to national environment protection standards, primarily through its active involvement with the National Environment Protection Council’s seven national environment protection measures which cover ambient air quality; air toxics; assessment of site contamination; movement of hazardous waste between jurisdictions; the National Pollutant Inventory; diesel vehicle emissions; and used packaging materials. In 2001 the commonwealth, state and territory acts were reviewed as required by section 64 of the commonwealth act. In responding to the review, the National Environment Protection Council concluded that substantial progress had been made on issues of national environment protection and only minor amendments to the legislation were needed. These amendments are the establishment of a simplified procedure for implementing minor variations to the national environment protection measures, allowing the National Environment Protection Council Service Corporation to provide support and assistance to other ministerial councils, and the introduction of five-yearly reviews of the act. At present under the Western Australian act, every variation to a national environment protection measure, regardless of its significance, must go through a widespread, resource-demanding consultation and impact assessment process. A new streamlined process for minor administrative variations, such as correcting name changes to organisations, will enable changes to be made without a complete revision of the national environment protection measures. The proposed amendments also mean that minor variations can only occur after agreement by the ministers on the National Environment Protection Council. This will enable Western Australia to consider the impact of minor variations before committing to them. Any proposed variations that would substantially alter a national environment protection measure—for example, by changing monitoring procedures—would still require the implementation of the full statutory public consultation process. The establishment of five-yearly reviews will provide an instrument for the National Environment Protection Council to continue to meet the requirements and expectations of the Australian community. The third amendment in this bill is in response to a Council of Australian Governments review of ministerial councils, which has resulted in the National Environment Protection Council now meeting jointly with the Environment Protection and Heritage Council. This expanded council also deals with environment protection and heritage issues previously dealt with by the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and the heritage ministers’ meeting. The remaining amendments contained within the bill are administrative in nature and will have no significant impact on Western Australia. The amendments within this bill have been implemented in commonwealth legislation and mirrored by our state and territory counterparts. I commend the bill to the house. Debate adjourned and the bill referred to the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review, pursuant to standing orders. SHIRE OF BRIDGETOWN-GREENBUSHES STANDING ORDERS LOCAL LAW 2008 — DISALLOWANCE Withdrawal of Notice By leave, on motion without notice by Hon Shelley Eaton, resolved — That motion for disallowance 1, “Shire of Bridgetown-Greenbushes Standing Orders Local Law 2008 — Disallowance”, be withdrawn from the notice paper. COMMUNITY PROTECTION (OFFENDER REPORTING) AMENDMENT REGULATIONS (NO. 2) 2008 — DISALLOWANCE Withdrawal of Notice By leave, on motion without notice by Hon Shelley Eaton, resolved — That motion for disallowance 2, “Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Amendment Regulations (No. 2) 2008 — Disallowance”, be withdrawn from the notice paper. ADDRESS-IN-REPLY Amendment to Motion Resumed from 9 April on the following amendment moved by Hon Sue Ellery (Leader of the Opposition) on 18 March — That the following words be added to the motion — but regrets to inform Your Excellency that the government has failed to adequately address a number of serious issues affecting Western Australia

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009] 3199

HON GIZ WATSON (North Metropolitan) [4.49 pm]: I rise to make some comments in the Address-in- Reply, and I note that we are also debating an amendment to the motion moved by Hon Sue Ellery. I want to thank the Governor, Dr Ken Michael, for his address to the thirty-eighth Parliament. As is usually the case, the Governor’s address to the Parliament maps out the course for the incoming government. We note that in that tradition the Governor’s speech sets out the key objectives or the key outcomes that the incoming Liberal- National government has for its term. I note, of course, that they cover a range of areas. In particular, an area that is clearly a new program for the Liberal-National government is the royalties for regions program, which is high on the agenda. The intent of this program is to revitalise regional Western Australia. It is a good program and it is a good objective. The Greens (WA) have taken a keen interest in the issue of sustainable regional development and ensuring that regional development is sustainable not only in social and economic terms, but also in terms of environmental criteria. However, the issue that I want to talk on today is the other matter that has been flagged by the incoming Liberal- National government, and that is the opening up of the state to uranium mining. That is not a matter that was touched on in the Governor’s address, but it is clearly part of the agenda to push ahead with mining being a key industry for WA. However, the prospect of mining uranium in this state is, of course, a significantly different prospect from anything we have dealt with before. It is interesting to note that the formal agreement between the Liberal Party and the Nationals singles out royalties for many future uranium mines specifically, despite the fact that the Nationals have no formal policy position on uranium mining. In fact, we have coined this royalties for radiation, which is something to look forward to, no doubt. I am sorry; I forgot that Hansard does not record irony. That was an ironic comment! Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Mind you, it doesn’t usually, but it will pick that one up. Hon GIZ WATSON: Okay. The decision by this government to give the green light to uranium mining has profound consequences for the environment and for public health—very long-term consequences—and contamination risks that make asbestos and lead mining look safe. We know that this state already has a history with those two minerals, and one would think that we would have learnt by now. There are inevitable accidents, spills and poor practices, similar to those that we have seen and experienced with asbestos and lead. Even today in this house we are still dealing with the aftermath of the lead contamination at Esperance. It is interesting to note that the ministerial statement that was given earlier today addressed the issue of the lead that was contained within the sheds. The lead that is still spread around the town is still just that: spread around the town. Therefore, although it is reassuring to know that the large amount of lead that was in the sheds has gone, the ongoing contamination has not been dealt with, and that is exactly the problem when substances such as lead particles get out into the broader environment. It is very hard to get them back in and contain them. I want to spend the time that I have today talking about uranium again, because I seriously believe that members in this place, including government members, are intelligent people, and if we had some understanding of exactly what we are dealing with and why digging up uranium is a really bad idea, perhaps we would reconsider on the grounds of public health and environmental impact. It is not just another mineral to be dug up and shipped out. Uranium is the heaviest naturally occurring element. Natural uranium consists of 99.3 per cent uranium-238 and 0.7 per cent uranium-235. Uranium is unstable or radioactive, and decays into slightly lighter elements that are also unstable and decay further. Being unstable means that uranium has excess internal energy. Uranium is sought after exactly for this quality, because it is able to fission or split apart and produce vast amounts of energy. Uranium occurs mostly in oxide form. Due to the age of the continent of Australia, uranium oxide is relatively abundant in Australia. Geological processes over long periods have resulted in uranium being found in ore bodies in sandstone, breccias complex, and intrusive, metamorphic and superficial deposits. A few uranium ore deposits outcrop at the surface, presenting a major localised radiological risk. However, the majority are below the surface and present negligible radiological risk. The geological structures that hold uranium are relatively stable; hence the slogan that is often used that the only safe place for uranium is to leave it in the ground. The process of mining and milling uranium ore exposes uranium and its decay products to the environment, to erosive and dispersal processes and to people. Significantly, the milling of the uranium produces huge quantities of much finer, talc-like particles that are much more mobile via the wind and water, and are therefore much more likely to be ingested. At a typical ore grade of 0.3 per cent uranium oxide, 99.7 per cent of the ore is left as finely milled solid waste, which is also known as tailings. In Australia, on average, for every one tonne of uranium extracted, there are 848 tonnes of mill tailings and approximately 1 152 tonnes of combined low-grade ore and waste rock. For example, Olympic Dam in South Australia—comparisons are being made between mining uranium in Western Australia in the same way and under the same conditions that uranium is mined in South Australia—has

3200 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009] generated 70 million tonnes of radioactive waste covering several hundred hectares. The waste dump is growing at a rate of nine million tonnes a year and, with the current expansion proposal, could reach 70 million tonnes annually, reaching a staggering eight billion tonnes by the end of this century. This area, which is the area of waste material that has to remain isolated from the environment for tens of thousands of years, will eventually cover—wait for it—several hundred hectares to a height of 30 metres. People will be able to see it from the moon. The exposed radioactive uranium ore, tailings and waste rock emit energy as alpha, beta and gamma radiation. Gamma radiation is in the form of gamma rays, which are similar to X-rays but more energy intensive, and they can penetrate the body. Alpha radiation comes from subatomic particles that, if ingested by breathing or swallowing, for example, dust containing uranium and its decay products, can inflict more severe biological damage than any other form of ionising radiation. Beta particles are fast-moving electrons, and are much smaller than alpha particles. They can penetrate up to two centimetres of human flesh. When alpha particles are ingested—they are the ones that are in the dust—they have a propensity to lodge in the body and irradiate the body from inside. Alpha particles, like all forms of ionising radiation, have been linked to cellular damage, leading to effects such as cancer or cell mutations. Therefore, alpha particles operate in a very similar way to asbestos particles in that they can lodge in the lung, and that is where they cause the cellular damage. Even at relatively low doses, ionising radiation can cause damage to the genetic code, or DNA, of living organisms, including humans. If DNA abnormalities caused by radiation are passed on to the next generation, the abnormal coding can lead to tissue abnormalities, typically cancers. Because cancer will take many cell generations to develop, it may take a few decades before it is detected, as is the case with most cancers. If the damage to the DNA occurs in the egg or sperm, the mutation or coding error may pass on to offspring, potentially resulting in birth defects and cancers. We know that there is no safe level of exposure to radiation; that is accepted in the scientific community. Any increase in exposure results in an increased risk of cellular damage. Interestingly enough, women are significantly more vulnerable to radioactivity than are men. Children are even more susceptible because they are growing, and sites of rapid cell division are more susceptible to cellular damage. Female children can be up to 40 times more susceptible to radionuclide exposure than are men. Debate interrupted, pursuant to standing orders. [Continued on page 3209.] NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COUNCIL (WESTERN AUSTRALIA) AMENDMENT BILL 2009 Referral to Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review — Statement by President THE PRESIDENT (Hon Nick Griffiths): Members, before we move to questions without notice I advise that the National Environment Protection Council (Western Australia) Amendment Bill 2009 stands referred to the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review, pursuant to standing order 230A. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE BEDFORD YOUTH HOSTEL — DEMOLITION 392. Hon KATE DOUST to the Minister for Child Protection: I refer to the Bedford EAS site. (1) Is the fire-gutted former youth hostel building to be demolished? (2) If yes, when? (3) If no to (1), why not? (4) Will a new youth hostel be built on this site? (5) If yes to (4), when will work begin? (6) If no to (4), why not? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: I thank the honourable member for the question. (1)-(6) The Bedford fire was a terrible thing. It was very fortunate that nobody was hurt in that fire. The former hostel will be demolished and there will not be another hostel built on that site. It is the view of the

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009] 3201

Department for Child Protection and me that we will move children into four-bed hostels. That is a better system than the old style of hostel. There was some talk about the Disability Services Commission buying that site. I cannot confirm that, but I am happy to provide the member with an answer at a later date. STATEWIDE BROADBAND NETWORK — REPLACEMENT WITH NATIONAL BROADBAND NETWORK 393. Hon KATE DOUST to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Science and Innovation: I refer to the government’s decision to scrap the state broadband network. (1) When will the minister release his new strategy for broadband in Western Australia? (2) How does the minister plan to pursue an expedited rollout of the national broadband network? (3) Does the minister still intend to improve regional backhaul capacity using a site-specific approach? Hon BARRY HOUSE replied: (1) The department is currently working with the Department of Treasury and Finance and key agencies to develop the new strategy in state telecommunications procurement, which superseded the previous statewide broadband network strategy. This new telecommunications procurement will be released during the next financial year and will provide opportunities for industry to compete in the provision of broadband telecommunication services to the whole of government. The department is also developing new strategies to address deficiencies in mobile communications coverage in regional and rural areas of the state. (2) The department is working closely with the commonwealth government and is in the process of submitting proposed routes for NBN optic fibre backhaul transmission, which will be focused on the following areas: the Perth north backhaul transmission route, including Dongara, Geraldton, Carnarvon, Port Hedland, Karratha, Broome, Derby, Fitzroy Crossing, Halls Creek, Wyndham and Kununurra; the Perth east backhaul transmission route, including Northam, Merredin, Southern Cross, Coolgardie, Kalgoorlie and Boulder; and the Perth south backhaul transmission route, including Mandurah, Bunbury, Busselton, Augusta, Margaret River, Manjimup, Pemberton, Denmark, Albany, Ravensthorpe and Esperance. The backhaul transmission route will cover a significant number of regional and rural communities, and provide connectivity for the Square Kilometre Array project and major industries in the mining, energy and resource sectors. The backhaul transmission will be the basic building block in the delivery of “Fibre to the Premises” under the national broadband network initiative. The department will provide assistance to the commonwealth government to expedite this process and to ensure that the best possible outcome can be achieved for the state. (3) The department aims to improve telecommunications services in regional, rural and remote areas of Western Australia through a targeted approach, where feasible. At this stage, the department is still working with the commonwealth government on details under the national broadband network, and will not be able to finalise any site-specific targets until such time as the commonwealth government is able to make a decision on the NBN backhaul transmission route. BHP BILLITON — SECTION 45 REPORT 394. Hon JON FORD to the Minister for Mines and Petroleum: I refer the minister to the section 45 report into BHP Billiton’s safety management, which was due for completion by the end of April 2009, and which was mentioned in the minister’s recent statement to the house on Wednesday, 1 April 2009. (1) Has the report been completed? (2) Has the minister received the report? (3) Will the minister table the report? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) The State Mining Engineer commissioned the report in accordance with the provisions of the Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994. The report was delivered to the State Mining Engineer on 30 April 2009. (3) I will discuss this matter with the State Mining Engineer.

3202 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009]

INTRASTATE AIR SERVICES — DEPARTMENT FOR PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE REVIEW 395. Hon KEN TRAVERS to the Minister for Transport: I wish to take up the minister’s invitation to ask questions about the intrastate air services review. (1) Has a decision on the review been made? (2) If not, when will it be made? (3) When will the community and industry be informed of the decision? (4) Is the minister aware of concern in the community about this review and, in particular, about Western Australia’s vital tourism industry? (5) Will the minister rule out total deregulation of intrastate air services? (6) Is the minister aware of the need to provide licence agreements of sufficient length to allow for investment in modern aircraft and tourism promotion? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable Dorothy Travers, and I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question! Hon Ken Travers: Give us the right answer, and I’ll be happy to ask dorothy dixers every day! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Bless you, my son! I will try again. I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) At this stage, I am carefully considering all the information that has been gathered as part of the comprehensive review process, and I am also consulting with other ministers and industry. (3) The community and industry will be informed of my decision as soon as it is made. (4) I am aware of the concern in the community and industry about the outcome of the review. Therefore, it is important that my decision is derived from careful consideration of all pertinent facts. (5) As part of the review process, the issue of total deregulation was discussed but not recommended. It was discussed as part of the review, as the member will see when he receives a copy in due course. It is not part of government policy; I want to make that quite clear. (6) Yes, I am aware of the need to provide licence agreements of sufficient length to allow for investment in modern aircraft and tourism promotion. This is a very important decision and it was right for the member to ask this question. I reassure the house that it is my very strong and uncompromising view that the air services that are currently available to various airports in regional Western Australia need to be preserved and to continue to be made available to the communities that are served by them. If there is to be any change at all to the level of services, it ought to be for the better; it is as simple as that. I look forward to making decisions, after proper consideration and proper consultation, to deliver those outcomes. DAYLIGHT SAVING — ENERGY, WATER AND PHYSICAL ACTIVITY AUDITS 396. Hon GIZ WATSON to the Minister for Energy: I refer to the answer to question without notice 361 regarding the monitoring of energy consumption during the three summer daylight saving trials. (1) Does the minister consider that the report of energy consumption trends during the daylight saving trial should be released as a matter of high public interest in the lead-up to the 16 May referendum? (2) If no to (1), why not? (3) If yes to (1), will the minister release the information well before the referendum? (4) If no to (3), why not? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) Information on energy consumption trends during daylight saving is available from the websites of Horizon Power and Western Power. If the member has difficulty in finding that, let me know, and I will assist her.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009] 3203

FOSTER CARE — RECRUITMENT CAMPAIGNS 397. Hon BRUCE DONALDSON to the Minister for Child Protection: Will the minister give an overview of the results of the foster carer recruitment campaign, and also comment on statements in The West Australian attributed to the Community and Public Sector Union? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: I thank the honourable member for his very important question. On 29 March 2009, the Department for Child Protection launched a major foster care campaign, utilising the song You Raise Me Up So I Can Stand on Mountains—that is what we want for all our children. We wanted to recruit 250 new general foster carers by 2010, but within that recruitment we would like to also attract emergency foster carers and short-term foster carers. Recruiting and attracting foster carers has been a major reform. As at 31 March 2008, 3 187 children were in the care of the chief executive officer, and 905 general carers were registered. This figure of children in care is anticipated to increase by eight per cent in 2008-09, following an increase of 13 per cent in 2007-08. Foster carers are desperately needed to ensure that these children have quality care. As at 1 May 2009, the campaign had prompted a total of 545 inquiries: 407 from the metropolitan area and 132 from the country, with six not specified. I have been on the radio asking for foster carers and talking about foster carers, and I have met some amazing foster carers during this campaign. They have such huge hearts to be able to take other children into their homes. I met one the other day who said to me, “Robyn, I have six children; another one won’t hurt. You can sign me up. My two little boys would love to have somebody here.” They are the type of people we are looking for. The Community and Public Sector Union was worried that child protection workers were being taken from the field to oversee the recruitment of new foster carers. My answer to that was that, to respond to people who are calling about being new foster carers in a professional and timely manner, some district staff will be temporarily deployed to undertake the assessments. This is evidence of the staff’s flexibility to realise this opportunity to meet a critical need. I say to the union that front-line services will not be affected, but because of this big influx we really need to have staff assessing the people who are calling in to be foster carers. There is nothing worse than wanting to do something and then having a big delay in somebody responding to an inquiry. I thank Hon Bruce Donaldson for the question. APPRENTICESHIPS — PAYMENT FOR RETRENCHED WORKERS 398. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH to the Minister for Training: Further to the minister’s announcement on 17 April that a payment of up to $1 800 will, when linked to the federal government’s support for apprentices, cover retrenched apprentices’ wages for up to 12 weeks — (1) How many payments have been made since 17 April? (2) What is the total of those payments and how many apprentices have had their wages covered? (3) What additional assistance, if any, is planned for retrenched apprentices after the 12 weeks’ support has been exhausted? (4) Has the minister instructed the Department of Education and Training to establish an appropriately resourced scheme to directly link retrenched apprentices with employers, in a similar fashion to the New South Wales Continuing Apprentices Placement Service; and, if not, why not? (5) Has the minister considered creating a regional apprentice relocation payment, such as the $2 500 assistance offered in New South Wales; and, if not, why not? (6) Is the $1 800 payment additional to the DET budget after or before the three per cent cuts have been factored in? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for the question. (1) None. The initiative commenced from 1 May. (2) Not applicable. (3) None. Eligible apprentices would have already completed their off-the-job training before commencing this initiative. During the 12 weeks they should be able to gain sufficient on-the-job experience to enable them to complete their apprenticeship within the 12 weeks. (4) The Department of Education and Training is redesigning its jobs board to link employers and out-of- contract apprentices. (5) This has been considered, but at this stage no need has been established. (6) The $1 800 payment is within the department’s approved budget.

3204 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009]

CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES — ADDITIONAL STAFF 399. Hon BARBARA SCOTT to the minister representing the Minister for Health: The service-wide “Evaluation Report of Child Development Services” completed in June 2008 is a comprehensive report of consumer perspectives and emphasises the importance of early assessment and early intervention. The evaluation did not attempt to estimate the number of additional staff required to reduce the waiting list and to clear the backlog of children currently waiting for services. (1) Has this estimation been completed; and, if so, what is the number of additional staff required to clear the backlog of children waiting for services? (2) Has the business case been prepared to address this backlog? (3) If yes to (2), what is the estimated cost of providing additional staff to clear the waiting list? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes. An additional 126 full-time equivalents are required statewide. (2) Yes. (3) The anticipated cost is $49 million over four years. PRESCRIBED BURNING — COMMENTS BY MEMBER FOR RIVERTON 400. Hon SALLY TALBOT to the Minister for Environment: I refer the minister to the media statement entitled “Local MLA Calls For Action on WA Bushfire Threat” released by the member for Riverton, of which I have a copy. (1) Does the minister share the concerns expressed in the media statement? (2) Did the member for Riverton discuss the issue with her before releasing the media statement? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: I thank the member for the question. (1)-(2) I have discussed the issue of prescribed burning with Mike Nahan, member for Riverton. He also raised this issue during a speech in response to the Victorian bushfires in the other place in March, which was in line with this press statement. Obviously he shares the concern of each and every one of us in this place about the threat of bushfire. It is particularly the case in Western Australia. I have spoken to the member for Riverton about the concerns he has raised about prescribed burning. I have advised him of my very strong support for prescribed burning and the work that the department does. I am working with the department to see what further action can be taken to ensure that we meet the targets that have been set. Those targets can obviously be impacted upon by weather conditions and the like, but the department is examining how things may be improved. Also, the Premier, in response to the Victorian bushfires, said that Peter Conran would be in charge of looking at a whole-of- government response to ascertain where improvements can be made across government. I have discussed that with the member for Riverton. He supports prescribed burning, as do I. GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS FREE AREAS EXEMPTION ORDER 2009 — CONTRACTS 401. Hon PAUL LLEWELLYN to the minister representing the Minister for Agriculture and Food: My question is about the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Exemption Order 2009, published in the Government Gazette on 17 February 2009 and tabled in the Legislative Council on 18 March under the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003. I note that the standard contract includes a requirement for participating farmers to notify their neighbours of the intention to plant GM canola. (1) Does the government have any suggested form of words for that notification to be used by participating farmers? (2) If no to (1), why not? (3) If yes to (1), will the minister table those suggested words? (4) Does the government have or intend to introduce any system to check compliance with farmers’ undertakings in this regard? (5) If no to (4), why not? (6) If yes to (4), what are the consequences, if any, of a failure to notify some or all of the relevant neighbours?

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009] 3205

Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Agriculture and Food has responded — (1) No. (2) Farmers regularly discuss their farm systems and management operations with neighbours. This can include a range of issues from stocking and cropping plans to water management and weed and pest control. The government does not seek to intervene in these processes. (3) Not applicable. (4) Growers are required to confirm that this has happened as part of the initial approval process. Authorised officers under the act will check with growers on all matters of substance relating to the trials. (5) Not applicable. (6) This is a requirement prior to approval to plant genetically modified canola. STATE DEBT — FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S GUARANTEE 402. Hon ED DERMER to the parliamentary secretary representing the Treasurer: I refer to the federal government’s offer of a temporary guarantee of state borrowings. (1) Has the government taken up the federal government’s offer to guarantee existing debt? (2) Will the government be required to utilise the federal government’s guarantee to raise debt in the future? (3) If so, what is the additional cost to the state for raising future debt? (4) Does the Treasurer have a long-term strategy to limit the government’s debt requirements in the event that the government is unable to raise the required funds? Hon BARRY HOUSE replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) The government is awaiting further details from the commonwealth, including its draft legislation, before making a final decision. (2) Once the further details referred to in (1) are received, and depending on market conditions at the time, the government will decide whether or not it is the best financial future of the state for future debt issues to be made under the commonwealth’s guarantee arrangements. (3) Should the government decide that future debt issues will be made under the commonwealth’s guarantee arrangements, the guarantee fee charged by the commonwealth will be 30 basis points, or 0.3 percentage points. (4) The government’s strategy—introduced by the previous government—to reduce further debt requirements is to implement the three per cent efficiency dividend and the outcomes of its economic audit and capital works audit process. Details of the approved savings measures identified through these processes will be announced in the 2009-10 budget on 14 May 2009. PERTH-MANDURAH RAILWAY — CAR PARKING 403. Hon NIGEL HALLETT to the Minister for Transport: I refer to the Mandurah rail line and car parking. Has any consideration been given to increasing the size of parking areas for stations on the Mandurah rail line; and, if so — (a) what alternatives have been considered, such as securing additional land and double-storey car parks; (b) what is the cost of such increases; (c) has the use of money from the royalties for regions program been considered; and (d) what is the estimated increase in patronage if more parking is made available? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (a) Yes. The government has recognised the need for additional parking and made an election commitment to spend $49.5 million over the next four years to provide an additional 3 000 car bays on the Joondalup

3206 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009]

and Mandurah rail lines. The Mandurah line station parking areas will be increased by approximately 1 500 car bays in total. Initial planning has identified additional land to increase car parking at Mandurah, Warnbro, Cockburn Central, Rockingham, Kwinana and Murdoch stations. Development approval applications have been lodged for Mandurah, Warnbro and Cockburn Central stations. The Public Transport Authority is also investigating acquiring land that adjoins the rail stations from the Western Australian Planning Commission and the rationalisation of existing car parks to yield more bays. (b) Detailed costs are unable to be given at this time until final designs and negotiations are completed during the next four years of the program. (c) No. (d) The proposed additional new 1 500 parking bays has the potential to attract up to 2 000 new rail passengers on the Mandurah line. PORT GEOGRAPHE ACTION GROUP 404. Hon ADELE FARINA to the Minister for Environment: I refer to the minister’s agreement to meet with representatives of the Port Geographe Action Group given in response to a question asked by me on 8 April 2009. I understand that the president of the Port Geographe Action Group has made a number of approaches to the minister’s office to arrange a meeting with no success. Will the minister instruct her office to immediately arrange a meeting with the Port Geographe Action Group representatives to be held at the earliest opportunity? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: I thank the member for her question. I understood that that meeting had been arranged. It was going to be arranged at my office. I apologise if that has not occurred. I will instruct my office to arrange that meeting, but I understood that that had happened. MERREDIN — PUBLIC TRANSPORT AUTHORITY HOMES 405. Hon MATT BENSON-LIDHOLM to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Regional Development: (1) Given the minister’s commitment to provide $25 000 to people wanting to move to regional towns, can he explain his role in the government’s decision to demolish seven character homes in Merredin rather than sell them? (2) Can the minister confirm that he was aware that the Public Transport Authority had recently installed underground power and water and rear access for these lots to be sold? (3) Was he aware that there were buyers for these properties? Hon WENDY DUNCAN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. The minister has responded — (1)-(3) The decision to demolish the houses was made by the owner of the houses, the Public Transport Authority, in consultation with the Shire of Merredin. The shire indicated that if the Public Transport Authority proceeded with the sale, it would immediately issue a work order condemning the buildings on the issue of a freehold title. The Minister for Regional Development has not had a role in the matter. However, as the member for Central Wheatbelt, he has supported the long-held view of the shire that the houses be demolished as their condition had deteriorated to such a state that they were unfit for human habitation and had become an eyesore at the main entry into Merredin. SWINE FLU 406. Hon BATONG PHAM to the minister representing the Minister for Health: I refer to the international outbreak of swine flu, for which the World Health Organization has now raised its pandemic alert from level 4 to level 5. (1) Has the minister personally received a formal briefing from the Department of Health on swine flu? (2) On what date did the minister receive this personal briefing from the Department of Health? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) I advise that the minister has received almost daily briefings from the State Health Coordinator on this matter.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009] 3207

UNDERGROUND POWER PROGRAM 407. Hon KATE DOUST to the Minister for Energy: I refer to the state underground power program. (1) Is the minister committed to this program? (2) Will the government extend this program beyond round 4; and, if so, when will applications open? (3) Will any round 4 projects not proceed; and, if so, where and for what reason? (4) Will the minister agree to reallocate program funds from cancelled projects to other areas that were not initially funded in round 4? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Extending the program beyond round 4 is currently part of budget considerations. (3) Any round 4 proposal that does not proceed may be replaced by a proposal elevated from the reserve list. At this stage, only Greenwood West, which is in the City of Joondalup, and Withers, which is in the City of Bunbury, will not proceed. Greenwood West has been replaced by Attadale, which is in the City of Melville. The underground power program steering committee may consider and recommend to the Minister for Energy a replacement for Withers. In both cases, the local government decided not to proceed due to a lack of sufficient support from ratepayers prepared to pay the local government share of project costs. (4) See above. The steering committee reallocates program funds from cancelled proposals to other projects, including new proposals elevated from the reserve list, within the constraints of the underground power program budget. CHILDREN’S CROSSWALK SERVICE — GREAT EASTERN HIGHWAY AND KIDMAN AVENUE, SOUTH GUILDFORD 408. Hon CAROLYN BURTON to the Minister for Transport: On behalf of Hon Ken Travers, who is absent on urgent parliamentary business, I refer to the minister’s answer to parliamentary question without notice 342 of 2009 regarding the cessation of children’s services at the corner of Great Eastern Highway and Kidman Avenue. (1) Has the minister visited the site? (2) If so, will the minister advise the house of the outcome of the site visit? (3) What is the cost and feasibility of constructing a footpath on the eastern side of the Great Eastern Highway bridge over the Helena River? (4) Will the minister commit to building a footpath on the eastern side of the Great Eastern Highway bridge over the Helena River? (5) Will the minister commit to retaining the children’s crosswalk infrastructure at this intersection? (6) If no to (5), why not? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) This relates to a question Hon Ken Travers asked some little while ago. As part of my answer at the time, I undertook to say that, if he wished, I could meet him on site to look at this issue because I was aware of correspondence about it. Indeed, I have visited the site. Hon Ken Travers never contacted me but I found myself passing through and went to look at the site. Knowing that Hon Donna Faragher was nearby in her office in Guildford, and that she had an interest in this matter, at very short notice I managed to get her to join me for a visit. We inspected the site, as one needs to with these situations, to work out exactly what was happening. The upshot of it all is that I have spoken also to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services because I think the best way to resolve this question in the short term is to bring back the crosswalk attendant. I was pleased to discover that that is precisely what has happened. The crosswalk attendant has been restored certainly until the end of this semester. That gives us some time to take stock. (3)-(4) I do not believe that the answer to this is to construct a footpath on the eastern side of the Great Eastern Highway bridge over the Helena River. I think that is the wrong solution. The fact is that people must

3208 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009]

cross Great Eastern Highway. I understand that this year about 20 schoolchildren must cross that busy road at some point, whether it be south or north of that bridge, so I do not see the point of building another very expensive footpath. I will, therefore, not commit to building a footpath on the eastern side of the highway bridge. I am concerned to work through the problem. Firstly, Hon Donna Faragher, one of the local members, is of the view, which I share, that a crosswalk attendant is the best way to deal with the issue rather than spend a six or seven figure sum for infrastructure that is not primarily needed. That is not a decision for me to make, but that is my view. (5) Hon Donna Faragher and I are of the view that the children’s crosswalk infrastructure at that intersection needs to be enhanced a bit. That is potentially within my responsibility, and I will have Main Roads look at that because it is a potentially dangerous site. I understand that an attendant was struck by a car there at some stage. For the most part, in my view, the question relates to the operation of the Children’s Crossing and Road Safety Committee and should therefore be referred to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. That is the reason for the extraordinary brevity of my answer! ELECTORATE OFFICES — LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY MEMBERS 409. Hon SHELLEY EATON to the Leader of the House representing the Premier: (1) Which members of the Legislative Assembly are still waiting to move into electorate offices located within their electorates as at 5 May 2009? (2) Has appropriate electorate-based accommodation been found for these members? (3) If yes, what is the expected date that they are likely to be able to move? (4) If no, what action is being taken to ensure these members are moved to premises within their electorates? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The member for Kwinana remains in temporary accommodation adjacent to Parliament House. (2)-(4) A permanent location has been identified by the member within the electorate, and negotiations are occurring with the owner concerning fit-out works. Until agreement is reached on the required fit-out works and costs, it is not possible to provide an expected date of occupation. It is hoped that negotiations can be concluded this week and fit-out works completed in the near future. SHARK ATTACK — PREVENTIVE MEASURES 410. Hon JON FORD to the Minister for Fisheries: I refer the minister to the article entitled “High-tech shark alert for Perth” printed in The West Australian on Friday, 1 May 2009 that asserts — Perth beaches will be lined with tracking stations able to detect tagged white pointer sharks for a project that could help protect swimmers and determine whether sharks stalk coastal areas after developing a taste for human flesh. (1) What species of shark is suspected of being responsible for most attacks in Australian waters? (2) What is the real risk of shark attack to Western Australian swimmers in our waters? (3) Does the minister believe this project will protect Perth swimmers from shark attack? (4) If yes to (3), how? (5) If no to (3), is the minister not allowing the Department of Fisheries to mislead the Western Australian public? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Unfortunately, only Western Australian records are available, not Australian records. Of the 92 recorded shark attacks in Western Australian waters during the past 200 years, 27, or 30 per cent, are attributable to wobbegong sharks. However, all of these resulted in only minor injuries to the victims. The second most commonly identified species in these records is the white shark, which has been responsible for at least 17 attacks during the same period, or 18 per cent of all records. Six of these attacks proved fatal to the victims, making the white shark responsible for more than half of the 11 fatal attacks in which the species responsible was identified. It is also likely that a white shark was

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009] 3209

responsible for one of the three additional fatal attacks that could not be attributed to a particular species. (2) Although the risk of shark attack to Western Australian swimmers cannot be accurately determined, there have been on average fewer than four shark attacks per year in the state over the past decade. The average rate of fatal attacks over the same period is 0.4 per year. The risk of shark attack is therefore extremely low. (3)-(4) I believe this project could provide information that, along with other strategies, may help to reduce the risk of shark attack. The shark monitoring network project aims to collect information on the occurrence and behaviour of white sharks off the metropolitan coast and, therefore, when and where there are elevated risks of attack. As a shark attack is currently a highly unpredictable event, such information could be used to improve the use of public safety resources such as the Westpac helicopter and response boats. If a tagged shark is detected by one of the communicating receivers that the government has recently provided funding to deploy, it may also be possible to notify surf lifesaving personnel or others before that shark encounters bathers. The Department of Fisheries will be examining whether this technology could be used for providing such alerts. (5) The Department of Fisheries has clearly stated the limitations of this research project. I refer to the department’s media statement issued last week that explains that “While this project will expand the strategies used in WA to deal with shark hazards, no monitoring method can replace the need for commonsense and vigilance by swimmers and other people who enjoy activities in the ocean.” QUESTION WITHOUT NOTICE 157 Correction of Answer HON NORMAN MOORE (Mining and Pastoral — Leader of the House) [5.40 pm]: On Tuesday, 9 December 2008 Hon George Cash asked the Leader of the House representing the Minister for State Development question without notice 157, regarding the Alcoa supplementary property purchase program. The answer should have read “under the company’s so-called area A purchase scheme” and not “area B”. This error occurred due to a typographical error and I apologise to the house. ADDRESS-IN-REPLY Amendment to Motion Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting. HON GIZ WATSON (North Metropolitan) [5.41 pm]: Before question time I was talking about the issue of exposure to radiation, the susceptibility of various members of the population to radioactivity and the fact that children are significantly more susceptible. Another point we need to understand is that no levels of exposure are understood to be safe, but with an industry such as the uranium mining industry, a certain level of exposure must be allowed. International standards have been set under which a certain level of exposure is acceptable—not safe but an acceptable level of risk. Those standards are set for healthy adult males, so with any rate of exposure that is considered acceptable, we must remember that it pertains to exposure of a healthy male and not of a child. Another aspect is that uranium mining releases radon gas; in fact, radon gas is associated with some geological formations when uranium is near the surface. Radon is a decayed product of radium, and radium in turn is a decayed product of uranium and, therefore, presents within uranium ore bodies. Radon is invisible and odourless, and is a radioactive gas that can be dispersed widely by air movement. Although radon has a relatively short half-life—its half-life is only 3.8 days—it produces several solid radioactive radon progeny, which are easily inhaled via tiny dust particles. Radon and radon progeny are alpha emitters and are highly carcinogenic. Radon is linked to excessive lung cancers in numerous long-term health studies of former uranium mining workers. In fact, management of the release of radon gas is among the most significant challenges in managing any health risks in the mining of uranium, not least because radon is odourless and invisible, which add to the problems of its detection. Uranium mining tailings, which comprise the material left after the milling process, retain about 85 per cent of the radioactivity of the original ore. These tailings will continue to release radon gas in perpetuity; that is, in any time scale that we wish to conceive. The tailings also contain radium-226, which has a half-life of 1 600 years. Once the uranium ore body is disturbed by mining and processing, uranium and other radioactive decay products are highly likely to contaminate groundwater systems and rivers. Water leaching from tailings inevitably contaminates ground and surface water. Again, to use the example of the Olympic Dam uranium mine at Roxby Downs, South Australia, that mine leaked five trillion litres of liquid-waste tailings over a period of several years. A major plume of contaminated groundwater is also seeping out from the Ranger uranium mine tailings dam in the Northern Territory at a rate of 100 000 litres a day.

3210 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009]

Natural uranium consists of 99.3 per cent uranium-238 and 0.7 per cent uranium-235. Nuclear reactors typically require uranium fuel enriched to about three to five per cent uranium-235, because that is the component that is sought after to make the fuel rods. Since only a small proportion of the original uranium contains uranium-235, large amounts of waste result from the enrichment process. This waste is known as depleted uranium, or DU. It is estimated that the global stockpile of depleted uranium is between 1.3 and 1.5 million tonnes. Depleted uranium has a half-life of 4.47 billion years, which is very big headache when it comes to its management and containment, especially as it continues to be generated in the process of enriching uranium. Part of the solution to the problem was to use depleted uranium in the manufacture of certain types of armour-piercing missiles. Depleted uranium has been used extensively in the Gulf wars and has consequently contaminated significant areas of the Middle East, as depleted uranium is a material that remains radioactive for 4.47 billion years. Once uranium has been enriched and turned into fuel rods, it ends up in nuclear reactors. Nuclear reactors around the world regularly experience failures and breakdowns. These are mainly due to human error, as in any system. In serious accidents, radioactive gases and radionuclides are carried on the winds of the stratosphere. For example, the gases and radioactive dust from the Chernobyl explosion were carried 5 000 miles across Europe and the United Kingdom, and 23 years after the explosion lambs and fresh produce in Wales are still too highly radioactive for human consumption. High-level radioactive waste is produced when fuel produced from enriched uranium is used to produce electricity in a nuclear reactor. The high-level waste accounts for more than 95 per cent of the total radioactivity produced in the process of nuclear energy generation. The waste contains elements that decay slowly and remain intensely radioactive for many thousands of years. The waste must be isolated from the environment for many thousands of years. This is an engineering impossibility, which is the reason the industry is in favour of waste dumps in remote locations, such as the remote areas of Western Australia. We have already witnessed a serious attempt by an international company to locate a major, international radioactive waste repository in Western Australia. Thankfully, this Parliament and all political parties saw sense in legislating to prohibit that from happening. That does not mean that the proposal will not be revisited at some time in the future; in fact, I think it is inevitable as the current program of producing energy from nuclear reactors continues to produce this particularly dangerous, highly radioactive waste material, which nobody wants stored in their backyard. After 60 years of nuclear energy generation, not one country has established a permanent storage site for this highly radioactive and carcinogenic waste product. The proposal for a site in America at Yucca Mountain in Nevada has just been stopped and abandoned, taking the United States back to square one in finding a solution for high- level nuclear waste management. There are other considerations with the issue of uranium mining in Western Australia. I noted that in answer to some questions in this place in the past few months, the Minister for Mines and Petroleum, Hon Norman Moore, told the Parliament that he intends to follow the South Australian model to regulate uranium mining in Western Australia. It is interesting to note—“interesting” is perhaps not the right word—that the South Australian model is weakened by the fact that the Roxby Downs (Indenture Ratification) Act 1982 overrides most of the significant legislative controls on mining operations. That act overrides the South Australian Environment Protection Act, the Water Resources Act, the Aboriginal Heritage Act and, interestingly enough, the Freedom of Information Act. With South Australia’s most significant uranium mine operating essentially outside the law, whether there would be any benefits in adopting the South Australian regulatory model in Western Australia is debatable. In fact, I hope that members would find the suggestion to basically exempt operations from all those significant legislative controls an appalling way to manage uranium mining in Western Australia. Now it will be argued that we can safely mine uranium in this state, as it has been mined safely elsewhere in Australia and that everything is okay. The Greens (WA) would argue that that is not the case at all. In fact, a 2003 Senate references and legislation committee report identified “a pattern of underperformance and non-compliance” in Australia’s uranium mining industry, and concluded that changes were necessary “in order to protect the environment and its inhabitants from serious or irreversible damage”. Environmental impacts include the production of vast amounts of radioactive tailings—as I said before, nine million tonnes is produced annually at Olympic Dam—and the consumption of water, including 35 million litres consumed daily, again, at Olympic Dam. The in-situ leach mining process being considered for use in Western Australia pollutes groundwater with radionuclides, heavy metals and acid, and will have a huge impact on the environment. Much will be made about the value of uranium exports to the Australian economy, and that we need to be mindful that we should be earning whatever we can from this export material. However, it is interesting to note that despite Australia supplying about one-fifth of the world’s uranium, it accounts for just one-third of one per cent of Australia’s export revenue and it makes an even smaller contribution to employment—less than 0.1 per cent. Given economic growth and even optimistic scenarios, it is highly unlikely that uranium exports could ever compete with other major exports, such as iron ore or gold—nor could it compete with renewables if Australia were to pursue a renewable energy strategy over a clean coal strategy.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009] 3211

It has been argued that nuclear power will save us from global warming. Nuclear power could, at the very best of industry estimates, be a very partial and highly problematic part of the solution to climate change. Doubling global nuclear power output would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by no more than five per cent. I have talked a little about nuclear waste. Despite numerous proposals by the nuclear industry over the past six decades for a permanent solution, storage and isolation from the rest of the environment for thousands of years is still the only option. That option cannot be guaranteed by any engineer. Providing secure isolation and storage is not only extremely expensive, but also comes with a high probability of containment failure. The United States has spent approximately $US7.7 billion over the past 20 years exploring the possibility of storing its nuclear waste under Yucca Mountain in the Nevada Desert. President Obama recently announced on 5 March that that project was to be abandoned. He gave no alternative location and no answer as to what his administration proposed to do with the approximately 57 700 tonnes of nuclear waste stored at more than 100 temporary sites around the US, or with the further 2 000 tonnes generated each year. We cannot separate the processing and enrichment of uranium from the potential for that material to end up in nuclear weapons. Australia is entirely reliant on the International Atomic Energy Agency to prevent Australian uranium being used in nuclear weapons. However, the director general of the IAEA, Dr Mohamed ElBaradei, has said that the IAEA’s basic inspection rights are “fairly limited”; efforts to improve the system have been “half-hearted”; the system suffers from “vulnerabilities”; and he said it operates on a “shoestring budget comparable to a local police department”. Therefore, any notion that the International Atomic Energy Agency has in place a system that can ensure Australian uranium will not end up as weapon’s grade material for use in nuclear weapons is unsupportable. Indeed, it is worth pointing out, for members who may not be aware, that we would export uranium to China because China is a signatory to the international convention on the treaty on—I have drawn a blank; I have a cold and my mind has gone blank. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Hon Barry House): Is that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? Hon GIZ WATSON: That is the one! Thank you, Mr Deputy President. As China is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it is allowed to use its domestic uranium to produce nuclear weapons. Accordingly, every kilogram imported from elsewhere frees up a kilogram of Chinese uranium to be used in weapons; that can all happen without any breach of the non-proliferation treaty. By providing uranium for the purpose of Chinese power production, we free up its domestic uranium for weapons production. Interestingly, when I made that point at an international uranium conference held in Perth a few years ago, a man from the Chinese embassy immediately stood and said, “I am here to assure the conference that not a single kilogram of Australian uranium will be used in weapons in China.” I replied that that was exactly what I had just said. It was no assurance at all. It is also interesting to note that the only countries in which the number of proposals to construct nuclear power plants has increased are China, India and Korea, all of which have an appalling record of managing toxic chemicals and very inferior processes of regulation and monitoring. I think it is morally bankrupt to supply such countries with one of the most toxic materials known on this planet when we know very well that they do not have the capacity to manage those materials once in their systems. Finally, it has been suggested that this government has a mandate to go ahead with uranium mining. Again, I think it is worth pointing out that a September 2008 newspoll—two days after the Western Australian state election, which resulted in a change of government—indicated that 48 per cent of the population still wanted legislation to ban the mining of uranium, 38 per cent opposed such legislation and 14 per cent were uncommitted. Therefore, the majority of people not only recognise that they do not want uranium mining in WA, but also that they want legislation to enshrine that position. I close my comments on this particular issue by saying it is not the last that we will hear over the next few years about the various companies which will seek to mine uranium in Western Australia. However, I encourage my colleagues to inform themselves about the public health risks associated with such radioactive material mined and transported in this state and those of storing waste products in this state. In doing so, we would mortgage the future environment and the future health of Western Australians by permanently polluting significant areas of the state with some of the most dangerous carcinogens known. I do not say that lightly, because if we allow uranium mining to proceed in Western Australia, we will have permanent radioactive material waste dumps in the state that will continue to leach carcinogens into the environment on a time scale that can only be called indefinite. Have we forgotten the lessons from Wittenoom? Have we forgotten the even more recent lessons about lead pollution and the challenges of transporting lead around this state? I suggest that if we proceed down this track, we will leave an extraordinary legacy for all future generations of Western Australians to manage. Once this stuff has been dug up, ground up and made bio-available, no process or engineering solution will keep that material isolated from the rest of the environment. That is an appalling way to treat the environment and an appalling risk to expose all future Western Australians to. Debate adjourned, on motion by Hon Bruce Donaldson. Sitting suspended from 6.00 to 7.30 pm

3212 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009]

REVENUE LAWS AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 3) 2008 Second Reading Resumed from 7 April. HON KEN TRAVERS (North Metropolitan) [7.32 pm]: The Revenue Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2008 seeks to amend the land tax and metropolitan region improvement tax scales for the land tax year 2008-09. Members may recall that when we dealt with the 2008-09 budget, budget paper No. 3 set out a number of revenue relief measures that were introduced as part of that budget, including an intention to reduce the total tax collected from land tax and MRIT for this current financial year by about $120 million. That would obviously have flow-on effects over the forward estimates to $558 million over a four-year period. One of the things that needs to be recognised when we are debating this bill is that a fair bit of land is involved because we are dealing with land tax scales that are used as the basis of an assessment of the ownership of a property on 30 June 2008 based on valuations that are conducted in August 2007. There is quite a lag time between when those matters are dealt with and what we are dealing with in the debate this evening. That was the intention at the time. As a consequence of the valuations being provided by the Valuer-General—I think it was estimated that property values would go up by about 30 per cent whereas the real increase ended up being 35 per cent—a decision needed to be made and the new government made it, which was to continue to hold the revenue that was collected out of the land tax and the MRIT. The revenue that was expected to be collected would be held at what was in the budget figure and the additional money that would have been collected at the scale that was originally set based on the valuations that had come in would be returned. As a consequence of that decision, there is a need to adjust the scales down. The end result is that the revenue that was predicted in the budget of 2008-09 will be about the same. The interesting thing about this bill is that it is a retrospective bill in that, as I understand it, all the processes have already occurred and the assessments have already been sent out. If this bill is not passed by 14 May—I believe that it is required that it be given royal assent by 14 May—a range of new assessments would need to be issued to people, those people would pay that money and in this year’s budget, the government would seek to address that problem and people would be refunded the money. I do not think anyone would support that. I do not think anyone disagrees with the course that the government has taken whereby this year’s budget was based on a certain revenue to be collected from those two taxes and that amount should now be returned. It is a significant amount. It is somewhere in the order of $43 million. I note that in the parliamentary secretary’s second reading speech, the figure is quoted as $41 million but when I was briefed by the advisers, they said it was $43 million, with $37 million of that going to land tax and $6 million going to the metropolitan region improvement fund. It is a little ironic that we are seeking to pass a bill to reduce the tax scale because the valuations of properties exceeded what was predicted when the budget was being set, increasing by 35 per cent rather than 30 per cent. Yesterday and over the weekend there was a fair bit of media coverage, particularly yesterday, about the fact that over the past 12 months Perth property prices have reduced by about 10 per cent. When the government is casting its new budget, it will be interesting to see how it intends to deal with that matter and whether it intends to adjust the scales back up. It is an appropriate mechanism that we have whereby decisions are made, the Treasurer does it and it then comes back to Parliament for ratification. The bureaucracy that would be involved in doing it any other way—trying to get the decision made and put through Parliament first—would be quite complex. I flagged this next question to the advisers, so hopefully the parliamentary secretary will have the answer. When we were last in this chamber we were dealing with the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill 2009. One of its components was the requirement of additional funding for refunds for tax purposes. I am interested to know whether there is a need to draw down on the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill as a result of money being refunded, not necessarily because of the decisions we are making in this legislation but as a result of people challenging their valuations. We are seeing a particularly volatile market in Western Australia and I imagine that a number of people are trying to work out what is going on. Last year they would have had a massive increase in their land tax assessment based on the valuation of their properties. If the average is 35 per cent, I suspect that some people probably would have had an increase in their valuation of between 50 to 100 per cent. The parliamentary secretary would remember that a couple of years ago land valuations along that strip between Dunsborough and Busselton shot through the roof. I know a number of people involved in tourism in that area. It was good to catch up with some of those people when I was the parliamentary secretary. I remember discussing the impact of land tax on their businesses. I am trying to think what the figure was. I think they required $10 per person per night from people who stayed at some of the accommodation because of the massive increases in the valuation of those properties. As a result, that led to some changes in the way land tax is calculated, particularly for caravan parks. I understand that there is the capacity to help those people who were affected by what occurred in that area. I know that the parliamentary secretary would be well aware of that.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009] 3213

I suspect that when those people received their massive increases in land tax assessment they would have said, “Hang on a minute, you have assessed my property at this value, but I have got a value from the local real estate and values have dropped by 10 per cent.” One of the problems in the Perth market is that a house that is valued at under $500 000 is selling, but for a house valued at over $500 000 it is very hard to determine what is the valuation because properties in that price bracket are not selling. People are not willing to discount their properties by significant amounts, but the reality is that there are no buyers in the market for their property at what was its valuation not so long ago. I accept that it makes matters dealing with valuation of properties a very difficult and complex area. This year we are providing for the scale to be set at a lesser figure because of the increase over and above what had been expected in the casting of this financial year’s budget. Now we have to try to determine whether next financial year it will go in the other direction. That is a challenge for this government. I am interested to know from the parliamentary secretary what has been the impact. Are a number of people challenging the valuations that have been set? Have they been successful in their challenges to the valuations and has that led to any money being refunded? I understand the money would most likely be refunded through the Treasurer’s advance. If there is another avenue through which that money will be refunded, I look forward to the parliamentary secretary advising us accordingly. Hopefully he is able to do that because I indicated to the advisers in my briefing that I would be asking that question. This is an interesting bill to be passing when next financial year’s budget will be brought down in just over a week. I have no doubt that all members in this chamber will be waiting with interest and in anticipation, as we debated in the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill, to find out whether the state’s finances have declined significantly from when the decision was made by cabinet on 14 November to provide for the tax collected to remain at the same level that was predicted in the 2008-09 budget. In a week and a half members will see one of the most interesting budgets that has been handed down in this Parliament. There has been a massive turnaround. However, the budget will show not only a turnaround in the drop in revenue, which has been discussed previously in this chamber, but also record levels of increases in expenditure by this government. It is unsustainable, and everybody knows that. When the budget is handed down the opposition will be considering whether the solution is to cut and plunder some of the expenditure side or rapidly ramp up the income side. Those people who will be waiting for the outcome of this bill, although because of the time lag they have probably already received their assessment and probably paid it, will find that they will receive a discount this financial year but next financial year they will be faced with a massive increase. It will be interesting to find out whether the budget provides for the sustainability of the project. It was evident in a debate earlier today that there is nobody in this chamber who seriously accepts that the government is considering the construction of the Ellenbrook railway line; it is considering a study to justify not building the Ellenbrook railway line and to determine what is the alternative method of providing public transport to Ellenbrook. Tonight this house will be passing a bill that does not retrospectively approve a reduction in land tax scales that occurred this financial year. However, next week we might find out that a bill will be introduced that will do the exact opposite; that is, to significantly increase the land tax and metropolitan region improvement fund because of the need to fund the unsustainable expenditure by this government. The result will be that election commitments will be ditched. For example, a massive increase in taxation will be a breach of an election commitment. That is the challenge for this government. The government made promises and commitments and led everybody to believe that it would reduce taxation. I suspect that the government will argue that this bill is about a reduction in taxation when, in fact, it is about ensuring that the tax that was to be collected in land tax as part of this year’s budget is the actual amount that is collected. With new legislation being introduced within a week or so of passing this bill, there is a fair degree of irony in what we are doing. I suspect that in the not-too- distant future we will be debating legislation in which the tax scales have been ramped up by who knows what amount. The Premier said that we will not go into deficit budgets. There are only two ways by which that would happen; that is, by massive cuts in expenditure or massive increases in taxation and other revenue measures. The Liberal government put itself in a position whereby it made promises and commitments that are completely and utterly unsustainable. It will be a great challenge for the parliamentary secretary. I know that the parliamentary secretary was a teacher at Busselton Senior High School when the Treasurer attended that school. I do not know whether he was his maths teacher. Hon Barry House: No. Hon KEN TRAVERS: If the maths he uses in the budget indicates a bit of creative accounting, I am sure the parliamentary secretary will not have to take responsibility for that decision.

3214 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009]

Hon Robyn McSweeney: He was a star in economics. Hon KEN TRAVERS: We are continually told that. Hon Peter Collier: He was my teacher at Eastern Goldfields Senior High School. Hon KEN TRAVERS: That explains everything and now we understand it all. The mystery has been unfolded. I have good friends who were taught by Hon Barry House. He did not affect all his students like he affected Hon Peter Collier. Over the years I have come across a number of people who have been taught by Hon Barry House. Hon Barry House: She has done well for herself. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Which one of my many friends who were taught by Hon Barry House are we talking about? There have been a few over the years. He taught a few students. Does Hon Barry House know who the Treasurer’s maths teacher was? When we get the creative accounting, does he know who we should go to if the figures do not add up? I suspect that we will see delivered a budget in which creative accounting has been used. We will probably find that the outcomes predicted for this financial year will be in the budget. However, we all know that those budget figures will be exceeded. The government will probably get around that by saying that it told the agencies that they must come in on budget. We all know that it will be impossible for agencies such as health to come in on budget. I guess I am straying a bit from the topic — Hon Norman Moore: I thought this debate was about land tax! Hon KEN TRAVERS: It is, but the Leader of the House would know very well that when we are talking about revenue bills and matters such as land tax, we need to put that debate into context. We are living in very interesting times. This bill is seeking to ensure that the amount of land tax revenue that was estimated in the 2008-09 budget will remain at that amount. That is despite the fact that property prices increased by an average of 35 per cent during that period rather than by the 30 per cent that had been estimated by the Valuer-General. We now know, as a result of the media reports yesterday, that property prices across Perth, and I suspect also in some parts of regional Western Australia, have dropped significantly. Anyone who has followed property prices in mining towns such as Kalgoorlie will be aware of the cyclical nature of the property prices in those towns. Property prices in the north west of this state have been significantly high for a considerable time. I have no doubt that the growth that is occurring in Port Hedland and the Burrup will continue for some time. However, many of the investment decisions that were made by the private sector in the past two or three years and that are now being implemented will start to tail off in a year or two. I suspect that when that pressure comes out of the market in places such as Karratha and Port Hedland, there will be a dramatic drop in property prices. I hope that the people who have invested in those areas will have the capacity to withstand that drop, because it is important to ensure a sustainable future for those towns. We all know that it is the construction phase that creates the most jobs in mining towns. Up to 3 000 people may be employed during the construction phase, but only 300 or 400 people may gain ongoing employment after the completion of construction. The issue in those towns will be to maintain the level of construction and thereby sustain property prices. It is very appropriate that we are talking about this tonight, because a tourism industry function is currently taking place in the courtyard. One issue that was raised with me at that function is that the tourism industry has the potential to become the saviour of these towns by providing ongoing economic impetus and picking up some of the slack that has been lost in the mining industry, particularly in the north west. The tourism industry could play an important role in providing some degree of ongoing economic activity in some of these towns. Just to give Ravensthorpe a bit of a plug, I hope the government will do whatever it can to ensure that BHP Billiton makes available to the tourism industry its village in Ravensthorpe. That will provide some economic activity in that town and help prop up land prices a bit from where they might otherwise be. It will be interesting to see the land tax assessments for properties in Hopetoun and Ravensthorpe. One of the difficulties is that there is a lag time in implementing valuations. Even though we know that the market value of many of those properties has fallen away, the Valuer-General may not yet have sufficient sales history to enable him to set new valuations for those properties. I suspect that many of the property owners in those towns will be very unhappy when they receive their land tax assessment, because their assessment will show that their property is worth X dollars, when it is not worth anything like that amount. That is why I am keen to get an answer from the parliamentary secretary about the number of refunds that have been made this financial year. I know that the number of refunds is not large. However, it will be interesting to know how many people have challenged their land tax assessments and have been successful and received a refund over and above what is proposed in this bill. It will also be interesting to know how that will affect the revenue that was expected to be collected in the 2008-09 budget, which was handed down on 8 May but was passed in this house probably close to 30 June. With those comments, the opposition has no problem with supporting this bill. The purpose of this bill is to ratify actions that have already been taken. Hopefully this bill will get through the Parliament in time for royal assent by 14 May so that a massive administrative burden is not placed on people for no real benefit.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009] 3215

HON GIZ WATSON (North Metropolitan) [7.56 pm]: The Greens (WA) will not be supporting the Revenue Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2008. The purpose of this bill is to amend the land tax and metropolitan region improvement tax scales for the land tax year 2008-09. The current legislated scales for 2008-09 were introduced in the 2008-09 budget and passed by the Parliament in the Revenue Laws Amendment Act on 19 June 2008. At the time of the 2008-09 budget it was estimated that unimproved land values would increase by an average of 30 per cent during the 2008-09 year. The Valuer-General has since advised that the increase will be 35 per cent. This difference would, but for this bill, result in an unbudgeted increase in government revenue of $41 million, or seven per cent, for the 2008-09 period. The government says it has made a commitment in its tax reform and reduction strategy to return windfall tax revenue to taxpayers. This particular part of the strategy was announced on 21 October 2008. We recognise that this bill relates just to the rates for land tax for a particular year. However, it effectively raises for discussion the whole question of land tax. The starting point for land tax is that it is paid on the aggregated unimproved value of taxable land. However, there are many exemptions to, and concessions from, this original starting position. Land tax is not charged on the principal place of residence. That suggests that land tax is effectively a tax on income-producing properties, with the percentage tax rate increasing as the value of the underlying property increases. We have no problem with that. However, we do have a problem with the fact that not all income-producing properties are included within the net of this tax. We continue to oppose the idea that investment houses are charged land tax, whereas mining land and agricultural lands are exempt from land tax. It is inequitable and anachronistic to give special concessions for particular land uses without a compelling public interest driver behind that principle. We note, however, that exemptions are granted for land owned by charitable organisations, public hospitals and universities, etc cetera, provided the land in question is not being leased out to business tenants. Again we have no problem with those exemptions. However I take this opportunity to flag our continuing concerns with land tax exemptions for religious bodies. If a religious body is doing charitable community work from a piece of land, it makes sense for that land to be treated the same as land owned by a non-religious charitable organisation. However, the idea that land might be exempt from a tax just because it is owned by a religious group does not make any sense if the goal is to have a proper separation between church and state, for example, which should be the goal of Parliament. We therefore question that differentiation. Hon Ken Travers: Would you include community housing then as not exempt from land tax? Hon GIZ WATSON: It should be exempt if it is for a charitable purpose. Hon Ken Travers: In fairness, isn’t the church a charitable purpose? Hon GIZ WATSON: It depends. The Greens (WA) acknowledge that the Gallop government changed the law such that from 1 July 2004 land held under an approved conservation covenant was exempt from land tax. We also acknowledge that the Carpenter government legislated in 2006 for land tax exemptions for parents, grandparents or siblings who provided independent accommodation for relatives with disabilities. I come back to the conservation covenant issue. Land that is to be protected for conservation purposes is now tax exempt. That is a good thing, but we need to look at the issue more closely. The exemption is only for approved conservation covenants, and that is too narrow an approach. I would go further and suggest that privately owned native vegetation should not be subject to land tax unless it is being used for income-generating purposes. This is an argument that even hard-headed economics advocates should support. Why should something be taxed if it is not used to generate income? That should be the rationale behind this tax approach. If what we are seeking to tax instead is property ownership itself, surely that is the role of the federal capital gains tax system. To comment on the metropolitan region improvement tax specifically, we acknowledge that this bill relates only to the MRIT rates, but it effectively raises for discussion the concept of an MRIT. The first thing to note about an MRIT is that it is effectively a tax on income-producing properties because it is subject to the same exemptions and concessions as land tax, although it is applied at one rate above a single land value threshold. An MRIT is levied upon the unimproved land that is both liable for land tax and located within the boundaries of the metropolitan region. The MRIT is hypothecated to a trust fund for expenditure by the Western Australian Planning Commission on road reserves, parks and recreation areas. My question to the parliamentary secretary is whether this trust fund is being used to acquire or at least manage Bush Forever sites. If I had a little more time I would have done more research in this area, because the issue that I have been well aware of for many years now is that the proportion of the metropolitan region improvement tax that is allocated to purchasing and managing Bush Forever sites is wholly inadequate to achieve the Bush Forever program. To get back to this bill, I understand it is quite normal for the government to adjust the tax rates when government modelling shows that tax revenue will exceed the forward estimates. However, we are talking here about a second adjustment relating to the same tax year. I understand that it is almost without precedent, and indeed has happened only once before. Given this debate about what land tax is and how it is levied, is this really

3216 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009] a windfall? Perhaps the minister can address that question. It seems to me that nothing extraordinary has happened here. Property prices have gone up, the capacity to rent out those properties has improved, and the tax on those properties has thereby increased. That is as it should be, and the government is not benefiting from a windfall. I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary, to get it on the record, how the process for land tax assessments usually works. I have a reasonable understanding but I think we need to put it on the record. In particular the house needs to understand how the revenue from the 2008-09 land tax and the MRIT is spiking even though in the second half of 2008-09 land prices are falling. I think that was the point the previous speaker was making. Given that those land prices are falling, it seems to me that government revenues will eventually fall when the land tax assessments catch up. We are therefore headed for a revenue drop ultimately. I ask the minister why we are reducing government revenue now when basically there is a bleak future ahead of us. There might be an argument that some sectors of the community would be entitled to a three per cent reduction in fees and charges, given that the state government is also reducing its expenditure across the board by three per cent, but why in this scenario is it considered good policy to give specific sectors of the community— notably developers and those with investment properties—discounts of seven per cent? For those reasons, the Greens will not support the bill because we think it is disproportionately rewarding that sector and does not in fact deal with the principle that the government claims it is dealing with—that is, that the government not benefit from a windfall—because we do not actually identify this situation to be a windfall; it is in effect a fluctuation in conditions. Because of the variations in statute power, or the Henry VIII clause, the commissioner has been able since November 2008 to rely on a notice that this bill seeks to stop the clause from lapsing; the Henry VIII clause requires the relevant legislation to come to Parliament by 14 May 2009. I will comment later about Henry VIII clauses. However, for now I ask, given the now impending deadline for this bill, why it could not have been brought on, for example, at the beginning of March this year. Why has it taken so long to get to the house? In order not to take up too much time of the house on this bill, I also refer members back to the contribution to the debate on the Revenue Laws Amendment Bill 2008, which was a contribution by my colleague Hon Paul Llewellyn on 19 June 2008. In short, my colleague observed that reductions in the MRIT—the same point can be made about land tax—have very little impact on housing affordability, but they do reduce the capacity to manage our vital urban bushland. I agree with Hon Paul Llewellyn that such reductions let the state government off the hook in this area and put more pressure on already stretched local governments. In regard to Henry VIII clauses, it might be interesting for some members of the chamber to discuss whether it has been appropriate to use a Henry VIII clause to implement these tax reductions in this case, or whether such powers are ever appropriate. I do not believe that is a debate that we want to extend this evening, but we did cover that ground in debate on the Revenue Laws Amendment Bill 2008. We said then that the Parliament should be extremely suspicious of such clauses, but ultimately we agreed on introducing enough accountability mechanisms to find that particular clause acceptable. I acknowledge the contribution of Hon George Cash in particular in this debate. With those comments I indicate that the Greens will not support this bill. HON BARRY HOUSE (South West — Parliamentary Secretary) [8.08 pm] — in reply: I thank members for their contributions, and support in some cases. At the outset I want to clarify that when the Treasurer was a student at the school I was teaching at I did not teach maths or economics; I was in a different role as the youth education officer. Perhaps I had more to do with his social conscience and community contribution than I had to do with his maths and economics. However, that is by the bye. Hon Ken Travers: Are you claiming credit for his social behaviour now? Hon BARRY HOUSE: I am not taking credit or blame for anything. As members have said, this has been classified as a windfall in the order of $41 million to $43 million on the estimates for the 2008-09 land tax assessments. Upon the change of government on 6 September 2008, the new Liberal-National government could have pocketed that extra $40-odd million as an unaccounted, unestimated windfall. Members have made the point that the figure was an estimate, and it is usual to expect overs and unders. The new government made the decision to honour its election commitment that the excess money collected would be returned in this financial year. The Treasurer was very keen to honour that election commitment. Hon Ken Travers: It might end up being the only one the government keeps! Hon BARRY HOUSE: Hon Ken Travers will see a 100 per cent commitment to the government’s election promises. As events have unfolded over recent months, if the Treasurer were making the same decision now he would have seen a few more holes in the budget where the estimates have come in well under the budget estimate figures of

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009] 3217 a year ago and he may not have been so keen to do that. Nevertheless, an election commitment was made and that is what this bill is all about. As has been pointed out, a commitment was made not to collect that money because of the differentials that had been exposed, and new scales were drawn up. This bill contains those new scales. Assessment notices were issued. The announcement had to come before the assessment notices were issued, and the assessment notices were issued on the scales contained in this bill; they were not issued on the scales contained in the 2008-09 budget. The legislation has passed through the other place and it is now here. As has been pointed out, royal assent must be obtained before 14 May, otherwise the provision requiring that the bill is assented to within six months will render the bill null and void and new assessment notices will have to be issued. If that came to pass, the new assessment notices would be issued on the old scales, not the scales contained in this bill. That would mean quite an upheaval and a disruption for not only the public service, but also many people who pay land tax. In my response, I will attempt to address some of the issues raised by both Hon Ken Travers and Hon Giz Watson. Hon Ken Travers asked about the number of people lodging challenges and seeking refunds. I am told that those figures are kept by the Valuer-General, not the Department of Treasury and Finance. In that regard, I do not have access to those figures and I cannot provide them to the house tonight; however, I undertake to provide that information to the member. Hon Ken Travers: If they are successful, they must eventually get them. Hon BARRY HOUSE: I guess they do. Hon Ken Travers: If they are successful, the land tax assessment would be known. Hon BARRY HOUSE: When the actual figures are being collated by the Department of Treasury and Finance at the end of the year. Hon Ken Travers: If a land tax assessment has been made, and an appeal is made against the valuation and if the appeal is successful, surely DTF would know because the smaller amount of tax would be paid? Hon BARRY HOUSE: Yes. However, the appeal and challenge process is not handled by the Department of Treasury and Finance but by the Valuer-General. The Valuer-General then provides aggregated figures to the Department of Treasury and Finance. That is my understanding. Hon Ken Travers: Who issues the amended assessment? Is it the Valuer-General? This might be a reason to go into committee. Hon BARRY HOUSE: That is a fair question that I can perhaps address in committee. As I understand it, the money is refunded through the Treasurer’s advance. The question asked by Hon Ken Travers relating to the breakdown of the past year’s revenue funds is important. The tax types were contained in the 2008-09 budget estimate and the 2008-09 revised budget estimate. When these figures were presented to the Treasurer, he made the decision that this action would be taken. The tax type, which is payroll tax, has not changed from the 2008-09 budget estimate of $6 593 000 to the revised estimate. The threshold for mortgages has not changed; it is $242 000 in both instances. Insurance has not changed, it is $475 000 in both instances. Land tax has not changed, it is $7 526 000 in both estimates. Other minor duties of $124 000 has not changed. The change was in the conveyance section: stamp duty and so on. The differential is between the 2008-09 budget estimate of $24 840 000 and the revised budget estimate of $99 840 000. The differential of $75 million came about in the conveyance section. As members can see from that table, the increase in funding for this item was due to an increase in conveyance duty refunds, and the allocation for land tax did not need to be increased. I hope that addresses the question asked by Hon Ken Travers. Hon Ken Travers: My understanding is that the figure may have gone up since the midyear review. Are you basing your response on the midyear review or on the Treasurer’s advance? Hon BARRY HOUSE: Those figures relate to the 2008-09 budget estimates and the 2008-09 midyear review. Hon Ken Travers: My point is that since the midyear review of $900 million, the Treasurer’s advance became $1.2 billion, which included an increase in taxation figures. Hon BARRY HOUSE: We can address those details more accurately during the committee stage. As for the future scales, if members are patient for another nine days when the new budget is brought down we will all find out. Hon Giz Watson raised a few questions, and I thank her for her contribution. She is right: certain exemptions exist for land tax for principal residences, and exemptions exist for mining and agricultural land for historical reasons, simply because they have been the major industries upon which this state has been built. Hon Giz

3218 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009]

Watson queried the difference between charitable interests and religious bodies and other bodies performing a similar function, and conservation covenants, and also raised questions on the Metropolitan Region Improvement Trust Fund and whether it was being used for the management of Bush Forever sites. I have some information to clarify these issues for the honourable member. Let us commence with the process of land tax assessment. Land tax is assessed annually by the Commissioner of State Revenue based on the aggregate unimproved value of taxable land owned at midnight on 30 June in the previous financial year. Assessment notices usually start being issued by the commissioner in September each year. However, they were delayed this year pending a decision being made by the new government to reduce the land tax and metropolitan region improvement tax scales. Land tax is due for payment on the forty-ninth day after the date of the assessment notice. The unimproved value of each land item is determined by the Valuer-General in accordance with section 18 of the Valuation of Land Act 1978. Section 20 of the Valuation of Land Act provides that a general valuation of the unimproved value of land comes into force on a day determined by the Valuer-General. Section 21 requires the Valuer-General to publish the making of the general valuation in the Government Gazette. This was published on 11 July 2008 in relation to the 2008-09 assessment year. The date of the valuation was 1 August 2007, and the Valuer-General determined that the valuations should come into force on 30 June 2008. That is the broad framework. Turning to the subject of land owned by religious bodies, section 32 of the Land Tax Assessment Act 2002 provides an exemption for land that is owned by, vested in or held in trust for a religious body and is in good faith reserved or used as a site for religious purposes, including a site for a church or chapel for public worship, for educational purposes or for the residence of a minister of the religious body. Use for any other purpose during an assessment year triggers the removal of the exemption for that assessment year and for up to four previous assessment years. It is rooted in history to a certain extent. Traditionally, these bodies performed the kind of functions the member is referring to, and they have been granted the exemption, and the line in the sand must be drawn somewhere. The member asked a question about conservation covenants. Section 41 of the Land Tax Assessment Act provides an exemption from land tax for land that is used solely or principally for the conservation of native vegetation, if the land is the subject of a conservation covenant. A conservation covenant is defined in the act as a covenant that restricts or prohibits certain activities on the land, is permanent and registered on the title to the land and is approved by the minister responsible for the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984. This exemption was implemented as part of the 2004-05 budget. The budget speech and other associated information made it clear that the exemption applies to land protected by conservation covenants issued by the then Department of Conservation and Land Management and the National Trust. This relates to an approved process under which it is recognised and acknowledged that the land has gone through an established process, has been recognised for its conservation value, and it is registered for that purpose. If we based it on self-assessment, I would venture to say that everybody levied with a land tax liability would claim some important conservation values for their land and be exempt. There must be a process that acknowledges whether that land is principally approved under a conservation covenant. Hon Giz Watson also referred to the amount of metropolitan region improvement tax that is used for Bush Forever. In general terms, revenue from the metropolitan region improvement tax is allocated to a trust fund for expenditure by the Western Australian Planning Commission on land acquisitions for road reserves, recreation areas and the Bush Forever program in the metropolitan area. It is specifically allocated to Bush Forever amongst other purposes. The WA Planning Commission has provided $100 million over 10 years for Bush Forever. This fund was established to purchase and manage specific areas of land that were not already reserved for parks and recreation under the metropolitan region scheme, in order to protect regionally significant remnant vegetation and biodiversity. During 2007-08, the WA Planning Commission acquired 11.5 hectares of Bush Forever areas at a cost of $1.5 million. Some examples of land purchases are: site 74, Pine Road, Bullsbrook; site 125, Barrett Road, Southern River; and site 275, Mandurah Road, Baldivis. I am sure that the member will be aware that this is quite a bone of contention with regional planning schemes in the Peel and greater Bunbury areas, outside of the metropolitan area, which do not collect the metropolitan region improvement tax. Therefore, there is no mechanism, unless it is by specific allocation, for purchase of properties identified for conservation purposes in those two schemes. That issue has developed over the past decade. As both those schemes are in my electorate, I know that there is a significant bone of contention, about, firstly, what is designated for conservation purposes in the first place, particularly on private property, and, secondly, the lack of means to purchase it through some mechanism. Hon Ken Travers asked about reassessments from objections to valuations. Refunds of past years’ revenue relate to assessments raised prior to the 2008-09 assessment years. Where an objection is lodged to a current year assessment and refunded in 2008-09, the refund is offset against the current year’s collections, and the number of reassessments from this process need to be specifically extracted from other types of reassessments. This needs

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009] 3219 to be done using specific query tools. It has not been possible to extract the number of assessments, but this can be provided once sufficient time is available to extract the data. I think I have covered most of the areas I am able to. Hon Giz Watson asked whether this is a windfall, and that is a fair question, because there are always overs and unders in making predictions in the budgetary process. There are always estimates, and in this case one of the first things that the new Treasurer faced on coming into the job was an assessment provided to him by Treasury that there was an over-assessment of something like $40 million. We had just been through an election process in which we as a political party had expressed concern and questions about the level and amount of property taxes levied. In good times, when there was a property boom, it seemed to be a massive windfall for the government year after year. Faced with that decision immediately, to keep faith with an electorate that had just elected a new government, the Treasurer said that the government would not collect that money, because it would be a false assessment of the situation the government thought it was inheriting. The budget figures were brought back to the same amount as they would have been in the 2008-09 budget. There are several other areas in the budget that are different from what we thought we were inheriting, but they were mostly on the negative side. The estimates of the land tax clearly depend on the value of the properties and the volume of transactions—not so much with land tax but if the purposes of that land change. For instance, a person whose property became his principal residence would not pay land tax on it. There are some anomalies in the system, one of which was brought to my attention the other day. People in Dunsborough, who had an old home on a magnificent block right on the water, had their home demolished and a new home built on the understanding, 18 months ago, that it would take about 12 months to build the new home. It has already taken about 15 months and the chances are that they will not move into that new home before 30 June. Therein lies a problem because there is a two-year exemption for land tax on property that is used for residential purposes. If they do not reside in their new home by 30 June, they will be liable for land tax, which, on a full year’s assessment, could be something like $23 000. The property is also in the Treasurer’s electorate, so both of us are having a look at that to see — Hon Ken Travers: The only ones that can get things fixed these days! Hon BARRY HOUSE: It is because of circumstances outside the control of those people, such as delays to their builders and so on, that they have been caught in this situation. At least there should be a pro rata assessment if they move in, say, by the end of July. That is straying off the point just a little. The question was asked why it took so long for the bill to get to this house. We came to government on 23 September 2008. I do not recall the exact date, but some time in October the decision was made to proceed with the new legislation and cabinet approval had to be obtained to draft it. Obviously, because it is a money bill, the legislation had to be introduced into the other house. The Assembly has its own priorities, including debating priorities, as we know. The bill came to this house on the last day of the last week of sitting, which was three weeks ago now. We are dealing with it in this house as expeditiously as we can. That is all that is within our control to do. I am sure that it has been pointed out to the Treasurer and other people that when there are real time lines involved with legislation, they must be adhered to and watched very closely. I hope that I have addressed some of the issues in assessing land tax. I thank members for their contributions and, if there are any further details required, perhaps I can help provide those to the house during the committee stage. I commend the bill to the house. Question put and passed. Bill read a second time. Committee The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Hon Ray Halligan) in the chair; Hon Barry House (Parliamentary Secretary) in charge of the bill. Clause 1: Short title — Hon KEN TRAVERS: I was trying to indicate to the parliamentary secretary that I could have made my comments at the third reading stage, but now that we are in committee I will ask a very quick question. In the parliamentary secretary’s second reading speech, he gave some examples of what the land tax would have been on a $10 million property if this bill was not passed and also what the land tax would have been on a $10 million property if the even more significant reductions in the land tax scales that are contained in the midyear review were not applied. I know that this is an odd question to ask, but could the parliamentary secretary tell me what the land tax would have been on a $7 million property in each of those circumstances? Whilst that is being worked out, I will make a couple of quick comments just to speed up the processes. When I finish, the parliamentary secretary can give me the answer to my question. We often get told that the Greens (WA) and the Labor Party are one big, happy family and that we always agree. On most issues I find myself in a fair degree of agreement with Hon Giz Watson. I wish to place on the record the position that the Greens

3220 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009] articulated tonight—correct me if I am wrong, Hon Giz Watson—that we should expand land tax to capture a range of purposes and that one of those included property that is held for religious purposes. I would like to think of myself as a spiritual person but not as someone who is involved in or committed to any form of organised religion. I do not agree with the Greens’ position and it is worth placing on the record that I believe that would be the position of the Labor Party. I think the parliamentary secretary outlined that land held by churches for investment purposes would not be covered, but that the land held for religious or educational purposes would be. In many cases, houses for the use of priests or the like, if it were not for the way in which they operated, would probably be exempt as their primary place of residence anyway. In those circumstances it is absolutely and completely appropriate that religious organisations and churches are excluded. They are not set up for commercial purposes and they are fulfilling a role in our society. I extend those comments to the broad range of churches that we have in our community. They should be exempt. They all have a role to play. It would be a very sad and sorry day if we started charging land tax to those sorts of organisations. That is why I asked the question. There are a range of other groups that would not be expected to pay land tax. For instance, I would not expect community housing groups to pay land tax because they fulfil a very worthwhile and adequate purpose within our community. It is important to place that point on the record. Hon BARRY HOUSE: The figure contained in the second reading speech for a $10 million property shows that land tax will fall by about 12 per cent from $143 425 to $125 810. The best figure we can provide by way of a very quick calculation for the land tax component of a $7 million property—this is not taking into account the metropolitan region improvement tax—is that it will fall from an estimated $72 850 to $68 430. With my very rough maths, that is something in the vicinity of five or six per cent. If the member wants the exact figure, we can respond in writing. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I wanted to place on the record why the Labor Party supports this bill being passed and why it is not opposed to it. Someone who owned a $7 million property the year before would have realistically thought they would have been paying land tax of $70 000 or $80 000—I suspect they would have done their budgeting on the fact that properties have gone up by 30 per cent—adding somewhere in the order of another $50 000 to their land tax assessment anyway. They would have probably budgeted for that figure and expected to pay some of that but I suspect that, in some areas, properties may have gone up by more than 30 per cent. It is a significant jump. The land value of some of the businesses that we are talking about may be very high. We talked about some of those businesses along the strip between Dunsborough and Busselton that were hit in the past. They would have made their assessment on that basis. Even if they thought it may go up to $100 000 this year, they were already coping with it going up to $25 000, which is probably a fair chunk of their profits for that year. On top of that, if it goes up to even $133 000, which would have been the figure before the reductions that were contained in the existing budget, it is a significant jump. The owners of these businesses might be very land rich and have very valuable properties but they may have held and operated that same business and the same business model for a considerable time. I support the government’s decision to hold the land tax at the amount that was set within the budget. The total revenue that was collected was set there. That needs to be incorporated in the debate. When people say that they will not support this piece of legislation, they need to realise that when some people received their land tax assessment, it would have been a fair jump on what they had already budgeted for. Even if we look at figures from a regional area, we are probably talking about a difference of up to $50 000. As a result of the growth in land valuations over the past couple of years, some people probably accounted for it but that is still a significant jump. There is an argument about it being a windfall. I do not know that windfall is the right term but it is appropriate for us to be passing this legislation this evening and not obstructing the government as it tries to deal with businesses in a reasonable way. I doubt that we would have foreseen a 30 per cent average jump in valuations. That is probably the biggest jump that has occurred in quite a few years across the state. In the circumstances, it is reasonable to keep it at 30 per cent and not have it jump to 35 per cent. Hon BARRY HOUSE: The figures relating to $7 million or $10 million properties are not unrealistic. They are real in terms of the properties that Hon Ken Travers is talking about. They are used for business purposes— caravan parks, holiday chalets and so on. I would suggest that some of them are valued at well beyond $10 million. The member is right in saying that they would have been feeling very bruised about the prospect of the land tax they would have had to pay, and they are still feeling bruised. One of the major issues in land tax assessments is aggregation where people have a series of investment or business properties and have to pay the rate that applies to the aggregate value. Hon Ken Travers: Some of those people probably have a greater capacity to pay. It is the small, family owned business that has a valuable piece of land under an existing business model. Hon BARRY HOUSE: The member fairly well summed it up. Having a 30 per cent jump was a hard enough pill to swallow, let alone an unanticipated 35 per cent jump. The only thing I can say is that in terms of volatility,

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009] 3221 property prices and various other financial situations, the past 12 months have probably been unprecedented in our lifetime. I would estimate that most of the people in this category would not be receiving any of the windfalls, using the same terminology, from Mr Rudd. It is only fair that they receive a bit of a windfall from Mr Barnett. Clause put and passed. Clauses 2 to 6 put and passed. Title put and passed. Report Bill reported, without amendment, and the report adopted. Third Reading Bill read a third time, on motion by Hon Barry House (Parliamentary Secretary), and passed. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2009 Second Reading Resumed from 11 March. HON SALLY TALBOT (South West) [8.50 pm]: I have already indicated to Hon Barry House, who has carriage of this legislation, that the opposition will support the Occupational Safety and Health Legislation Amendment Bill 2009. As Hon Barry House pointed out, when he second read this legislation into Hansard, essentially it is the same legislation that the Labor Party brought to this house when we were in government. No substantial changes have been made to that bill. I will not speak for long because a couple of my colleagues want to take up a few points. I will draw the attention of the house to a couple of interesting points concerning this legislation. The reality is, as I often point out as I move around the electorate, that contrary to the public’s perception of how we operate in this place, we actually agree on about 85 per cent of the legislation that comes to us for debate. Of the remaining 15 per cent, in the order of 85 per cent is negotiated out in the process that we are going through now. Actually we disagree on far fewer issues than the public popularly believes. Nevertheless, some of the questions that are addressed in this bill have been around for an extraordinarily long time and have not always elicited the kind of bipartisan support that that this bill has. My next point goes back to before my time in this chamber. I was surprised that one of the provisions of this bill is tidying up the provisions that bring the police within the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984. This goes right back to 1999 when a former Premier of the state, Geoff Gallop, introduced a private member’s bill into the other place. In June 1999, the then Leader of the Opposition, Dr Geoff Gallop, MLA, introduced the Occupational Safety and Health Amendment Bill 1999, which would have had the effect of extending the act to cover police officers. Dr Gallop said — Labor is not prepared to see our police officers continue to be exposed to this lack of basic industrial law and employment protection. Undoubtedly, the police work in hazardous situations. … However, other workers also work in high- risk situations. … Instead, for far too long the unique nature of policing has been used as an excuse to avoid the standards that apply to other workers and in other workplaces. Sadly, at that time the then coalition government did not support the passage of that bill and it did not progress beyond the second reading debate stage and lapsed before Parliament was prorogued for the state election in 2001. There is some history behind this legislation. This is an issue that has been taken up over the years by various members on this side of the house. My colleague Hon Kate Doust, who intends to contribute to this debate, raised it very eloquently in her inaugural speech in 2001. This bill is tidying up provisions to clarify that for the purposes of the act, the Crown is considered to be the employer of police officers. Another point I wish to draw to the attention of members is the clarification in this bill of the operation of provisional improvement notices. There has been a misunderstanding and misrepresentation about what exactly a provisional improvement notice intends to do. I am pleased that there is bipartisan support in this place for clarifying those provisions. It has already been placed on record in this chamber in the second reading debate in the previous Parliament that a PIN cannot be used to shut down an operation. A minimum of seven days has to be provided for a problem to be remedied before the PIN can take effect. This bill makes clear who can apply for a PIN, and it protects the person who issues the provisional improvement notice, which is very important. It is something of a mystery that it has taken an amount of time for this provision in the act to be clarified. At this point I draw my comments to a close and leave it to other members to make specific points on the provisions of this bill in which they are interested.

3222 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009]

HON GIZ WATSON (North Metropolitan) [8.56 pm]: The Occupational Safety and Health Amendment Bill 2009 is in all material aspects identical to the bill that was introduced last year by the previous government and passed with the support of the then opposition in the other place. That bill had not been considered in this place when the election was called last year, and that is why it has now been introduced into this house. The Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 was reviewed in 2002. Arising out of that review, the act was amended in 2004. The Greens (WA) supported the 2004 amendments. Our main concern then was that the legislation reflect the seriousness of industrial manslaughter, which is an issue that this bill does not address. It has been discovered since the 2004 amendments were implemented that some of the amendments may not have achieved what the Parliament intended, or may have been interpreted differently to the way the government intended. This bill is intended to rectify this and ensure that the Crown is still treated as the employer of police officers in respect of occupational safety and health, as the previous speaker pointed out; that in alternative labour arrangements, for example labour hire situations, the contractor has the duties of an employer and the workers have the duties of employees; that in situations in which a safety representative issues an employer with a provisional improvement notice to remedy a contravention of the act, the usual responsibilities, rights and protections of safety representatives continue to apply; that the jurisdiction of the Occupational Safety and Health Tribunal includes referral of decisions and determinations by the WorkSafe Western Australia Commission commissioner, rather than these being dealt with by a magistrate; and that clarity is provided regarding the appointment of a commissioner to the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission of a person with knowledge of and experience in occupational safety and health, the act, and the Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994. It is worth noting that clause 34 of the explanatory memorandum states that the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission is happy with the bill’s provisions in this regard. I undertook to make inquiries on this bill by consulting the Employment Law Centre of Western Australia, UnionsWA and other representative bodies. The WA Industrial Relations Commission supports the amendments that relate to its function. The second reading speech states that the Commissioner for Occupational Safety and Health, the WA Industrial Relations Commission and the State Solicitor’s Office were consulted on this bill. This bill is consistent with our position in 2004. I note that clause 4 will improve occupational health and safety provisions for police officers, which is welcome. I indicate that the Greens are happy to support the bill but would like to note some matters for the record. I will comment first on the alternative labour arrangements that are covered in clauses 5, 6 and 7. Clause 5 deals with contractor situations and ensures that the provisions of section 19A, which deals with penalties for an employer’s gross breach of duty, section 20A, which deals with breaches by employees—for example, middleman contractors are also treated as employees—section 23H, which deals with an employer’s breach of duty to provide safe premises if accommodation is provided, and section 23J, which deals with an employer’s breach of duty to notify of disease injury or death, will apply. Clause 6 deals with other labour arrangements and is in similar terms to clause 5, but with the omission of section 23H. Clause 7 deals with labour hire arrangements and is in similar terms to clause 6, but also with the omission of section 23H. Therefore, section 23H has been omitted from two of these three clauses. However, Unions WA advises that in some labour hire arrangements, it is not uncommon for a donga to be provided. Although this issue is outside the scope of the 2004 amendments and hence outside the scope of this bill, I want to raise this issue today with the parliamentary secretary. I have also raised this issue with the minister’s office. I am advised that WorkSafe has now noted this issue as an appropriate matter for consideration during the next statutory review of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. I put that on the record as the response that we have received. We are pleased that will form part of that review. That matter will also be considered by the National Review into Model Occupational Health and Safety Laws process. Recommendation 20 of the review’s first report deals with the issue of an employer’s duty of care in respect of workers’ accommodation and recommends that the detail be contained in regulations. The minister’s office has advised me that a framework for model recommendations is due in October this year, with the bulk of the model recommendations due in 2010. Another matter that I want to raise in the context of this bill is the problem that arises when more than one worker is affected by the same occupational safety and health incident. This matter is not covered in the bill, but it is an issue that was raised with my office by the Communications Electrical Plumbing Union and Unions WA. Section 26(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 deals with a worker who stops work because he or she has reasonable grounds to believe that to continue to work would expose him or her or any other person to a risk of imminent and serious injury or imminent and serious harm to his or her health. Workers who stop work pursuant to this section are entitled to a continuation of pay and entitlements. If there is a dispute about this matter between the employee and the employer, under section 28 of the act the matter must be referred to the Occupational Safety and Health Tribunal. Because the test in section 26 is subjective, each worker is required to submit an individual claim about his or her state of mind. The problem is that if the dispute relates to a large number of workers all affected by the same OSH incident, the system breaks down. Unions do not have the

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009] 3223 capacity to make a large number of applications on behalf of workers, and even if every worker makes an application, the tribunal lacks the capacity to deal with those applications. To give members an example, I was told about a dispute that had involved 300 people who had stopped work at a Collie power station construction site based on an allegation that fine lead paint dust from material brought in from overseas was spreading around the construction site and causing an occupational safety and health hazard. I was told that the unions and the tribunal had been swamped with about 1 000 claims arising out of just three incidents such as this. The inability of the system to cope with such a large number of employers means that unpaid workers are discouraged from asserting their right to a safe work place, and their right to pay. The solutions to this situation would be to change the subjective test to an objective test, and either enable the union to refer the claim to the tribunal on behalf of a group of workers, or enable the tribunal to hear all the claims together. That is obviously a material change that is beyond the scope of this bill, which is to make the 2004 amendments workable. However, this matter can also be considered via the National Review into Model Occupational Health and Safety Laws process. Recommendations 121(a) and (e) of the review’s second report are relevant to these issues. The minister’s office has advised me that an exposure draft on the model legislation is due for release for public comment in May 2009. I hope the minister will ensure that this matter is covered during the national review. I note again that it is beyond the scope of what we are dealing with today. However, it is an important occupational safety and health matter, and that is why I wanted to put it on the record during the debate this evening. With those comments, the Greens support the bill. HON JON FORD (Mining and Pastoral) [9.05 pm]: I support the Occupational Safety and Health Legislation Amendment Bill 2009. However, I would like to make a few comments, particularly about provisional improvement notices. The bill deals with some clarifications with regard to civil liability as it applies to occupational safety and health representatives who issue PINs. It also clarifies the role and the obligations of employers in supporting occupational health and safety representatives by providing training and the facilities that they need to carry out their job. Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, an occupational safety and health representative has an obligation to report things in the workplace that need to be improved from an occupational safety and health perspective. I welcome this clarification. However, the reason we need this clarification is that in many workplaces around Western Australia, there is no trust between employers and employees. I will give members an example of how this may work in a practical sense. A mining company may decide as a matter of policy that it will no longer employ a spotter in the dump truck area. The role of a spotter is to stand on the dump pad and radio to the truck driver when he has come to the end of the dump pad so that he can stop in time. An employee may tell his employer that he believes it is wrong to abandon that policy, other mining companies still employ spotters, and he will not feel safe if a spotter is not employed. The employer may counter that by saying that the employee is engaging in industrial action, because it is not about safety; the employee is just arguing against company policy. Unfortunately, this sort of attitude is widespread across not just mine sites but many work sites. The employee may then say to the employer that he is arguing about an occupational safety and health issue, not an industrial issue, and there needs to be some clarification. The employer may then threaten the employee across the table by saying that he knows it is an industrial matter, and the employee had better be careful or the employer will sue him for lost production. Those are the sorts of comments that go backwards and forwards on work sites. The companies in which this sort of behaviour occurs usually have very poor safety statistics. In companies in which this sort of behaviour does not occur, the number of fatalities, and the number of lost time injuries and reportable first aid cases, is usually very low. Those types of companies do not need this legislation, because they usually have in place a far better occupational safety and health regime than legislation can deliver. In fact, most of the companies in the resource sector in Western Australia have such a regime in place. I can give an example of that. Yesterday, I, along with other members of this place and the other place, was invited to a presentation by Woodside Petroleum on its Pluto expansion. That is a great expansion for the state and, indeed, for the country. The first thing the company members did, before they welcomed everybody, was point out to everybody in that meeting—they were lobbying us—where the alarms were and where the exits were to get out of the room. After the welcome, the first thing Don Voelte, the chief executive officer of Woodside, did was talk at length about the safety performance of the company, how it was striving to achieve an injury-free project, and how it had achieved days without injury across the whole company. This is a company with 3 000 direct employees and tens of thousands of indirect employees, including contractors. However, it had not achieved months without injury. When the company talked about injuries, it actually came down to the level of LTIs—lost time injuries—across the board. The company members did not try to exclude their contractors; they included everyone who worked on their sites. That is an example of a company that takes safety very seriously. I acknowledge that there must be that same commitment to safety at the other end by employees. I can detect a very different environment as soon as I walk onto some work sites. That is obvious in that the ground is dirty, the place is generally untidy, and the employees complain and look as though they just want to get through the day and out the other end. That is what this legislation is about. I therefore welcome this legislation, but at the same time wish that we were not in this place debating it now. When there is trust between employees and

3224 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009] employers and they are allowed to build on that trust, they do not need this legislation. We are a long way as a state from getting there. We could have a debate, but not this evening, about the reasons we are in this position in this state, and indeed across Australia. Provisional improvement notices are, therefore, a very essential part of safety in the Western Australian workplace because they give ownership of safety responsibility through legislation to individual employees, and that allows them through statute to have some say in their workplace—employees have an obligation to report safety breaches and employers can also see that the state through this Parliament is serious about safety. The legislation therefore helps employers and employees. I must say that a lot of employees also do not get the message about safety, and therefore must understand that they have a responsibility to themselves and a responsibility to their workmates. This bill sets out a good framework for that and makes only minor changes to the current legislation. I am very pleased that the government is proceeding with the amendments, but I wanted to make those comments about the relationship in a lot of companies between the employers and their employees to show that we need this legislation to push for safety in this state. With those comments, I welcome the speedy passage of the bill. HON KATE DOUST (South Metropolitan — Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [9.13 pm]: I too rise to speak on this bill this evening. I acknowledge that it was a bill that was first introduced into this place by the then Labor government, and I therefore support the amendments that are being made. It is not a complicated or lengthy bill. However, I want to make some comments, because a number of events have occurred and a number of issues have been raised with me since the original introduction of the bill that I need to put on the record. Last Monday a number of members attended a commemoration at Solidarity Park to remember all those workers who have died as a result of injuries or accidents in their workplace. Those types of events bring home the fact that we have a long way to go in this state in dealing with occupational health and safety, be it in a general workplace or in a mining workplace. I will therefore refer to some areas and go through a couple of points. This bill is very important because it clarifies a number of grey areas. My previous work in the trade union movement was to deliver training on safety. When I was teaching safety representatives about the legislation, the grey areas of the legislation were always a key issue because, quite frankly, for a lot of people in workplaces it was difficult to sit down with the employer and work through some of the areas of the legislation that were not too clear. Hon Giz Watson alluded to the difficulties with section 26 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act about the right of workers to stop work when they have a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger to their health. Not many workers utilised that section of the act because they were unsure of the steps they needed to take. However, over the years, that area of the act has been expanded and clarified, as have areas involving the rights and responsibilities of safety reps and employers. It is important that, as workplaces evolve and the nature of work changes, this type of legislation also evolves to keep up to date. Clarifying those very important areas for the police was a good thing. I know that we dealt many years ago with the inclusion of police under the occupational safety and health legislation, but there was always some difficulty about who their actual employer was and who bore the ultimate responsibility for providing them with a safe workplace, for providing them with equipment and for resolving issues for people working in those situations. I believe this bill has gone a long way towards resolving those issues by simply clarifying that the Crown is considered in this instance to be the employer of police officers. Also, the clarification of labour-hire arrangements is important. There is still a lot of work to be done in that area. I know from feedback I get that there is still a lot of difficulty for workers hired under those situations with the inadequacy of training, of monitoring, of the management of their work once they get out to the workplace and of ensuring that they know how to perform in a safe manner the tasks that they are employed to perform. Although the legislation has been clarified, there needs to be a lot of work done on the ground to ensure that these things are delivered on. In terms of clarification of safety reps, a couple of members talked about provisional improvement notices, which are an important part of this legislation. I think Victoria was the first state under Jeff Kennett to introduce legislation for safety reps to issue PINs in their workplace. Given that that was back in the early 1990s, that decision was quite an adventurous step for somebody like Jeff Kennett to take because, at that time, historically, he was quite possibly the only Premier one would have thought would not have gone down that path. However, he did, and I know that at that time it gave workers, unions and industry—particularly workers and unions— great hope that the government of the day in this state would also follow. From memory, when the regulations were changed in 1996 by then Minister Kierath, it was thought that the Liberal government of the day would also introduce PINs, but, unfortunately, it did not. Hon Jon Ford raised the point about the relationship between employers and employees that can sometimes create a difficulty in which they are unsure about issuing PINs or unsure about the processes to be used or how the boss will deal with PINs. I know that in a lot of cases when I was not in the training room, I was out on the road working both with industry and people on the shop floor about how they could go through the process of resolving issues. It was always felt that if there was the capacity

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009] 3225 to issue a notice, such as an alert to say that there was a problem that the employee wanted the employer to do something about and take seriously, that should have been able to happen. Often, issues could be resolved at the workplace without having to go through all the processes and ultimately for WorkSafe to conduct a more formal inquiry and perhaps even going down the path of issuing improvement or prohibition notices. I refer to the core reason for introducing this type of legislation. This particular legislation is based upon what came out of the Robbins report in the UK back in the 1970s. The key emphasis in that report was on workers and employers working together in their workplaces to resolve these matters, and whenever we talk about occupational health and safety, that should be at the forefront of people’s minds; that is, people working collaboratively to achieve a common goal of reducing any potential incidents or accidents in the workplace. It is very good that this legislation is constantly being reviewed in an attempt to improve it so that people can build those good working relationships and provide clarity about the various players’ rights and responsibilities in the workplace. In that way the players can do their utmost to remove hazards, reduce incidents, prevent accidents from happening and, ultimately, we hope, prevent accidents from occurring in workplaces. It is very important that these types of reviews are undertaken. I note that Hon Giz Watson alluded to the national proposals that are flagged for later in the year. That will be a very interesting process. The legislation in Western Australia has been developing very well. As somebody who has worked in that area my concern is that when we pare things down, or even things out across a national system, we sometimes lose the good things that are in our own state. In the past, I thought Western Australia had better systems for occupational health and safety in the area of training and development of safety reps, so they could work within their workplaces with their employers to improve health and safety. I thought our legislation was quite good, whereas some of the other states still had a way to go. I will be very interested to see how that national legislation progresses. I am not debating this bill simply to get up and have a go at the government. I want to put this on the record, because I have always been quite passionate about this issue. It is something that I keep in touch with to see what changes are happening. However, whenever Liberal governments are in office, they do not seem to pay the same degree of attention to this issue or to understand the importance of occupational health and safety in the workplace. When I was working in the trade union movement I saw a watering down of legislation and regulations that perhaps in hindsight may have been better off staying as they were as a way to strengthen the role of occupational health and safety in the workplace. One issue that set alarm bells ringing for me within the three per cent efficiency cuts related to the WorkSafe library. I was contacted by a number of WorkSafe employees who were concerned when they were informed that the library would be shut down as part of the three per cent efficiency cuts. I do not know how many members in this place have utilised that library, but it is a fantastic, dedicated resource. It is a place where industry, safety reps, ordinary people off the street, students and academics can research any aspect of health and safety. Material, safety data, up-to-date journals, periodicals, and a range of things can be accessed not just at a state level but from all over the world. One of the best parts of that library is the highly skilled staff who work there. They will find the information for users, set them on the right path and give them assistance. I was really concerned that if this state lost that facility there would be a major gap, a big black hole for health and safety practitioners in this state. I was very relieved when the government announced a week later that it would not be closing the library. I was relieved not just for the people who utilise the library, but also the people in the department. It is an essential resource for the ergonomists, the hygienists and the inspectors who work in the department to keep up-to-date with the latest information and solutions to assist them in their work in trying to resolve issues; and also in providing potential solutions to safety reps or employers in workplaces. A very important part of their role is to provide suggestions for improvement in workplaces. That set off alarm bells for me. I hope the parliamentary secretary will take my comments to his minister. The next issue that set off alarm bells came from feedback from WorkSafe inspectors that they can no longer carry out spot inspections or targeted inspections. They cannot just rock up at a workplace and say, “We are here to check things out to make sure the regulations are being adhered to.” I do not know if that is because of cutbacks or a change in work practices. However, that has been one of WorkSafe’s very important roles: where an issue has arisen in the workplace, an inspector can be called out to carry out an inspection straightaway. That is actually the best time to find out whether something is going wrong, rather than giving advance notice. I have seen situations in which the problem can be tidied up so that everything looks okay, but the work practices may not necessarily be okay. I ask that the parliamentary secretary take these issues to his minister: The fact that WorkSafe inspectors are now being told that they cannot do spot inspections or targeted inspections is a grave concern as potential problems may be overlooked simply because an inspector is not able to do routine inspections in workplaces. In fact, that is a very important role because sometimes those types of inspections can throw up issues, and the solution is simply to point out the problem to the employer. For example, the employer might have a problem with poor lighting in a warehouse. I had this problem at Coventrys, where the guys were walking round with torches during the day. An inspector could go out and check everything with a lux meter,

3226 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009] and if it did not meet the Australian standard, the employer had to fix the problem. If WorkSafe does not have the capacity to send people out to conduct random spot inspections, problems could be overlooked and standards deteriorate. That is a real concern. Another issue is that while it is really important to ensure that legislation is kept up to date—and it is all very well to have it in black at white—I have real concerns about the number of safety reps being elected in workplaces and whether they are being trained in workplaces so that they can do the job of engaging with their employer and their workmates and of going through the processes of inspection, investigation, working on committees and gaining the confidence to deal with these situations. I would be very interested at some point—it is not something we need to do now—to find out what is happening in the area of training. I note that funding for UnionsWA and the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia has now been cut for the provision of safety training in this state. I know that a number of other providers exist in the city, but I am interested in knowing how safety reps are being elected, in what sort of numbers, and whether there is some sort of reporting mechanism for this. That is an issue that I have raised previously. Brian Bradley will probably be able to provide that information. It is something I used to drive him crazy about many years ago. It is very important that the safety representatives in workplaces be a key element of this whole system. We should be doing everything we can to encourage people to put their hands up and take on this vital role. They will save employers money in the long term, because of the work they do identifying and reporting hazards and getting employers to take action to remove those hazards to prevent incidents and injuries. I hope this will not be the last time we see health and safety legislation amended in a positive way in this state during the term of the present government. I know that the recent tragic deaths in the mining industry will be dealt with in a separate area, but we should not focus only on the mining and resources area. We need to focus also on general workplaces, because sometimes simple incidents can lead to tragic outcomes. We should make sure that appropriate training takes place in all workplaces, both at the commencement of employment and on an ongoing basis, for not just the workers but also the employers, so that health and safety is always at the forefront of their minds. I have always taken the view that this is the key issue in workplaces. It does not matter how much workers take home each week; if the worker cannot go home as healthy as when he went to work, no amount of money can compensate for the loss of activity or enjoyment of life, or the loss of a loved one. I hope that over the three or four years before the next election this government places a high level of importance on occupational safety and health and continues the good work that has been done since the early 1980s in developing this legislation and building relationships between all the players. We should also be looking at how we include all the other components of the workplace as it evolves. With those few words, I support this bill. It is very good that grey areas are clarified. I remember the provisional improvement notices. I do not know whether this has been done, but it would be very useful if there were some mechanism for clarifying these. Perhaps a template for a provisional improvement notice can be included in the schedule so that people have some idea of what to look for and the sorts of things that should be included. That may very well have already happened in the mining industry, but I do not think that is the case in other workplaces. If we are to ensure that people do the job, we must give them examples of how it is to be done. With those few words, I look forward to the passage of this bill. HON BARRY HOUSE (South West — Parliamentary Secretary) [9.34 pm] — in reply: I thank members for their words and their support for the Occupational Safety and Health Legislation Amendment Bill 2009. Hon Sally Talbot correctly pointed out that this bill was previously introduced by the Carpenter government and had gone through most of its parliamentary passage before the election. Only the election interfered with its inevitable passage through the entire process. The Liberal Party supported it then, and we support it now. That is why it has been reintroduced. Hon Giz Watson raised an issue about section 26 of the principal act. She has already queried this and sought some advice through the Department of Commerce, and I am pleased that she has received an assurance that the issue will be addressed in the current review at national and state levels, and will be addressed in the next round of tidying this legislation. Hon Jon Ford made a very good point on which I think we agree, about not only this legislation but also a lot of other legislation that comes before the house: the workplace that exists with harmony and trust is the best possible practice of the lot. It is a pity that we have to legislate for every little item involved in that trust and the inevitable partnership that exists between employers and their workforce. I sometimes question why we go into such a great amount of detail in legislation. It is the old situation that one exception to the rule may cost someone’s life or provide an avenue for some unscrupulous employer or employee to abuse the system. Regrettably, a set of rules is necessary to operate by. The honourable member spoke primarily about the mining industry. I have a little insight into the situation in that industry. My niece and her husband run a growing contracting business in the mining industry at some of the important operations around the state. They place an extremely high emphasis on safety. That is their first and foremost goal in promoting their business. They have a great safety record, and to their credit they place that high on their list of credentials.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009] 3227

Hon Jon Ford: It is good for business. Hon BARRY HOUSE: Yes, it is good for their business and for the companies that hire them on the mine sites, and, most importantly, it is good for the people involved at the coalface. The points made by Hon Kate Doust about the workplace library, WorkSafe inspectors, the safety representatives and the provisional improvement notices have all been noted. They have been well made. The point she made about the need for this legislation to continually take account of changing circumstances in the workplace is also valid. We know that we live in a rapidly changing world, particularly in regard to the way things are done and our technological advances. The honourable member also made a valid point that it does not always make sense and does not always necessarily have to follow that we go to national and uniform legislation. That is not always the best remedy. Sometimes having our own state legislation based on our own perspective on things is a very valid way of doing things. The honourable member gave Jeff Kennett credit for bringing in some of this legislation in the 1990s, and that is very interesting. Jeff Kennett is a very interesting person—a man full of contradictions. Some have said that the softest thing about Jeff Kennett is his teeth, and that the only method he knows is to crash or crash through. That has been his approach in the political arena in certain circumstances, and now, as the president of the Hawthorn Football Club, he has taken on the Australian Football League hierarchy. He could be just the person to loosen up its rigid and inflexible approach to certain aspects of Australia’s national game. The league seems to be adopting a pretty tough and uncompromising view about the world, and will not listen to anybody. He is a contradiction. As Hon Kate Doust pointed out, he introduced this legislation in Victoria in the 1990s. He heads up the valuable organisation beyondblue and makes a contribution in a lot of other areas. I thank members for their support of the legislation. Obviously it had the support of everybody prior to the election and it has the support of the government since the election. I commend the bill to the house. Question put and passed. Bill read a second time. Leave granted to proceed forthwith to third reading. Third Reading Bill read a third time, on motion by Hon Barry House (Parliamentary Secretary), and transmitted to the Assembly. VETERINARY SURGEONS AMENDMENT BILL 2009 Second Reading Resumed from 18 March. HON JON FORD (Mining and Pastoral) [9.41 pm]: The opposition supports the bill. It is a very simple bill, which seeks to clarify who can and cannot be qualified to be a veterinary surgeon across jurisdictions. At the moment there is a chance that somebody whose qualifications would not be recognised in this state could be recognised in other jurisdictions, and this measure seeks to fix that situation. In saying that, we support the bill. HON GIZ WATSON (North Metropolitan) [9.42 pm]: The purpose of the Veterinary Surgeons Amendment Bill 2009 is to amend the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1960 by redressing the requirements for registration as a veterinary surgeon in Western Australia. The bill amends section 20 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1960. It amends the requirement for veterinary surgeons to have completed a degree at an Australian university, opening up to tertiary institutions prescribed by regulations. This bill is about making the WA prerequisites for registration as rigorous as the requirements in other states. We do not object to that goal and will support the bill, but I will make comments on three aspects. Firstly, I note the bill was not introduced into the Legislative Assembly but came into the Legislative Council at the first instance. I wonder whether that indicates a new trend that in cases in which the responsible minister is a member of the Legislative Council, the bill is likely to be introduced here first. I understand that this option only applies to bills without financial implications. I am seeking some indication. I am asking that because such bills have a significantly shorter period before debate is brought on, and for my office staff needing to prepare for such bills, it makes the time frame very tight. If we are likely to see more bills introduced into the Legislative Council first, it would be appreciated if the Leader of the House could provide us with advanced warning and give us an indication of those bills earlier to prevent any delay in debate. That is a general comment, whether this indeed is a trend or not. My second concern regards another trend, of which this bill is an example, regarding the substitution of definitive legal terms with provisions made by regulations. This is a very skeletal bill. Although I acknowledge that regulations are subject to disallowance motions, in my view the actual bill should indicate more. The bill

3228 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009] transfers the decision, in terms of what qualifications will be recognised, basically to the executive. It takes the opportunity for scrutiny out of this process. I acknowledge that the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation does good work in examining regulations. The terms of reference relate to quite technical matters. With a bill like this before the house, where the substantive matter as to what will be formally recognised as a qualification for veterinary surgeons is to come up in regulations rather than being spelt out in the bill, it requires us to be vigilant when those regulations come through. This process is not terribly satisfactory in that regard. We note that although this is not a particularly controversial area, and although we will support the bill, we do not particularly like bills that are so skeletal in nature. The third concern relates more generally to veterinary surgeons in Western Australia. From the 2008 annual report of the WA Veterinary Surgeons Board I understand that there are now more than 1 100 veterinary surgeons registered in WA and more than 500 veterinary nurses. Regulations have worked well and the system needs to be supported. Quite frankly, I could not work out why the bill simply could not prescribe that the qualifications for veterinary surgeons should meet the same requirements as they do in other states. I think it is a little minimalist. However, having said that, we will not oppose the bill. We will support the bill as it has been presented. HON ROBYN McSWEENEY (South West — Minister for Child Protection) [9.47 pm] — in reply: I thank Hon Jon Ford and Hon Giz Watson for their contributions. It is a very simple bill. To answer Hon Giz Watson’s question as to why it is in the Legislative Council at first instance, I believe it is because it had no financial implications and was indeed a very simple bill. I will read out what I have as it might go some way to answering some of those questions that Hon Giz Watson asked. The Veterinary Surgeons Act regulates veterinary practice in Western Australia. Section 20 of the act requires that to be registered as a veterinary surgeon, a person must be of “good fame and character” and must prove they hold a degree from an Australian university or from an overseas university accredited by the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council, AVBC. All other states require an Australian university to be accredited by the AVBC before allowing a graduate of that university to become a registered veterinary surgeon. Currently four universities—those of Queensland, Sydney and Melbourne and Murdoch University—offer undergraduate veterinary science courses. New undergraduate veterinary courses are proposed in Townsville, Wagga Wagga and Adelaide, but the standards of these degree courses are as yet unknown. The University of Queensland course has currently being identified as deficient by the AVBC. I guess that answers why they are doing this. The amendment deletes automatic registration for Australian university graduates and allows the state to prescribe by regulation a specific university or class of university whose graduates will be considered as accredited. This will allow the state, should it so desire, to adopt all AVBC accredited universities as accepted accredited universities. It will bring the state to the same position as other states. Vets already registered in WA will retain their registration if their university loses accreditation, as the university was deemed to be accredited when the vet graduated. Only new graduates will be affected. Question put and passed. Bill read a second time. Leave granted to proceed forthwith to third reading. Third Reading Bill read a third time, on motion by Hon Robyn McSweeney (Minister for Child Protection), and transmitted to the Assembly. ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE HON NORMAN MOORE (Mining and Pastoral — Leader of the House) [9.51 pm]: I move — That the house do now adjourn. Shark Attack — Preventive Measures — Adjournment Debate HON JON FORD (Mining and Pastoral) [9.51 pm]: I will try to whiz through this speech because we have a queue. I would like to elaborate on a question I asked of the Leader of the House today relating to an article that appeared in The West Australian on Friday, 1 May 2009 headed “High-tech shark alert for Perth”. It was a huge article. I am not having a go at the Minister for Fisheries but I want to have a go at the Department of Fisheries. This was a full-page article that appeared on the third page of the newspaper. Underneath the picture of a nice smiling white pointer it states — Predator: The program will track white pointers and alert Perth beachgoers. I know that that has nothing to do with the minister or the Department of Fisheries; it is an interpretation by the newspaper. However, I have a few issues with the article. It says that the program will track white pointers and

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009] 3229 alert Perth beachgoers. It will not do that. The article refers to Dr McAuley, who says that 55 white pointers are being tagged and he hoped that researchers will tag 100. I do not have definitive knowledge but I can say that there are a lot more than 100 sharks out there. The website of the Department of Fisheries says that it sees three species of sharks as a danger. It states — The three most dangerous species are the great white shark (also known as the white pointer … the tiger shark, … and the bull shark (also known locally as the Swan River whaler) The advice given to me by the Department of Fisheries when I was the Minister for Fisheries was that there is more chance of being bitten by a shark when swimming in the Swan River than when swimming off Cottesloe Beach. Indeed, that is supported around the world because bull sharks are responsible for more shark attacks worldwide than any other species. It is probably because they are found in just about every single estuarine system in the world. The real issue that I have with this article, which has been beaten up by The West, is that this program is having a discrete look at a species that is at the top of the food chain for research purposes. It has nothing to do with protecting beachgoers. It discredits the Department of Fisheries when it is dealing with the real predators, which are us. We destroy a lot more sharks than sharks destroy us. The department is charged with the job of protecting that important natural asset for all Western Australians, indeed, all Australians. It has a reputation to maintain. I find it particularly offensive that the department indulges in this absolutely self-indulgent twaddle. I do not understand why it has done it. When I was the Minister for Fisheries I refused to let it put out any press releases by itself without going through my office. I suggest that the Leader of the House does the same. What is the department thinking about? In this state we have one of the biggest single species fisheries in dollar value collapsing in front of us, yet it is indulging in this absolute rubbish. We have issues with demersal fin fish being put under severe stress off our coastline but it does not want to talk about that. It wants to talk about sharks. It is a serious problem for the Department of Fisheries’ reputation worldwide and in this state. The great thing about the Western Australian Fishing Industry Council is that it is like Media Watch. I bet that the next time the minister goes in to see the people at WAFIC—I know he has been overseas recently—there will be copies of this article around the table and some real characters from the shark industry will be looking at this. They will be asking the question that I asked: does the minister believe that this high-tech shark alert will rescue Western Australians and stop them from being hurt? We can go into the other detail. It takes two minutes for somebody to make a call to Canada and then somebody in Canada will send back an email to a Fisheries officer’s computer in the research centre in Hillarys. If they are lucky, that person will be at their desk. Friday and Saturday afternoons and Sundays are a bit shaky, as are Wednesdays, when they have team meetings. They will then ring up the appropriate rescue authority or send out a helicopter to look for a white pointer “after developing a taste for human flesh”. That is a great little quote. The officers at Fisheries have to pick up their game. I know that the minister is on to them. I look forward to the minister pulling them into line so they stop discrediting themselves with this absolute rubbish. That is what it is; it is rubbish. Information Commissioner — Appointment — Adjournment Debate HON LJILJANNA RAVLICH (East Metropolitan) [9.59 pm]: I rise tonight to speak about the appointment of the new Information Commissioner, Mr Sven Bluemmel, announced by the Premier today. In doing so, there was one thing that I found particularly interesting. After the position was advertised nationally, a panel chaired by the state’s independent Public Sector Commissioner recommended Mr Bluemmel to a five-year appointment. Mr Bluemmel currently holds a director’s position at the Public Sector Commission. It seems very unusual that the commissioner should chair the selection panel to appoint a former director from within his own agency. That is the first point, and I will put it to one side. My other point is that my notes indicate that the Premier said the following about freedom of information applications — I say to the Labor Party in particular and other groups in the community: FOI is part of our democratic system, value it and preserve it and protect and do not abuse it. I don’t want to see legislation coming in curtailing the ability of people to access information but that is dependent upon people responsibly using FOI legislation. When this information came to my attention, the first thing I thought of was that the Premier was issuing a veiled threat to the Labor Party, of which I am a member. He also mentioned other groups in the community. I do not know to whom he was referring. Hon Jon Ford: The newspapers. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Maybe the newspapers, but I do not know.

3230 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009]

I take this issue very seriously. I have already put on record why I think access to information is very important within the context of accountability. This is a government that went to the last election very much on the issue of being open and accountable. Now, some eight months after taking office, we have a Premier issuing veiled threats to people who have legally made applications for information from government agencies or, indeed, ministers’ offices. The hidden message is that we should not do that, because if we do the government will change the law to perhaps deny access to certain categories of people, maybe politicians. Where does it start and where does it end? This veiled threat is very disturbing. It indicates to me that the Premier has something to be fearful of. I have sought information from numerous ministers, perhaps all ministers. I have been seeking information on election commitments and policies, where they exist. Where they do not exist, I have been seeking information on anything that might indicate that there has been prior planning of policies that was, perhaps, not fully developed. As a previous minister, I routinely handed over information about my diary and I routinely handed over information about the expenditure of public moneys. I did not see any reason why I should not have handed over information on my diary or financial records about the expenditure on my credit card. We now find that ministers of this government think that they should not be providing any information, be it on matters of policy or lack of policy, be it on the operation of aspects of their offices, be it on election commitments or be it on financial expenditure. I want to know why, in a Westminster system, we have a Premier and ministers who do not believe that they have any obligation to provide such information. I think it extraordinary that this is the case. I will not have time to go through the 14 refusals that I am currently dealing with. Section 20 of the Freedom of Information Act provides circumstances under which a freedom of information application can be refused. Currently my office has received 14 refusals to deal with access applications. After considerable time has been spent on processing parts of an application or, indeed, almost all the application, I finally receive a letter saying that under section 20 of the act, finding the information sought was taking up too much time and effort of the minister’s office, or that he or she does not have sufficient staff et cetera and therefore I cannot have access to any documentation. I refer to the excuse of not having sufficient resources in the office. Certainly there is nothing in the act that would allow a minister’s office to rightfully have that excuse. In other words, a minister cannot claim that because he or she does not have sufficient officers within his or her office, he or she can claim an exemption under section 20 of the act to say that that access application should not be dealt with. The following ministers have advised my office that they are refusing to deal with my applications on a variety of issues. We have had refusals from the Deputy Premier, Minister Hames. The Minister for Regional Development, Mr Grylls, has refused to deal with two applications—one relates to developments in Ravensthorpe and Hopetoun and the other to his diary. The Treasurer refuses to deal with applications relating to his diary and government policy on small business and the small business strategic plan. Clearly none of that information is available and there are no documents available on either of those issues. I sought information from the Minister for Mines and Petroleum on all correspondence on environmental approvals, mining processes, transport and export of uranium, but he has refused to deal with the application. I believe that it is in the public interest of the people of this state to have some idea of what is going on in that area. The Attorney General, Mr Christian Porter, has refused to provide information on his diary or ministerial credit card. The Premier is on record refusing to provide information about his diary and expenditure on his credit card. Hon Ken Travers: I wonder what they have to hide? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: We wonder. The Minister for Water, Dr Jacobs, does not have any information on the government’s three per cent efficiency dividend. Interestingly, he does not know anything about the staffing in his ministerial office and has no information on the economic audit committee. Hon Ken Travers: That is probably true of that minister. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: It may well be, but I find the whole thing incredible. Three applications have been made to Minister Constable. She has no information about her diary and refuses to hand over any information on her credit card. That minister also has no information on vocational education and training in schools and no information on who has responsibility for that. Hon Robyn McSweeney refuses to hand over anything dealing with her diary or ministerial credit card. It goes on. It is a pretty poor state of affairs. What is worse is that this Premier, presiding over this government, dares to put a threat on the table about the use of the Freedom of Information Act in this state. Unit 4, 31 Victoria Street, Bunbury — Adjournment Debate HON ADELE FARINA (South West) [10.09 pm]: I will provide members with an update on the Bunbury office in Victoria Street. Members will recall that the government raised this matter on 31 March, and that I provided a personal explanation to this house on 1 April. Members will also recall that I sought a meeting with the Director General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet in an effort to get the department to arrange

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009] 3231 for appropriate prominent signage to show where that office is. After a number of requests I eventually got a meeting with the director general on 28 April. The meeting was a complete farce. In the four weeks that had passed since the government raised the matter in Parliament and my meeting the director general, he had taken no action to resolve the signage issue at the Bunbury office. We might as well have had the meeting at Liberal Party headquarters, because the director general is clearly determined to make my office as anonymous as possible. I refuse to be hidden from my constituents. I certainly refuse to be hidden from my constituents by a Liberal Party appointee. The Liberal member for Bunbury, John Castrilli, has an office with prominent signage, and so he should. All members of Parliament are entitled to the same treatment. The Premier’s office needs to sort out this matter. The Department of the Premier and Cabinet should not have entered into this lease if signage was not permitted. It is ridiculous that the Premier’s department is paying the rent on two offices simultaneously and is doing nothing to resolve the signage issue. I will move into the Bunbury office when the Premier’s department arranges for proper, prominent signage on the office. This is a simple matter of principle for me. People are entitled to know where to go to see their member of Parliament. I call on the Premier to direct the director general to sort out this matter and arrange for proper, prominent signage so that my constituents will be able to find the Bunbury office. Cement Industry — Adjournment Debate HON NIGEL HALLETT (South West) [10.10 pm]: I want to speak tonight about the importance of the cement industry in Western Australia. One of the most significant challenges facing the Western Australian cement industry is balancing the needs of the cement industry against the increasing concern about the environment, specifically the impact of the pending environmental legislation. I will give members a bit of the history of the cement industry in Western Australia. From the year 1920, when the production of cement in this state began at the WA Portland Cement Company’s production facility in the Perth suburb of Rivervale, the state of Western Australia has been able to retain a domestic production capacity for cement, with the product being instrumental in the growth of Western Australia and the quality of life of its citizens as we know it today. Indeed, perhaps no other industry has been as instrumental in the growth of our state as the cement industry, with its end product providing almost 90 years of investment in our communities, and lasting value in the form of the state’s vast infrastructure projects. The production of cement began with the search for the state’s natural deposits of lime. The company then began to invest in new communities and infrastructure to ensure cement production. The locality of Lake Clifton, in the state’s Peel region, was one of the first communities to be created and to benefit from the domestic Western Australian cement industry, with both a town site and a railway installed to support the mining of shell lime to be used in the Rivervale production facility. By the mid-1950s, in addition to the production facility in Rivervale, the cement industry in Western Australia established new production facilities south of Perth along the burgeoning coastal strip. Although production at the Rivervale facility ceased for redevelopment purposes in the mid-1980s, by this time the facilities south of Perth had been established and had positioned Western Australia as one of the nation’s most important production centres of cement. Much of the cement produced in Western Australia has gone into building the state’s infrastructure projects. We all know of many projects in this state that have been made possible because of the domestic production of cement. It is difficult not to find a project in this state that has not been built using Western Australian cement. Two companies, Cockburn Cement and BGC, are currently providing the backbone of the state’s domestic cement supplies, with facilities located in Munster, Kwinana, Naval Base and Canning Vale. Combined, these facilities have the capacity to produce over 1.5 million tonnes of cement per annum for Western Australia’s domestic requirements, a production that ensures that this state has continued access to locally produced cement product, thus avoiding the extra and burdensome costs of importing cement from interstate or overseas. Despite the vitality and long-term success of the Western Australian cement industry, a number of factors in the short term are providing the industry with mounting challenges going forward. These challenges affect not only the industry, but also the many people and companies throughout Western Australia that directly benefit from the success of this industry. As we know, cement production is an energy intensive activity. It relies on a reliable and low cost supply of energy to, in simple terms, heat a mixture of lime and bauxite flux to make the cement product. The majority of the energy comes from the burning of gas or coal. It is this process, along with the calcination process, that creates the greenhouse gas emissions that are produced during the manufacture of cement. In noting the emissions associated with the manufacture of cement, and in addressing the concerns about the environment, the Australian cement industry as a whole has concentrated on efficiency, the result being emission levels that compare favourably with those for imported cement. One example is that, nationwide, the total emissions intensity per tonne of cement is 0.74 tonnes of carbon dioxide, whereas imported cement from overseas competitors measures in the vicinity of 1.02 tonnes of carbon dioxide per tonne of cement. That figure will only rise with associated transport costs and the extra handling costs. Clearly the industry’s efficiency endeavours have not only been good for business but also have improved the environmental outcomes.

3232 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009]

Unfortunately, while the cement industry and others like it concentrate on efficiency to improve business and environmental outcomes, the current federal Labor government has ignored this proven path and has rolled out its legislative framework for an emissions trading scheme. That scheme provides little, if any, incentive for improving efficiency and thus environmental outcomes. The federal government’s scheme provides no environmental guarantees. This fact is borne out by the government’s rather confusing handout of permits to supposedly offset the negative effects of the emissions trading scheme. It should be apparent, then, that the federal government’s emissions trading scheme is a white elephant parading around as a green one. This industry has shown that it is responsible and is well managed environmentally, from the dredging of shell sands, to the broad use of industrial waste products such as spent catalyst and blast furnace slag in the manufacture of its cement, to its tough emissions practices, which are monitored and controlled by the state government. The cement industry in Western Australia has continued to provide this state with the building blocks for growth, while being aware of and acting on its environmental responsibilities. It is incumbent on all of us in this place to recognise the importance of the cement industry to this state in the past, the present and the future, and to act in a way that will assist the industry to continue to grow, while also improving efficiency and environmental outcomes. I acknowledge that the federal government has now put its emissions trading scheme back to 2010 — Hon Ken Travers: They heard your speech was coming! Hon NIGEL HALLETT: That is good! The federal government needs to recognise that the changes that the scheme will put in place — Hon Bruce Donaldson: It is 2011. Hon NIGEL HALLETT: That is even better. Hon Kate Doust: You could have just sent them a copy of your speech! Hon NIGEL HALLETT: Some threats are facing the cement industry, and there are certainly a lot of concerns. It is up to us in this house to continue to support the Western Australian cement industry. It is a large industry, and it has had a huge impact on this state. We certainly need to have commonsense prevail, and support this important industry. Question put and passed. House adjourned at 10.18 pm ______

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009] 3233

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Questions and answers are as supplied to Hansard.

MINISTER FOR ENVIRONMENT — DECISION-MAKING POWERS 382. Hon Kim Chance to the Minister for Environment I refer to your answer to question number 179, asked on 10 March 2009, regarding decision making powers under the Environmental Protection Authority Act, and ask — (1) Which project proponents or their representatives have requested a meeting with you since you became Minister and been refused an appointment with you? (2) Which project proponents or their representatives have you met with? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: (1)-(2) There are many formal and informal requests through my office, the Office of the Appeals Convenor, the EPA and the DEC for me to meet with proponents, appellants and project representatives. Given this, it is not possible to provide a complete answer to the Member. Consistent with the long standing practice of Environment Ministers, I do not meet with proponents or appellants (or their representatives) to discuss a project when it is under appeal. However, in some cases, proponents or appellants may wish to meet with me to discuss issues unrelated to the project currently under appeal. For example, large companies and conservation groups may request a meeting with me to discuss and range of issues. In those cases, my office makes it clear that projects under appeal will not be discussed and I make it clear at the start of the meeting that I will not discuss projects under appeal. PRISONER TRANSPORT — VEHICLE STANDARD 391. Hon Giz Watson to the Minister for Transport representing the Minister for Corrective Services Noting two reports on prisoner transport by the Inspector of Custodial Services, one in November 2001, and another in May 2007, I refer to the vehicles used for prisoner transport by the Department of Corrective Services and its contractors. I understand that vehicles used for prisoner transport were originally built as cargo vehicles and only comply with Australian Design Rules (ADR) for motor vehicle construction acceptable for transport of materials not passengers. Further, these vehicles require reconstruction and/or modification to ensure suitability and safety for passenger transport. Such modification requires certification by a suitable and competent engineer before licensing and registration is permitted, and I ask — (1) Is this correct? (2) How many of these modified vehicles does the Department and its contractors use for prisoner transport? (3) Do all vehicles used for prisoner transport by the Department of Corrective Services and its contractors have a modification certificate issued by a competent mechanical engineer? (4) What agency, business or person conducts these inspections? (5) What agency, business or person issues these certificates? (6) How often are the vehicles inspected for compliance with the issued certificate? (7) When will the recommendations regarding the vehicles used for prisoner transport made by the Inspector for Custodial Services in his reports in 2001 and 2007 be fully implemented? (8) How many of the vehicles acquired and/or modified since the tabling of the Inspector of Custodial Services’ report in 2007 comply with the recommendations made by the Inspector in that report, more specifically chapter 11, recommendations 27 and 28 of that report? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: (1) Yes. The vehicles used for prisoner transport were originally built as commercial vehicles and require modification to ensure suitability for passenger transport. All modifications before registration are certified by a qualified engineer. Vehicles modified after registration require a Modification Permit issued under the Road Traffic (Vehicle Standards) Regulations 2002. Under these regulations, minor modifications may be approved by Transport Vehicle Examiners, and significant modifications are referred to the Vehicle Safety Branch for examination by the Technical Engineering section and if granted an engineering signatory is required.

3234 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009]

(2) There are 10 prison-based secure escort vehicles and 34 contractor-operated secure escort vehicles. (3) Yes. (4) Vehicle modifications are certified by a qualified engineer, and subsequently inspected for approval by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for use as a passenger transport vehicle. In some cases the modified vehicle is inspected by the Federal Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. (5) The Federal Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government is responsible for Secondary Manufacturers Compliance Plates and VSB 6 Modification Plates. The WA Department for Planning and Infrastructure is responsible for issuing Modification Permits. (6) The vehicles are examined annually for roadworthiness and continued compliance with the Australian Design Rules. (7) A set of Minimum Standards for Secure Escort Vehicles in Western Australia has been produced meeting the recommendations of the Inspector for Custodial Services. These standards are currently being applied to every new vehicle used for passenger transport being built. (8) All vehicles acquired since the tabling of this report comply with recommendation 27 in its entirety. The majority of recommendation 28 has been complied with, except for a potable water supply and dual cabs for larger vehicles to accommodate a third officer due to design and weight restriction considerations. In these cases, however, alternative methods are adopted to ensure minimum standards are met. SARA RONALD — EMPLOYMENT DETAILS 392. Hon Adele Farina to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Treasurer (1) Is Sara Ronald employed as a member of the Treasurer’s Ministerial staff? (2) If yes to (1), what position does she hold? (3) Is this a full-time position? (4) If yes to (1) and (2), — (a) in what location or office does she carry out her work; and (b) do her duties include undertaking any electorate duties? Hon BARRY HOUSE replied: (1) Yes (2) Policy Advisor (3) Yes (4) (a) Ministerial Office (b) Duties are those identified in the WA Public Service Policy Advisors Job Description BUSSELTON FORESHORE STEERING COMMITTEE — MINISTER'S RESPONSE 393. Hon Adele Farina to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Regional Development I refer to my parliamentary question asked on Thursday 12 March 2009, concerning the Busselton Foreshore Steering Committee, and the Minister’s answers to questions two to four and questions seven to nine, and ask — (1) How does the Minister reconcile his answer to the Parliament that, ‘the composition of the Committee is currently being finalised in consultation with the local member and the community’, with the letter from the Member for Vasse to the Shire of Busselton Chief Executive Officer of 9 December 2008, in which he states he has appointed the members of the Committee? (2) How does the Minister reconcile his answer to the Parliament with the fact that the Steering Committee has already had an inaugural meeting with the Member for Vasse? (3) What role, if any, did the Minister have before 9 December 2008, in appointing the members of the Steering Committee? Hon WENDY DUNCAN replied: (1)-(3) I received a letter from the Member for Vasse on 3 December 2008 proposing the establishment of a Busselton Foreshore Steering Committee and seeking nominations for the committee. I agreed with the proposal for a steering committee and advised that the South West Development Commission would consult and progress the matter.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009] 3235

No appointments have been made by me as the composition and terms of reference of the committee are currently being finalised in consultation with the local Member and the community. The South West Development Commission is liaising with the Shire of Busselton and the Local Member on my behalf to finalise these matters. BUSSELTON JETTY — FORESHORE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT 395. Hon Adele Farina to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Regional Development I refer to my question on notice No. 180, and the Minister’s answer to part (2) of the question in which he states that the Shire of Busselton will facilitate the community consultation, and ask — (1) How does the Minister reconcile his answer with the Member for Vasse’s letter to the Shire of Busselton Chief Executive Officer (CEO) dated 9 December 2008, in which he states that he (the Member for Vasse) has appointed a committee to undertake the community consultation? (2) If the Shire of Busselton will be facilitating the community consultation as stated by the Minister, why has the Minister and/or the State Government and/or the Member for Vasse established the Busselton Foreshore Steering Committee? (3) If the Shire of Busselton will be facilitating the community consultation as stated by the Minister, why did the Member for Vasse announce the establishment of the Busselton Foreshore Steering Committee? (4) If the Shire of Busselton will be facilitating the community consultation as stated by the Minister, why did the Member for Vasse write to the CEO that he (the Member for Vasse) had established a committee and that he had appointed its membership? (5) Does the Minister wish to reconsider and retract his statement that the Shire of Busselton will facilitate the community consultation? Hon WENDY DUNCAN replied: (1)-(5) Refer to Legislative Council Question on Notice 393. BUSSELTON JETTY — RESTORATION AND FORESHORE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT 396. Hon Adele Farina to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Regional Development I refer to my question on notice No. 177, and the Minister’s answer to parts (5) and (6) of the question in which the Minister states that no Minister has responsibility for the community consultation on the redevelopment of the Busselton Foreshore and that the Shire of Busselton is responsible for the community consultation. I also refer to the Member for Vasse’s letter to the Shire of Busselton Chief Executive Officer dated 9 December 2008, in which he (the Member for Vasse) states that he corresponded with the Minister requesting the Minister’s support and agreement to engage a Steering Committee to undertake the community consultation, and ask — (1) Did the Member for Vasse write to the Minister asking the Minister for his agreement to engage a Steering Committee to undertake the community consultation? (2) Did the Minister agree to the establishment of a Steering Committee? (3) If the Minister is not the responsible Minister, in what capacity did you provide your agreement? (4) If as stated by the Minister, the Shire of Busselton is responsible for the community consultation, on what basis and with what authority did the Minister agree to engage a Steering Committee to undertake the community consultation? (5) Did the Minister also agree to the membership of the Steering Committee as detailed in the Member of Vasse’s letter of 9 December 2008? Hon WENDY DUNCAN replied: (1)-(5) Refer to Legislative Council Question on Notice 393. BUSSELTON FORESHORE STEERING COMMITTEE 397. Hon Adele Farina to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Regional Development I refer to the Busselton Foreshore Steering Committee, and ask — (1) Did the Minister establish the Busselton Foreshore Steering Committee? (2) If no to (1), who did? (3) If yes to (1), why didn’t the Minister observe the usual courtesies of communicating with the Shire of Busselton President in relation to the establishment of the Committee? (4) Is the Busselton Foreshore Steering Committee a Government established Committee?

3236 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009]

(5) Will members of the Committee be paid sitting fees? (6) If yes to (4), will the Government meet the cost of the sitting fees? (7) Will the State Government fund the community consultation to be undertaken by the Committee? (8) In the event that the Shire of Busselton agrees to provide $50 000 towards the Committee’s community consultation and this isn’t sufficient to meet the full costs of the community consultation, will the State Government commit to meet the balance of the community consultation costs? Hon WENDY DUNCAN replied: (1)-(8) Refer to Legislative Council Question on Notice 393. BUSSELTON FORESHORE STEERING COMMITTEE — SARA RONALD CONNECTION 398. Hon Adele Farina to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Regional Development I refer to my Parliamentary question asked on, Thursday 12 March 2009, concerning the Busselton Foreshore Steering Committee and the Minister’s answer to question (10), in which he states that ‘no Ministerial Office will be represented on the Committee’, and ask — (1) How does the Minister reconcile his answer to the Parliament with the advice provided to the Busselton Shire Councillors that Sara Ronald will be an ex-officio member of the Committee? (2) Is it true that Sara Ronald is or will be an ex officio member of the Committee? (3) Did the Minister appoint Sara Ronald in this capacity? (4) If yes to (2), when did the Minister make this appointment? (5) If yes to (2), why is an officer from the Office of the Treasurer appointed as an ex-officio member of the Committee rather than an officer from your Ministerial office? Hon WENDY DUNCAN replied: (1)-(5) Refer to Legislative Council Question on Notice 393. BUSSELTON FORESHORE STEERING COMMITTEE — LANDCORP CONSULTATION 399. Hon Adele Farina to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Regional Development I refer to my Parliamentary question asked on Thursday 12 March 2009, concerning the Busselton Foreshore Steering Committee, and the Minister’s answer to question six in which he states that, ‘LandCorp will be involved in the consultation process’, and ask — (1) How does the Minister reconcile his answer to the Parliament with the letter from the Member for Vasse to the Shire of Busselton Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of 9 December 2008, in which the Member for Vasse states he has appointed a LandCorp representative as a member of the Committee? (2) Is a representative of LandCorp a member of the Committee? (3) Did the Minister appoint the LandCorp representative to the Committee or was this appointment made by the Member for Vasse as stated in his letter to the Shire of Busselton CEO of 9 December 2008? Hon WENDY DUNCAN replied: (1)-(3) Refer to Legislative Council Question on Notice 393. BUSSELTON FORESHORE STEERING COMMITTEE — TERMS OF REFERENCE 400. Hon Adele Farina to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Regional Development I refer to my Parliamentary question asked on Thursday 12 March 2009, concerning the Busselton Foreshore Steering Committee, and the Minister’s answers to questions two to four, and ask — (1) How does the Minister reconcile his answer to the Parliament that ‘the terms of reference for the Committee is currently being finalised in consultation with the local member and the community’ with the Terms of Reference provided to the Busselton Shire by the Member for Vasse (being Attachment 4 to the Shire of Busselton Addendum No.1 to Council Agenda, 25 February 2009 (this is available on Shire of Busselton’s website)? (2) How does the Minister reconcile his answer to the Parliament with the fact that the Steering Committee has already had its inaugural meeting with the Member for Vasse? (3) Is it the practice of this Government to establish Committees and hold the inaugural meeting of the Committee when the Committee’s terms of reference are yet to be finalised?

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009] 3237

(4) What role, if any, did the Minister have before 9 December 2008, in drafting the Steering Committee’s Terms of Reference provided by the Member for Vasse to the Shire of Busselton (being Attachment 4 to the Shire of Busselton Addendum No. 1 to Council Agenda, 25 February 2009 (this is available on Shire of Busselton’s website)? Hon WENDY DUNCAN replied: (1)-(4) Refer to Legislative Council Question on Notice 393. BUSSELTON FORESHORE STEERING COMMITTEE — MINISTER'S RESPONSE 401. Hon Adele Farina to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Lands I refer to my parliamentary question asked on Thursday 12 March 2009, concerning the Busselton Foreshore Steering Committee, and the Minister’s answers to questions two to four and questions seven to nine, and ask — (1) How does the Minister reconcile his answer to the Parliament that, ‘the composition of the Committee is currently being finalised in consultation with the local member and the community’, with the letter from the Member for Vasse to the Shire of Busselton Chief Executive Officer of 9 December 2008, in which he states he has appointed the members of the Committee? (2) How does the Minister reconcile his answer to the Parliament with the fact that the Steering Committee has already had an inaugural meeting with the Member for Vasse? (3) What role, if any, did the Minister have before 9 December 2008, in appointing the members of the Steering Committee? Hon WENDY DUNCAN replied: (1)-(3) Refer to Legislative Council Question on Notice 393.. MINISTER FOR LANDS — INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 402. Hon Adele Farina to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Lands (1) Does the Minister have and maintain an information management system (records system) in his office? (2) Is all correspondence received by the Minister scanned and recorded into the information management system (records system)? (3) Is correspondence recorded into the Ministerial office information management system (records system) accessible by the records clerk in the Minister’s office? Hon WENDY DUNCAN replied: (1)-(3) Refer to Legislative Council Question on Notice 394.. BUSSELTON JETTY — FORESHORE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT 403. Hon Adele Farina to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Lands I refer to my question on notice No. 180, and the Minister’s answer to part (2) of the question in which he states that the Shire of Busselton will facilitate the community consultation, and ask — (1) How does the Minister reconcile his answer with the Member for Vasse’s letter to the Shire of Busselton Chief Executive Officer (CEO) dated 9 December 2008, in which he states that he (the Member for Vasse) has appointed a committee to undertake the community consultation? (2) If the Shire of Busselton will be facilitating the community consultation as stated by the Minister, why has the Minister and/or the State Government and/or the Member for Vasse established the Busselton Foreshore Steering Committee? (3) If the Shire of Busselton will be facilitating the community consultation as stated by the Minister, why did the Member for Vasse announce the establishment of the Busselton Foreshore Steering Committee? (4) If the Shire of Busselton will be facilitating the community consultation as stated by the Minister, why did the Member for Vasse write to the CEO that he (the Member for Vasse) had established a committee and that he had appointed its membership? (5) Does the Minister wish to reconsider and retract his statement that the Shire of Busselton will facilitate the community consultation? Hon WENDY DUNCAN replied: (1)-(5) Refer to Legislative Council Question on Notice 393.

3238 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009]

BUSSELTON JETTY — RESTORATION AND FORESHORE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT 404. Hon Adele Farina to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Lands I refer to my question on notice No. 177, and the Minister’s answer to parts (5) and (6) of the question in which the Minister states that no Minister has responsibility for the community consultation on the redevelopment of the Busselton Foreshore and that the Shire of Busselton is responsible for the community consultation. I also refer to the Member for Vasse’s letter to the Shire of Busselton Chief Executive Officer dated 9 December 2008, in which he (the Member for Vasse) states that he corresponded with the Minister requesting the Minister’s support and agreement to engage a Steering Committee to undertake the community consultation, and ask — (1) Did the Member for Vasse write to the Minister asking the Minister for his agreement to engage a Steering Committee to undertake the community consultation? (2) Did the Minister agree to the establishment of a Steering Committee? (3) If the Minister is not the responsible Minister, in what capacity did you provide your agreement? (4) If as stated by the Minister, the Shire of Busselton is responsible for the community consultation, on what basis and with what authority did the Minister agree to engage a Steering Committee to undertake the community consultation? (5) Did the Minister also agree to the membership of the Steering Committee as detailed in the Member of Vasse’s letter of 9 December 2008? Hon WENDY DUNCAN replied: (1)-(5) Refer to Legislative Council Question on Notice 393. BUSSELTON FORESHORE STEERING COMMITTEE 405. Hon Adele Farina to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Lands I refer to the Busselton Foreshore Steering Committee, and ask — (1) Did the Minister establish the Busselton Foreshore Steering Committee? (2) If no to (1), who did? (3) If yes to (1), why didn’t the Minister observe the usual courtesies of communicating with the Shire of Busselton President in relation to the establishment of the Committee? (4) Is the Busselton Foreshore Steering Committee a Government established Committee? (5) Will members of the Committee be paid sitting fees? (6) If yes to (4), will the Government meet the cost of the sitting fees? (7) Will the State Government fund the community consultation to be undertaken by the Committee? (8) In the event that the Shire of Busselton agrees to provide $50 000 towards the Committee’s community consultation and this isn’t sufficient to meet the full costs of the community consultation, will the State Government commit to meet the balance of the community consultation costs? Hon WENDY DUNCAN replied: (1)-(8) Refer to Legislative Council Question on Notice 393. BUSSELTON FORESHORE STEERING COMMITTEE — SARA RONALD 406. Hon Adele Farina to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Lands I refer to my Parliamentary question asked on, Thursday 12 March 2009, concerning the Busselton Foreshore Steering Committee and the Minister’s answer to question (10), in which he states that ‘no Ministerial Office will be represented on the Committee’, and ask — (1) How does the Minister reconcile his answer to the Parliament with the advice provided to the Busselton Shire Councillors that Sara Ronald will be an ex-officio member of the Committee? (2) Is it true that Sara Ronald is or will be an ex officio member of the Committee? (3) Did the Minister appoint Sara Ronald in this capacity? (4) If yes to (2), when did the Minister make this appointment? (5) If yes to (2), why is an officer from the Office of the Treasurer appointed as an ex-officio member of the Committee rather than an officer from your Ministerial office? Hon WENDY DUNCAN replied: (1)-(5) Refer to Legislative Council Question on Notice 393.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009] 3239

BUSSELTON FORESHORE STEERING COMMITTEE — LANDCORP INVOLVEMENT 407. Hon Adele Farina to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Lands I refer to my Parliamentary question asked on Thursday 12 March 2009, concerning the Busselton Foreshore Steering Committee, and the Minister’s answer to question six in which he states that, ‘LandCorp will be involved in the consultation process’, and ask — (1) How does the Minister reconcile his answer to the Parliament with the letter from the Member for Vasse to the Shire of Busselton Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of 9 December 2008, in which the Member for Vasse states he has appointed a LandCorp representative as a member of the Committee? (2) Is a representative of LandCorp a member of the Committee? (3) Did the Minister appoint the LandCorp representative to the Committee or was this appointment made by the Member for Vasse as stated in his letter to the Shire of Busselton CEO of 9 December 2008? Hon WENDY DUNCAN replied: (1)-(3) Refer to Legislative Council Question on Notice 393. BURRUP PENINSULA — INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT 415. Hon Giz Watson to the Minister for Environment With regard to question on notice No. 5913, and Senate question No. 398, asked of the Federal Minister for Heritage, Environment and Arts, in respect of M47/112, M47/29 and M47/326 leases, I ask — (1) Did the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) in making its decisions, in respect of answers to parts 13 to 15 of question 5913, communicate the proposal to the Federal Department of Heritage, Environment and Arts? (2) Did the EPA make its decision that the environmental impacts were not so significant as to warrant formal environment impact assessment after receiving advice from the Federal Department of Heritage, Environment and Arts? (3) If no to (1) and (2), why was a decision made in respect of M47/112, M47/29 and M47/326, two of which fall in part within National Heritage listed area of the Dampier Archipelago (including the Burrup Peninsula) without referral or advice from the Department of Heritage, Environment and Arts? (4) Was the matter referred under the EPBC Act to the Department of Heritage, Environment and Arts? (5) If no to (4), why not? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: (1)-(2) No (3) The Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 prohibits the undertaking of a controlled action, as defined in that Act, and places an obligation on the person proposing to undertake an action, thought to be a controlled action, or being a controlled action, to refer the proposal to the Commonwealth Minister. The EPA is not required under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Protection Act 1999 to refer proposals to the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts. (4) No (5) See answer to (3) ABORIGINAL SITES REGISTER — DEPARTMENT OF INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS' ADVICE 418. Hon Giz Watson to the Minister for Transport representing the Minister for Indigenous Affairs With regard to Department of Indigenous Affairs (DIA) Aboriginal Sites Register and answer to part four of question on notice No. 6095, I ask — (1) Have officers of the DIA advised any proponents that Aboriginal Site Number 23323 is not relevant to their project on the Burrup Peninsula and that an application pursuant to section 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 in regard to this site was therefore not required? (2) If yes to (1), on how many occasions and why was this done in light of the Minister’s answer to part four of question on notice No. 6095? (3) Did officers of the DIA advise proponents incorrectly? (4) If the DIA advised proponents incorrectly, what action will be taken to remedy the situation?

3240 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009]

Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: 1. No. 2. Not applicable. 3. No. 4. Not applicable. APACHE ENERGY — DEVIL CREEK DEVELOPMENT 420. Hon Giz Watson to the Minister for Transport representing the Minister for Indigenous Affairs With regard to question’s without notice Nos 415 and 455, in relation to the Apache Energy Devil Creek development, I ask — (1) In what part of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972, the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 1974, the Environmental Protection Act 1986 or the Environmental Protection Regulations 1987 is it stated that if the Environmental Protection Authority had not completed an environmental impact assessment under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1986, the Minister was not authorised by law to make such a section 18 decision? (2) Why was the Minister not authorised by law to make such a decision in respect of the Apache section 18 application? (3) In respect of (1) and (2), who in the Department of Indigenous Affairs (DIA)advised the Minister of such a legal requirement? (4) Are the registered claimants of the area the Yaburara Mardudhunera WC96/089 and the Wong-Goo-Tt- Oo WC98/040? (5) In respect of the insufficient consultation by Apache Northwest Pty Ltd with two native title groups regarding the construction and future operation of the Devil Creek gas plant and associated infrastructure, were the two groups referred to in the letter the Ngarluma and Kuruma Marthudunere Native Title Groups? (6) Who within the DIA made the decision that the Ngarluma and Kuruma Marthudunere Native Title Groups should be consulted by Apache Northwest Pty Ltd in respect of their development? (7) On what basis was the decision made that the Ngarluma and Kuruma Marthudunere Native Title Groups should be consulted by Apache Northwest Pty Ltd in respect of their development and why? (8) Was any correspondence, communication or presentation received by the ACMC, the DIA or the Minister from the Ngarluma Native Title Group or entities representing or purporting to represent their views that they should be consulted? (9) If yes to (8), from whom, on what date and by what method was this information received? (10) Was any correspondence, communication or presentation received by the ACMC, the DIA or the Minister from the Kuruma Marthudunere Native Title Group or entities representing or purporting to represent their views that they should be consulted? (11) If yes to (10), from whom on what date and by what method was this information received? (12) If yes to (8) and (10), will the Minister table any correspondence associated with any such communication? (13) If no to (12), why not? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: 1. Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. 2. The then Minister for Indigenous Affairs made a decision on those areas of the section 18 Notice that were not restrained by the provisions of section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. 3. The Acting Senior Legal Officer. 4. Yes. 5. Apache Northwest Pty Ltd sufficiently consulted with the relevant native title groups. 6. No decision was made by the Department of Indigenous Affairs regarding consultation with any particular native title group. 7. The Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee was of the view that consultation with the Ngarluma and Kuruma Marthudunera people, who may have an interest in the area, would enable it to give an informed recommendation to the Minister for Indigenous Affairs.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009] 3241

8. Yes. 9. Correspondance was received from Taylor Linfoot Holmes on behalf of Ngarluma (dated 22 January 2008), Anthropos Australis on behalf of Nargluma (dated 24 January 2008) and Ngarluma Aboriginal Corporation (dated 20 February 2008). 10. No. 11.-12. Not applicable. 13. Because no to (10) LEAD TRANSPORT THROUGH FREMANTLE 421. Hon Matt Benson-Lidholm to the Minister for Environment I refer to the Ministers media release on 2 February, regarding the transport of lead through Fremantle, where the Minister refers to, ‘an extension of the $5 million security bond where the proponent fails to clean up any lead spills along the transport route’, and I ask — (1) Has this security bond been lodged? (2) If yes to (1) can the Minister advise the House where this bond will be held? (3) If no to (1), why not? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: (1) No (2) Not applicable (3) The proponent is required to provide the financial assurance to the CEO of the Department of Environment and Conservation prior to removal of shipping containers of lead carbonate concentrate from the mine-site, as required by Ministerial Statement 783. PUBLIC HOSPITALS — EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT PRESENTATIONS 424. Hon Anthony Fels to the Minister for Transport representing the Minister for Health For Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Royal Perth Hospital, Swan Districts Hospital and Fremantle Hospital, please provide the following information, — (1) Please detail the number of Emergency Department presentations over the Christmas/New Year period for, — (a) 2005; (b) 2006; (c) 2007; and (d) 2008? (2) Please detail the number of Emergency Department related alcohol presentations over the Christmas/New Year period for, — (a) 2005; (b) 2006; (c) 2007; and (d) 2008? (3) Please detail the number of Emergency Department related illicit drug presentations over the Christmas/New Year period for, — (a) 2005; (b) 2006; (c) 2007; and (d) 2008? (4) Please detail the number of Emergency Department presentations for, — (a) 2005; (b) 2006; (c) 2007; and (d) 2008?

3242 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009]

(5) Please detail the number of Emergency Department related alcohol presentations for, — (a) 2005; (b) 2006; (c) 2007; and (d) 2008? (6) Please detail the number of Emergency Department related alcohol presentations for, — (a) 2005; (b) 2006; (c) 2007; and (d) 2008? (7) Please detail the number of Emergency Department related illicit drug presentations for, — (a) 2005; (b) 2006; (c) 2007; and (d) 2008? (8) Please define the Christmas/New Year period used to answer the questions, for example, 20 December to 3 January? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: (1) The number of Emergency Department attendances over the Christmas/New Year period for, — (a) 2005 for: Royal Perth Hospital was 3325; Fremantle Hospital was 2750; Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital was 2717; and Swan District Hospital was 2039. (b) 2006 for: Royal Perth Hospital was 3377; Fremantle Hospital was 2589; Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital was 3021; and Swan District Hospital was 1926. (c) 2007 for: Royal Perth Hospital was 3277; Fremantle Hospital was 2885; Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital was 2939; and Swan District Hospital was 1976. (d) 2008 for: Royal Perth Hospital was 3565; Fremantle Hospital was 2911; Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital was 3113; and Swan District Hospital was 2192. (2) The number of Emergency Department related alcohol attendances over the Christmas/New Year period for, — (a) 2005 for: Royal Perth Hospital was 52; Fremantle Hospital was 28; Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital was 37; and Swan District Hospital was 13. (b) 2006 for: Royal Perth Hospital was 76; Fremantle Hospital was 33; Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital was 43; and Swan District Hospital was 6.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009] 3243

(c) 2007 for: Royal Perth Hospital was 47; Fremantle Hospital was 31; Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital was 47; and Swan District Hospital was 11. (d) 2008 for: Royal Perth Hospital was 38; Fremantle Hospital was 22; Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital was 46; and Swan District Hospital was 11. (3) The number of Emergency Department related illicit drug attendances over the Christmas/New Year period for, — (a) 2005 for: Royal Perth Hospital was 28; Fremantle Hospital was 24; Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital was 17; and Swan District Hospital was 12. (b) 2006 for: Royal Perth Hospital was 28; Fremantle Hospital was 19; Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital was 21; and Swan District Hospital was 10. (c) 2007 for: Royal Perth Hospital was 32; Fremantle Hospital was 12; Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital was 20; and Swan District Hospital was 10. (d) 2008 for: Royal Perth Hospital was 25; Fremantle Hospital was 8; Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital was 24; and Swan District Hospital was 15. (4) The number of Emergency Department attendances for, — (a) 2005 for: Royal Perth Hospital was 55240 Fremantle Hospital was 45312 Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital was 46737 and Swan District Hospital was 32376. (b) 2006 for: Royal Perth Hospital was 57217; Fremantle Hospital was 44881; Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital was 49337; and Swan District Hospital was 33733. (c) 2007 for: Royal Perth Hospital was 57942; Fremantle Hospital was 46227; Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital was 51177; and Swan District Hospital was 32754. (d) 2008 for: Royal Perth Hospital was 59259; Fremantle Hospital was 47706; Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital was 51529; and Swan District Hospital was 33596.

3244 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009]

(5) The number of Emergency Department related alcohol attendances for, — (a) 2005 for: Royal Perth Hospital was 861; Fremantle Hospital was 384; Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital was 637; and Swan District Hospital was 174. (b) 2006 for: Royal Perth Hospital was 941; Fremantle Hospital was 459; Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital was 712; and Swan District Hospital was 210. (c) 2007 for: Royal Perth Hospital was 929 Fremantle Hospital was 390 Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital was 704 and Swan District Hospital was 152. (d) 2008 for: Royal Perth Hospital was 948; Fremantle Hospital was 406; Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital was 695; and Swan District Hospital was 211. (6) (a)-(d) See above answer to Question 5. (7) The number of Emergency Department related illicit drug attendances for — (a) 2005 for: Royal Perth Hospital was 516 Fremantle Hospital was 254 Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital was 436 and Swan District Hospital was 166. (b) 2006 for: Royal Perth Hospital was 517; Fremantle Hospital was 297; Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital was 448; and Swan District Hospital was 172. (c) 2007 for: Royal Perth Hospital was 510; Fremantle Hospital was 288; Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital was 466; and Swan District Hospital was 181. (d) 2008 for: Royal Perth Hospital was 509; Fremantle Hospital was 332; Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital was 459; and Swan District Hospital was 220. (8) The Christmas New Year period of 19 December to 7 January was set as six days before Christmas through to six days after New Year, inclusive, a total period of 20 days. NOTE: 1. Data Source: Emergency Department Data Collection, Information Management and Reporting Directorate. 2. Date Extracted: 17 March 2009. 3. All Emergency Department Definitions are taken from the National Health Data Dictionary (NHDD) or locally agreed definitions where the NHDD does not have definitions. 4. Diagnosis codes only were used to identify illicit drug and alcohol related attendances from the Emergency Department Data Collection. 5. An 'attendance' at the Emergency Department occurs if the patient is registered in any manner in one of the electronic data collection systems, i.e. includes those cases that have not been completely clerically registered. A 'presentation' at the emergency department occurs when the patient is fully registered clerically, that is has a UMRN, and has been triaged, indicated by a code of 1,2,3,4 or 5. Since attendances represent a more complete measure of activity than presentations, they have been provided in this response.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009] 3245

BURRUP PENINSULA — INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT 426. Hon Giz Watson to the Minister for Environment With regard to question on notice No. 5913, and question without notice Nos’ 415 and 455, asked of the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, I ask — (1) Is it correct in part nine, ten and eleven of question on notice No. 5913, asked of the Minister for Environment, that the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) cannot make a decision in respect of projects until advice has been received whether a proposal can be assessed? (2) If yes to (1), at what level, once the Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee (ACMC) has provided advice on the application? (3) Is it correct as stated by the Minister of Indigenous Affairs that as the EPA had not completed an environmental impact assessment under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 the Minister was not authorised by law to make such a section18 decision, after the ACMC had met and made a recommendation to the Minister? (4) Will the Minister outline the correct chronology of decision making in respect of her Department on these issues? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: It should be noted that question on notice No. 5913 and question without notice No. 455 were asked of Ministers of the previous Government. (1) No, the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) is not constrained under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 from making a decision as to whether or not a proposal should be assessed, and if assessed as to the level of assessment of a proposal, of a proposal if it is properly referred to the EPA. However, to ensure the appropriate decision is made as to whether to assess a proposal and as to the level of assessment, the EPA requires adequate information. To that extent, the EPA may seek advice from others, for example the Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee. (2) Not applicable. (3) When the EPA has determined that a proposal is to be assessed under Part IV section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986, the Minister for Indigenous Affairs is not to make a decision that could have the effect of causing or allowing the proposal to be implemented. Further, pursuant to section 41(3), any decision making authority who has received notice from the EPA under section 39A(3)(c) or (4) that a proposal is going to be assessed is similarly constrained from making such a decision. These decision making authorities are constrained until the EPA's decision to assess the proposal is overturned on appeal or an authority from the Minister for Environment is served under section 45(7) of the Act. (4) See the response to (3)

INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS — FORMER DIRECTOR GENERAL, MS AMANDA CATTERMOLE 427. Hon Giz Watson to the Minister for Transport representing the Minister for Indigenous Affairs With regard to the functions of former Department of Indigenous Affairs (DIA) Director General Amanda Cattermole, I ask — (1) Did former DIA Director General Amanda Cattermole (previously DIA Principal Legal Officer) make any specific recommendations to the Minister of the day relating to the reform of the WA Aboriginal Heritage Act (AHA), while serving in either of these two positions? (2) If yes to (1), will the Minister disclose to parliament the nature of Ms Cattermole's recommendations for reform of the AHA? (3) If yes to (2), will the Minister itemise any policy documents relating to Ms Cattermole's proposals for the reform of the AHA? (4) If yes to (1), will the Minister table any such documents? (5) Is it the intention of the Minister to implement any of Ms Cattermole's recommendations? (6) If yes to (5), which ones? (7) If no to (5), why not?

3246 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009]

Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: (1) No. Ms Cattermole made suggestions as to possible processes for undertaking a review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 and some topics that could be included in any review. (2)-(7) Not applicable. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES — SUSPENSION OF CAPITAL PROJECTS 456. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Environment I refer to the circular sent to all Agencies by the Department of Treasury and Finance on, 24 November 2008, which states in part ‘Agencies are requested to suspend work on any new capital project with a pre-tender estimate greater in value than $20 million that is at, or in the process of going to tender’, and I ask, for each of the Agencies within your portfolio areas, — (1) What capital projects have been suspended? (2) What is the estimated cost of each of these suspended projects? (3) For which suspended projects has the agency submitted budget requests? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: (1)-(3) Full details of the outcome of the Capital Works Audit will be provided as part of the 2009-2010 State Budget. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES — SUSPENSION OF CAPITAL PROJECTS 458. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Energy representing the Minister for Local Government I refer to the circular sent to all Agencies by the Department of Treasury and Finance on, 24 November 2008, which states in part ‘Agencies are requested to suspend work on any new capital project with a pre-tender estimate greater in value than $20 million that is at, or in the process of going to tender’, and I ask, for each of the Agencies within your portfolio areas, — (1) What capital projects have been suspended? (2) What is the estimated cost of each of these suspended projects? (3) For which suspended projects has the Agency submitted budget requests? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: (1)-(3) Full details of the outcome of the Capital Works Audit will be provided as part of the 2009-2010 State Budget. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES — SUSPENSION OF CAPITAL PROJECTS 459. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Mines and Petroleum I refer to the circular sent to all Agencies by the Department of Treasury and Finance on, 24 November 2008, which states in part ‘Agencies are requested to suspend work on any new capital project with a pre-tender estimate greater in value than $20 million that is at, or in the process of going to tender’, and I ask, for each of the Agencies within your portfolio areas, — (1) What capital projects have been suspended? (2) What is the estimated cost of each of these suspended projects? (3) For which suspended projects has the Agency submitted budget requests? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: Full details of the outcome of the Capital Works Audit will be provided as part of the 2009-2010 State Budget. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES — SUSPENSION OF CAPITAL PROJECTS 460. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Child Protection representing the Minister for Planning I refer to the circular sent to all Agencies by the Department of Treasury and Finance on, 24 November 2008, which states in part ‘Agencies are requested to suspend work on any new capital project with a pre-tender estimate greater in value than $20 million that is at, or in the process of going to tender’, and I ask, for each of the Agencies within your portfolio areas, — (1) What capital projects have been suspended? (2) What is the estimated cost of each of these suspended projects? (3) For which suspended projects has the Agency submitted budget requests?

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009] 3247

Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: Full details of the outcome of the Capital Works Audit will be provided as part of the 2009-2010 State Budget. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES — SUSPENSION OF CAPITAL PROJECTS 461. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Energy representing the Minister for Police I refer to the circular sent to all Agencies by the Department of Treasury and Finance on, 24 November 2008, which states in part ‘Agencies are requested to suspend work on any new capital project with a pre-tender estimate greater in value than $20 million that is at, or in the process of going to tender’, and I ask, for each of the Agencies within your portfolio areas, — (1) What capital projects have been suspended? (2) What is the estimated cost of each of these suspended projects? (3) For which suspended projects has the Agency submitted budget requests? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: (1)-(3) Full details of the outcome of the Capital Works Audit will be provided as part of the 2009-2010 State Budget. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES — SUSPENSION OF CAPITAL PROJECTS 462. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Regional Development I refer to the circular sent to all Agencies by the Department of Treasury and Finance on, 24 November 2008, which states in part ‘Agencies are requested to suspend work on any new capital project with a pre-tender estimate greater in value than $20 million that is at, or in the process of going to tender’, and I ask, for each of the Agencies within your portfolio areas, — (1) What capital projects have been suspended? (2) What is the estimated cost of each of these suspended projects? (3) For which suspended projects has the Agency submitted budget requests? Hon WENDY DUNCAN replied: Full details of the outcome of the Capital Works Audit will be provided as part of the 2009-2010 State Budget. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES — SUSPENSION OF CAPITAL PROJECTS 463. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Sport and Recreation I refer to the circular sent to all Agencies by the Department of Treasury and Finance on, 24 November 2008, which states in part ‘Agencies are requested to suspend work on any new capital project with a pre-tender estimate greater in value than $20 million that is at, or in the process of going to tender’, and I ask, for each of the Agencies within your portfolio areas, — (1) What capital projects have been suspended? (2) What is the estimated cost of each of these suspended projects? (3) For which suspended projects has the Agency submitted budget requests? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: Full details of the outcome of the Capital Works Audit will be provided as part of the 2009-2010 State Budget. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES — SUSPENSION OF CAPITAL PROJECTS 464. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Leader of the House representing the Premier I refer to the circular sent to all Agencies by the Department of Treasury and Finance on, 24 November 2008, which states in part ‘Agencies are requested to suspend work on any new capital project with a pre-tender estimate greater in value than $20 million that is at, or in the process of going to tender’, and I ask, for each of the Agencies within your portfolio areas, — (1) What capital projects have been suspended? (2) What is the estimated cost of each of these suspended projects? (3) For which suspended projects has the Agency submitted budget requests? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: (1)-(3) Full details of the outcome of the Capital Works Audit will be provided as part of the 2009-2010 State Budget.

3248 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009]

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES — SUSPENSION OF CAPITAL PROJECTS 466. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Treasurer I refer to the circular sent to all Agencies by the Department of Treasury and Finance on, 24 November 2008, which states in part ‘Agencies are requested to suspend work on any new capital project with a pre-tender estimate greater in value than $20 million that is at, or in the process of going to tender’, and I ask, for each of the Agencies within your portfolio areas, — (1) What capital projects have been suspended? (2) What is the estimated cost of each of these suspended projects? (3) For which suspended projects has the Agency submitted budget requests? Hon BARRY HOUSE replied: Full details of the outcome of the Capital Works Audit will be provided as part of the 2009-2010 State Budget. ROCK LOBSTER FISHERS — ZONE A LICENCES 470. Hon Giz Watson to the Minister for Fisheries I refer to the entitlement of zone A rock lobster fishers, to occupy camps on the Houtman Abrolhos Islands during the fishing season, and ask — (1) Has there been a recent reduction in A zone licences? (2) If yes to (1), have the camps attached to these A zone licences been removed, and the sites rehabilitated? (3) If no to (1), when will removal of the camps and rehabilitation of the sites occur? (4) How many camps exist on the Abrolhos Islands? (5) Of the camps referred to in (4), how many were occupied during the current 2009 season? (6) Of the camps referred to in (5), how many were occupied by operating A zone rock lobster fishers? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: (1) There has been no recent reduction in the number of A zone commercial rocklobster management fishery licenses in recent years. (2) Not applicable (3) There is no reduction in A zone licences, therefore no camps will be removed. (4) There are approximately 390 accommodation camps located at the Abrolhos Islands. (5) It is estimated that all these camps will be occupied during the 2009 A zone rocklobster season. (6) It is estimated that 297 camps are occupied by operating A zone commercial rocklobster fishers during the 2009 season. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — CREDITORS OUTSTANDING 518. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Fisheries For each Department and Agency within the Minister’s portfolios, as at 24 March 2009, — (a) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 30 days; (b) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 60 days; (c) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 90 days; (d) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 120 days; and (e) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding more than 120 days? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: (a) $548,551.62 195 creditors (b) $48,054.36 42 creditors (c) $1,219.22 5 creditors (d) $6,958.50 4 creditors (e) $102,304.11 15 creditors

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009] 3249

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — CREDITORS OUTSTANDING 519. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Electoral Affairs For each Department and Agency within the Minister’s portfolios, as at 24 March 2009, — (a) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 30 days; (b) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 60 days; (c) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 90 days; (d) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 120 days; and (e) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding more than 120 days? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: (a) Amount $416,000, Number of creditors 29 (b)-(e) Nil GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — CREDITORS OUTSTANDING 521. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Disability Services For each Department and Agency within the Minister’s portfolios, as at 24 March 2009, — (a) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 30 days; (b) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 60 days; (c) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 90 days; (d) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 120 days; and (e) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding more than 120 days? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: (a) 221 Creditors. Outstanding $1420 297 (b) 39 Creditors. Outstanding $50 757 (c) 6 Creditors. Outstanding $4 905 (d) 11 Creditors. Outstanding $63 640 (e) 6 Creditors. Outstanding $2 430 GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — CREDITORS OUTSTANDING 528. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Environment For each Department and Agency within the Minister’s portfolios, as at 24 March 2009, — (a) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 30 days; (b) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 60 days; (c) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 90 days; (d) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 120 days; and (e) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding more than 120 days? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: Botanical Gardens and Parks Authority (a) Amount $220,690.67 Creditors 88 (b) Amount $49.70 Creditors 1 (c)-(e) Nil Perth Zoo The below Perth Zoo response is to the 31 March 2009 as per the extra information provided after receipt of the Parliamentary Question. (a) Amount: $441,511.85 Creditors: 233 (b) Amount: $55,282.92 Creditors: 17

3250 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009]

(c) Amount: $214.50 Creditors: 1 (d)-(e) Nil Swan River Trust (a) Amount: $393,237.25 Creditors: 66 (b) Amount: $400.72 Creditors: 1 (c) Nil (d) Amount: $1,282.38 Creditors: 1 (e) Nil Answer for the Department of Environment and Conservation (including Appeals Convenor) (a) Amount: $8,498,157.19 Creditors: 1,071 (b) Amount: $408,938.49 Creditors: 112 (c) Amount: $150,068.04 Creditors: 28 (d) Amount: $7,653.97 Creditors: 19 (e) Amount: $148,953.71 Creditors: 24 Since 24 March 2009, 23 of the 24 creditors have been paid. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — CREDITORS OUTSTANDING 529. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Youth For each Department and Agency within the Minister’s portfolios, as at 24 March 2009, — (a) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 30 days; (b) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 60 days; (c) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 90 days; (d) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 120 days; and (e) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding more than 120 days? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: Office for Youth The following represents the figures for the Department for Communities which includes the Office for Youth. (a) 188 creditors valued at $816,848 (b) 60 creditors valued at $53,963 (c) 3 creditors valued at $42,155 (d) 1 creditor valued at $128 (e) Nil GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — CREDITORS OUTSTANDING 542. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Commerce For each Department and Agency within the Minister’s portfolios, as at 24 March 2009, — (a) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 30 days; (b) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 60 days; (c) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 90 days; (d) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 120 days; and (e) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding more than 120 days? Hon BARRY HOUSE replied: Hairdressers Registration Board of Western Australia (a) 1 creditor valued at $1963.32 (b)-(e) Nil

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009] 3251

Builders' Registration Board of Western Australia (a) 23 creditors valued at $40153.37 (b)-(e) Nil Painters' Registration Board (a) 3 creditors valued at $369.59 (b)-(e) Nil The Department of Commerce excluding the Science, Innovation and Business Division The Department makes every effort to pay creditors within 30 days, however, there are circumstances under which this is not possible. Examples, which are reflected in the figures below are: i) Late Billing — some creditors do not submit invoices for more than 30 days after the goods or services are supplied. The date recorded in the finance system is the date of the invoice (not the date the invoice is received) and therefore such invoices will appear as outstanding for more than 30 days even if they are paid on the day they are received. ii) Grant payments — grant payments are made when certain milestones are met. The department needs to be satisfied these have been met and this can cause delays in payment. iii) Misdirected invoices — payment can be delayed if invoices are incorrectly addressed and/or the original invoices are not received. iv) Early receipt of invoices — invoices can be received from creditors prior to the goods and/or service having been received. The date recorded in the finance system is the date of the invoice (not the date the invoice is received) and therefore such invoices will appear as outstanding for more than 30 days even if they are paid on the day they are received. (a) 25 creditors valued at $37,868. (b) 10 creditors valued at $3069. (c) Nil. (d) 1 creditor valued at $3,735. (e) Nil. The Small Business Development Corporation (a) The Small Business Development Corporation had 40 creditors totalling $77,815 that were outstanding for less than or equal to 30 days as at 24 March 2009. (b) The Small Business Development Corporation had three creditors totalling $3,422 that were outstanding for less than or equal to 60 days as at 24 March 2009. (c)-(e) Nil. The Department of the Registrar, WA Industrial Relations Commission (a) 21 creditors to the amount of $264,323.00 (b) 2 creditors to the amount of $3,488.55 (c)-(e) nil WorkCover WA (a) $289,604.12 — 36 creditors (b)-(d) Nil (e) Nil — However, three invoices totalling $316,967.08 relating to one creditor are in dispute. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — CREDITORS OUTSTANDING 543. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Science and Innovation For each Department and Agency within the Minister’s portfolios, as at 24 March 2009, — (a) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 30 days; (b) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 60 days; (c) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 90 days; (d) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 120 days; and (e) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding more than 120 days?

3252 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009]

Hon BARRY HOUSE replied: The Science, Innovation and Business Division of the Department of Commerce The Department makes every effort to pay creditors within 30 days, however, there are circumstances under which this is not possible. Examples, which are reflected in the figures below are: i) Late Billing — some creditors do not submit invoices for more than 30 days after the goods or services are supplied. The date recorded in the finance system is the date of the invoice (not the date the invoice is received) and therefore such invoices will appear as outstanding for more than 30 days even if they are paid on the day they are received. ii) Grant payments — grant payments are made when certain milestones are met. The department needs to be satisfied these have been met and this can cause delays in payment. iii) Misdirected invoices — payment can be delayed if invoices are incorrectly addressed and/or the original invoices are not received. iv) Early receipt of invoices — invoices can be received from creditors prior to the goods and/or service having been received. The date recorded in the finance system is the date of the invoice (not the date the invoice is received) and therefore such invoices will appear as outstanding for more than 30 days even if they are paid on the day they are received. (a) 19 creditors valued at $15,826. (b) 2 creditors valued at $716. (c)-(e) Nil. Chemistry Centre of Western Australia (a) $440,230.00 52 creditors (b) $3,812.00 9 creditors (c) $19,034.00 4 creditors (d) $9,961.00 1 creditor (e) Nil GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — CREDITORS OUTSTANDING 544. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Housing and Works For each Department and Agency within the Minister’s portfolios, as at 24 March 2009, — (a) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 30 days; (b) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 60 days; (c) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 90 days; (d) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 120 days; and (e) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding more than 120 days? Hon BARRY HOUSE replied: (a) 13 valued at $5,217.03. (b) 3 valued at $1,762.25. (c) 1 valued at $143.20. (d) Nil. (e) 3 valued at $485.18. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — CREDITORS OUTSTANDING 545. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Energy representing the Minister for Police For each Department and Agency within the Minister’s portfolios, as at 24 March 2009, — (a) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 30 days; (b) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 60 days; (c) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 90 days; (d) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 120 days; and (e) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding more than 120 days?

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009] 3253

Hon PETER COLLIER replied: WA POLICE (a) $5,509,263.11 — 488 creditors (b) $35,880.26 — 30 creditors (c) $4,555.59 — 8 creditors (d) $8,797.38 — 6 creditors (e) $2,483.47 — 6 creditors OFFICE OF CRIME PREVENTION Please see WA Police for response. FESA (a) $2,222,434.40 — 589 creditors (b) $37,689.50 — 15 creditors (c)-(e) Not applicable OFFICE OF ROAD SAFETY The Office of Road Safety is part of the Department for the Premier and Cabinet (DPC) for all administrative issues. As such, the Office of Road Safety's response to this question will be included as part of the DPC response. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — CREDITORS OUTSTANDING 546. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Energy representing the Minister for Emergency Services For each Department and Agency within the Minister’s portfolios, as at 24 March 2009, — (a) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 30 days; (b) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 60 days; (c) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 90 days; (d) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 120 days; and (e) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding more than 120 days? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: (a)-(e) Please refer to Legislative Council Question On Notice 545 GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — CREDITORS OUTSTANDING 547. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Energy representing the Minister for Road Safety For each Department and Agency within the Minister’s portfolios, as at 24 March 2009, — (a) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 30 days; (b) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 60 days; (c) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 90 days; (d) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 120 days; and (e) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding more than 120 days? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: (a)-(e) Please refer to Legislative Council Question On Notice 545 GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — CREDITORS OUTSTANDING 549. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Racing and Gaming For each Department and Agency within the Minister’s portfolios, as at 24 March 2009, — (a) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 30 days; (b) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 60 days; (c) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 90 days; (d) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 120 days; and (e) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding more than 120 days?

3254 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009]

Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor (a) Two outstanding creditors — $37,035. (b) Eight outstanding creditors — $26,038. (c) Seven outstanding creditors — $11,148. (d) Two outstanding creditors — $ 4,150. (e) Nine outstanding creditors — $19,782. Gaming and Wagering Commission of WA (a) Two outstanding creditors — $38,832. (b) One outstanding creditor — $256,756. (c)-(d) Nil. (e) One outstanding creditor — $82,500. Racing Penalties Appeals Tribunal (a) Two outstanding creditors — $12,209. (b)-(e) Nil. Burswood Park Board (a)-(e) Nil. Western Australian Greyhound Racing Association (a) 127 outstanding creditors — $234,832. (b)-(e) Nil. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — CREDITORS OUTSTANDING 550. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Transport representing the Minister Assisting the Minister for Health For each Department and Agency within the Minister’s portfolios, as at 24 March 2009, — (a) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 30 days; (b) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 60 days; (c) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 90 days; (d) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 120 days; and (e) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding more than 120 days? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: Response will be forthcoming from the Minister for Health. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — CREDITORS OUTSTANDING 552. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Child Protection representing the Minister for Culture and the Arts For each Department and Agency within the Minister’s portfolios, as at 24 March 2009, — (a) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 30 days; (b) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 60 days; (c) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 90 days; (d) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 120 days; and (e) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding more than 120 days? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: Department of Culture and the Arts (includes State Records Office) (a) $2 983 675.10 — 19 creditors (b) $1 404 854.75 — 8 creditors (c) $33 556.70 — 5 creditors (d) $2,026.61 — 2 creditors (e) $52 261.39 — 16 creditors

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009] 3255

State Library of Western Australia (a) $327 741.96 — 40 creditors (b) $12 793.16 — 8 creditors (c) $2 618.00 — 1 creditor (d) $78 991.22 — 4 creditors (e) $2 928.94 — 5 creditors WA Museum (a) $110 946.92 — 37 creditors (b) $119 152.98 — 27 creditors (c) $15 795.92 — 9 creditors (d) $1 277.93 — 5 creditors (e) $7 592.46 — 9 creditors Art Gallery of Western Australia (a) $23 952.96 — 15 creditors (b) $24 843.99 — 14 creditors (c) $1 321.84 — 5 creditors (d) $227.30 — 1 creditors (e) $248.33 — 1 creditor ScreenWest (a) $379 561.80 — 15 creditors (b) $1 40 854.75 — 3 creditors (c)-(e) Nil Perth Theatre Trust (a) $570 253.99 — 180 creditors (b) $29 060.00 — 8 creditors (c) $29 120.29 — 5 creditors (d)-(e) Nil GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — CREDITORS OUTSTANDING 557. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Energy representing the Minister for Local Government For each Department and Agency within the Minister’s portfolios, as at 24 March 2009, — (a) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 30 days; (b) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 60 days; (c) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 90 days; (d) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 120 days; and (e) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding more than 120 days? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: LOCAL GOVERNMENT (a) $1,272,494.78 (62 creditors) (b) $64,962.86 (6 creditors) (c) Nil (d) $6,362.55 (1 creditor) (e) $12,335.00 (1 creditor) METROPOLITAN CEMETERIES BOARD (a) $453,000.00 (94 creditors) (b) $32,670.00 (21 creditors) (c) $2998.00 (6 creditors) (d)-(e) Nil

3256 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009]

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — CREDITORS OUTSTANDING 558. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Energy representing the Minister for Heritage For each Department and Agency within the Minister’s portfolios, as at 24 March 2009, — (a) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 30 days; (b) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 60 days; (c) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 90 days; (d) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 120 days; and (e) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding more than 120 days? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: HERITAGE COUNCIL (a) $28,697.18 (20 creditors) (b) $1,691.13 (2 creditors) (c) $13.20 (1 creditor) (d)-(e) Nil. NATIONAL TRUST OF AUSTRALIA (WA) (a) $5,017.03 (3 creditors) (b) $2,299.85 (3 creditors) (c)-(e) Nil. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — CREDITORS OUTSTANDING 559. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Energy representing the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Interests For each Department and Agency within the Minister’s portfolios, as at 24 March 2009, — (a) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 30 days; (b) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 60 days; (c) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 90 days; (d) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 120 days; and (e) what was the amount and number of creditors outstanding more than 120 days? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: (a) $329 392.88 (93 creditors) (b) $1493.54 (4 creditors) (c) $ 592.64 (3 creditors) (d) $ 83.30 (3 creditors) (e) Nil GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — REVIEWS COMMITTEES INQUIRIES AND TASKFORCES 564. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Fisheries For all portfolios, Departments and Agencies, for which the Minister holds responsibility, — (1) How many reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces have been established since 23 September 2008? (2) Will the Minister list all the reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established in that period? (3) What is the name and qualification of each person who heads each review, committee, inquiry and taskforce that has been established? (4) Will the Minister list the commencement date and completion date for all reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established?

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009] 3257

(5) Will the Minister list the total cost of sitting fees and the total cost for each of the reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established? (6) Will the Minister list the cost of sitting fees to date and estimated total final cost of each review, committee, inquiry and taskforce that is still current? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: (1) Two (2) (a) West Coast Demersal Scalefish Recreational Fishing Management and Science review (b) Northern Demersal Scalefish Fishery review (3) (a) Mr Peter Neville · Former Deputy Director General of the Queensland Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries · Chair of the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (b) Mr Jim Prescott BA Zool · Manager MOU Box, Foreign Compliance Operations, Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) · Former Manager Torres Strait Fisheries, AFMA (4) (a) Commencement — December 2008, Completion — April 2009 (b) Commencement — February 2009, Completion — July 2009 (5) (a) Sitting fee — $33,000, Total cost — $60,000 (b) Sitting fee — $19,000, Total cost — $19,000 (6) (a) Sitting fee to date — $9,000, Total cost estimate — $60,000 (b) Sitting fee to date — $0, Total cost estimate — $19,000

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — REVIEWS COMMITTEES INQUIRIES AND TASKFORCES 565. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Electoral Affairs For all portfolios, Departments and Agencies, for which the Minister holds responsibility, — (1) How many reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces have been established since 23 September 2008? (2) Will the Minister list all the reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established in that period? (3) What is the name and qualification of each person who heads each review, committee, inquiry and taskforce that has been established? (4) Will the Minister list the commencement date and completion date for all reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established? (5) Will the Minister list the total cost of sitting fees and the total cost for each of the reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established? (6) Will the Minister list the cost of sitting fees to date and estimated total final cost of each review, committee, inquiry and taskforce that is still current? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: (1) 1 (2) Review into the conduct of the 2008 State general election. (3) Bob Longland — former Electoral Commissioner for Queensland, consultant on electoral matters and Dr Ken Evans — former Electoral Commissioner for Western Australia, Chairman of WA Association for Independent Schools, consultant on electoral matters. (4) Commenced 10 November 2008, completed 16 December 2008. (5) $40,000 (6) $40,000

3258 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009]

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — REVIEWS COMMITTEES INQUIRIES AND TASKFORCES 566. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Transport For all portfolios, Departments and Agencies, for which the Minister holds responsibility, — (1) How many reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces have been established since 23 September 2008? (2) Will the Minister list all the reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established in that period? (3) What is the name and qualification of each person who heads each review, committee, inquiry and taskforce that has been established? (4) Will the Minister list the commencement date and completion date for all reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established? (5) Will the Minister list the total cost of sitting fees and the total cost for each of the reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established? (6) Will the Minister list the cost of sitting fees to date and estimated total final cost of each review, committee, inquiry and taskforce that is still current? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: PTA (1) One. (2) Independent Panel for Public Transport for Perth. (3) Adjunct Professor Stuart Hicks AO, BEc, FAIM, FCILT, FAICD, MIMC is the chairman of the Independent Panel for Public Transport for Perth. Please see attachment for further information relating to his qualifications [See paper 708.] (4) The commencement date for the Independent Panel for Public Transport for Perth was 10 December 2008 with a completion date expected towards the end of 2009. (5)-(6) No specific sitting fee is payable. Three members of the Independent Panel for Public Transport for Perth will be paid $9,600 each plus travelling expenses where applicable for their work on the panel. The other members on the panel are not reimbursed for their work as they are being remunerated by Government agencies. The total cost to date of the Independent Panel for Public Transport for Perth is nil. The estimated total final cost is $28,800. Main Roads (1) One. (2) Ministerial Heavy Vehicle Advisory Panel. (3) Howard Croxon — Transport Consultant. (4) Panel commenced 26 February 2009 and is expected to operate for a period of one to two years. (5)-(6) No sitting fees will be paid. However, two members may be reimbursed for the provision of technical advice on matters related to the Panel. The operating costs associated with the Panel will be met from within Main Roads' existing budget. DPI (1) Three reviews have been established since 23 September 2008. (2) 1. Review of Licensing Business Unit's revenue collection process. 2. Snapshot review of Licensing Business Unit's Business systems. 3. Review of the E-Business Strategy for the Licensing Business Unit. (3) Michael D'souza. (for all the above) Qualifications: CPA, DBA, CIMA, B.Com Employment Status: Permanent — Department for Planning and Infrastructure Position: A/ General Manager, Licensing Business Unit (4) 1. Date Commenced: 1 December 2008 Completion Date: 30 January 2009

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009] 3259

2. Date Commenced: 22 October 2008 Expected Completion Date: 1 May 2009 3. Date Commenced: 29 September 2008 Expected Completion Date: 15 May 2009 (5) 1. No sitting fees applicable; $235,000 initial total cost. 2. No sitting fees applicable; $18,000 total cost. 3 No sitting fees applicable; $121,000 total cost. (6) 1. No sitting fees applicable; total final total cost is $330,000. (NOTE: Additional $95,000 was subsequent to the original cost as DPI requested additional work on four other projects which were a natural flow-on from the original report.) 2. No sitting fees applicable; total final cost is $18,000. 3. No sitting fees applicable; total final cost is $121,000. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — REVIEWS COMMITTEES INQUIRIES AND TASKFORCES 567. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Disability Services For all portfolios, Departments and Agencies, for which the Minister holds responsibility, — (1) How many reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces have been established since 23 September 2008? (2) Will the Minister list all the reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established in that period? (3) What is the name and qualification of each person who heads each review, committee, inquiry and taskforce that has been established? (4) Will the Minister list the commencement date and completion date for all reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established? (5) Will the Minister list the total cost of sitting fees and the total cost for each of the reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established? (6) Will the Minister list the cost of sitting fees to date and estimated total final cost of each review, committee, inquiry and taskforce that is still current? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: (1) Nil (2)-(6) Not applicable GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — REVIEWS COMMITTEES INQUIRIES AND TASKFORCES 570. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Child Protection For all portfolios, Departments and Agencies, for which the Minister holds responsibility, — (1) How many reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces have been established since 23 September 2008? (2) Will the Minister list all the reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established in that period? (3) What is the name and qualification of each person who heads each review, committee, inquiry and taskforce that has been established? (4) Will the Minister list the commencement date and completion date for all reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established? (5) Will the Minister list the total cost of sitting fees and the total cost for each of the reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established? (6) Will the Minister list the cost of sitting fees to date and estimated total final cost of each review, committee, inquiry and taskforce that is still current?

3260 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009]

Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: 1. Two 2. (a) Review of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle, and (b) Ministerial Advisory Council on Child Protection 3. (a) Mr Terry Murphy, Bachelor of Economics (Monash), Bachelor of Applied Science, Graduate Diploma of Psychology (Curtin), Master of Business Administration (Murdoch), and (b) Hon Peter Foss QC, Bachelor of Law (UWA), Bachelor of Arts (UWA) 4. (a) Start date: 21 November 2008, Completion date: 31 March 2009, and (b) Start date: 1 March 2009, Completion date: Current term will expire on 28 February 2011, with a possible one year extension to 28 February 2012 5. (a) Nil, and (b) Sitting fees are payable to Council members of $200 per half day and $300 per full day meeting. The Council's Chair has declined to receive payment for this role. The total cost for this Council is estimated to be $52 000 per annum. 6. (a) Nil to date, and (b) Nil to date. The estimated total final cost of the Council is $104 000 over its two year term. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — REVIEWS COMMITTEES INQUIRIES AND TASKFORCES 571. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Community Services For all portfolios, Departments and Agencies, for which the Minister holds responsibility, — (1) How many reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces have been established since 23 September 2008? (2) Will the Minister list all the reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established in that period? (3) What is the name and qualification of each person who heads each review, committee, inquiry and taskforce that has been established? (4) Will the Minister list the commencement date and completion date for all reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established? (5) Will the Minister list the total cost of sitting fees and the total cost for each of the reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established? (6) Will the Minister list the cost of sitting fees to date and estimated total final cost of each review, committee, inquiry and taskforce that is still current? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: (1) One (2) ABC WA Advisory Group (3) There is no Chairperson (4) First meeting was 4 November 2008. It will continue until contingency planning around the collapse of ABC Child Care Centres is no longer required. (5)-(6) No fees or costs have been allocated to the advisory group. It is being undertaken within existing resources. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — REVIEWS COMMITTEES INQUIRIES AND TASKFORCES 572. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Seniors and Volunteering For all portfolios, Departments and Agencies, for which the Minister holds responsibility, — (1) How many reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces have been established since 23 September 2008? (2) Will the Minister list all the reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established in that period? (3) What is the name and qualification of each person who heads each review, committee, inquiry and taskforce that has been established? (4) Will the Minister list the commencement date and completion date for all reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established?

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009] 3261

(5) Will the Minister list the total cost of sitting fees and the total cost for each of the reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established? (6) Will the Minister list the cost of sitting fees to date and estimated total final cost of each review, committee, inquiry and taskforce that is still current? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: (1) One (2) Review of the eligibility criteria for the WA Seniors Card. (3) Minister Robyn McSweeney — Minister for Child Protection; Community Services; Women's Interests; Seniors and Volunteering. (4) Review of the eligibility criteria for the WA Seniors Card commenced December 2008 with public submissions closing February 2009 and is due to be completed June 2009. (5)-(6) No fees or costs have been allocated to the review. It is being undertaken within existing resources. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — REVIEWS COMMITTEES INQUIRIES AND TASKFORCES 573. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Women's Interests For all portfolios, Departments and Agencies, for which the Minister holds responsibility, — (1) How many reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces have been established since 23 September 2008? (2) Will the Minister list all the reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established in that period? (3) What is the name and qualification of each person who heads each review, committee, inquiry and taskforce that has been established? (4) Will the Minister list the commencement date and completion date for all reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established? (5) Will the Minister list the total cost of sitting fees and the total cost for each of the reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established? (6) Will the Minister list the cost of sitting fees to date and estimated total final cost of each review, committee, inquiry and taskforce that is still current? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: (1) Nil (2)-(6) Not applicable GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — REVIEWS COMMITTEES INQUIRIES AND TASKFORCES 575. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Youth For all portfolios, Departments and Agencies, for which the Minister holds responsibility, — (1) How many reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces have been established since 23 September 2008? (2) Will the Minister list all the reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established in that period? (3) What is the name and qualification of each person who heads each review, committee, inquiry and taskforce that has been established? (4) Will the Minister list the commencement date and completion date for all reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established? (5) Will the Minister list the total cost of sitting fees and the total cost for each of the reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established? (6) Will the Minister list the cost of sitting fees to date and estimated total final cost of each review, committee, inquiry and taskforce that is still current?

3262 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009]

Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: Office for Youth The following represents the responses for The Office for Youth which is a division of the Department for Communities. (1) Nil (2)-(6) Not applicable GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — REVIEWS COMMITTEES INQUIRIES AND TASKFORCES 591. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Energy representing the Minister for Police For all portfolios, Departments and Agencies, for which the Minister holds responsibility, — (1) How many reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces have been established since 23 September 2008? (2) Will the Minister list all the reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established in that period? (3) What is the name and qualification of each person who heads each review, committee, inquiry and taskforce that has been established? (4) Will the Minister list the commencement date and completion date for all reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established? (5) Will the Minister list the total cost of sitting fees and the total cost for each of the reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established? (6) Will the Minister list the cost of sitting fees to date and estimated total final cost of each review, committee, inquiry and taskforce that is still current? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: WA POLICE (1) Two. (2) - Review of the penalty and offence provisions in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA). - Police and Community Youth Centre (PCYC) review of the Strategic Direction and Program Delivery. (3) - Chaired by Mr Liam McNamara. Mr McNamara is currently an acting Senior Research and Legislation Officer, Legal and Legislative Services, WA Police and has 24 years experience working in the State Government. He holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Murdoch University and is currently completing a law degree at Edith Cowan University, Joondalup campus. - Chaired by Commissioner of Police Dr Karl O'Callaghan APM (4) - Commenced 25 February 2009 with the original completion date of 30 November 2009, however it was resolved at the first meeting of the Steering Committee to seek an extension of the completion time to 29 January 2010. - Commenced 13 February 2009 with an anticipated completion date of September 2009. (5) - No sitting fees are paid. Nil cost to date. - No sitting fees are paid. Nil cost to date. (6) - Not applicable - The PCYC review has an estimated final cost of $15, 000. OFFICE OF CRIME PREVENTION (1) 2 (2) The State Graffiti Taskforce and the State CCTV Working Group (3) State Graffiti Taskforce — Chairperson — Wendy Murray, Director, Office of Crime Prevention State CCTV Working Group — Chairperson — Michael Coe, Executive Manager, Office of Crime Prevention (4) State Graffiti Taskforce was developed in December 2008. The first meeting was held on 17 February 2009. A completion date has not been stipulated as yet. State Working CCTV Working Group commenced on 4 December 2008. A completion date has not been stipulated as yet. (5)-(6) Not applicable

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009] 3263

FESA (1) Nil (2)-(6) Not Applicable OFFICE OF ROAD SAFETY (1) Nil (2)-(6) Not Applicable GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — REVIEWS COMMITTEES INQUIRIES AND TASKFORCES 592. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Energy representing the Minister for Emergency Services For all portfolios, Departments and Agencies, for which the Minister holds responsibility, — (1) How many reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces have been established since 23 September 2008? (2) Will the Minister list all the reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established in that period? (3) What is the name and qualification of each person who heads each review, committee, inquiry and taskforce that has been established? (4) Will the Minister list the commencement date and completion date for all reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established? (5) Will the Minister list the total cost of sitting fees and the total cost for each of the reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established? (6) Will the Minister list the cost of sitting fees to date and estimated total final cost of each review, committee, inquiry and taskforce that is still current? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: (1)-(6) Please refer to Legislative Council Question On Notice 591

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — REVIEWS COMMITTEES INQUIRIES AND TASKFORCES 593. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Energy representing the Minister for Road Safety For all portfolios, Departments and Agencies, for which the Minister holds responsibility, — (1) How many reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces have been established since 23 September 2008? (2) Will the Minister list all the reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established in that period? (3) What is the name and qualification of each person who heads each review, committee, inquiry and taskforce that has been established? (4) Will the Minister list the commencement date and completion date for all reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established? (5) Will the Minister list the total cost of sitting fees and the total cost for each of the reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established? (6) Will the Minister list the cost of sitting fees to date and estimated total final cost of each review, committee, inquiry and taskforce that is still current? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: (1)-(6) Please refer to Legislative Council Question On Notice 591 GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — REVIEWS COMMITTEES INQUIRIES AND TASKFORCES 594. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Sport and Recreation For all portfolios, Departments and Agencies, for which the Minister holds responsibility, — (1) How many reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces have been established since 23 September 2008?

3264 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009]

(2) Will the Minister list all the reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established in that period? (3) What is the name and qualification of each person who heads each review, committee, inquiry and taskforce that has been established? (4) Will the Minister list the commencement date and completion date for all reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established? (5) Will the Minister list the total cost of sitting fees and the total cost for each of the reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established? (6) Will the Minister list the cost of sitting fees to date and estimated total final cost of each review, committee, inquiry and taskforce that is still current? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: (1)-(3) Please refer to Legislative Assembly question on notice 386. (4)-(6) Please refer to Legislative Council question on notice 157. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — REVIEWS COMMITTEES INQUIRIES AND TASKFORCES 595. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Racing and Gaming For all portfolios, Departments and Agencies, for which the Minister holds responsibility, — (1) How many reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces have been established since 23 September 2008? (2) Will the Minister list all the reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established in that period? (3) What is the name and qualification of each person who heads each review, committee, inquiry and taskforce that has been established? (4) Will the Minister list the commencement date and completion date for all reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established? (5) Will the Minister list the total cost of sitting fees and the total cost for each of the reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established? (6) Will the Minister list the cost of sitting fees to date and estimated total final cost of each review, committee, inquiry and taskforce that is still current? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: (1)-(3) Please refer to Legislative Assembly question on notice 386. (4)-(6) Please refer to Legislative Council question on notice 158. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — REVIEWS COMMITTEES INQUIRIES AND TASKFORCES 596. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Transport representing the Minister Assisting the Minister for Health For all portfolios, Departments and Agencies, for which the Minister holds responsibility, — (1) How many reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces have been established since 23 September 2008? (2) Will the Minister list all the reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established in that period? (3) What is the name and qualification of each person who heads each review, committee, inquiry and taskforce that has been established? (4) Will the Minister list the commencement date and completion date for all reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established? (5) Will the Minister list the total cost of sitting fees and the total cost for each of the reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established? (6) Will the Minister list the cost of sitting fees to date and estimated total final cost of each review, committee, inquiry and taskforce that is still current?

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009] 3265

Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: (1)-(3) Please refer to Legislative Assembly question on notice 386. (4)-(6) Please refer to Legislative Council question on notice 159. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — REVIEWS COMMITTEES INQUIRIES AND TASKFORCES 597. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Child Protection representing the Minister for Planning For all portfolios, Departments and Agencies, for which the Minister holds responsibility, — (1) How many reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces have been established since 23 September 2008? (2) Will the Minister list all the reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established in that period? (3) What is the name and qualification of each person who heads each review, committee, inquiry and taskforce that has been established? (4) Will the Minister list the commencement date and completion date for all reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established? (5) Will the Minister list the total cost of sitting fees and the total cost for each of the reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established? (6) Will the Minister list the cost of sitting fees to date and estimated total final cost of each review, committee, inquiry and taskforce that is still current? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: Department for Planning and Infrastructure: (1) 1 (2) The Greater Bunbury Structure Plan Steering Committee (3) Mr Simon Holthouse. Mr Holthouse is a trained architect and town planner who has extensive planning experience and has formerly chaired the Western Australian Planning Commission and a number of high level strategic groups. He will be employed on contract for the duration of the project. (4) The Committee membership is still being finalised, so it has not met. (5) Approx $20,000 per annum will be allocated to meet the Chairman's fees, committee expenses and public consultation. (6) It is estimated that the total cost for this committee will be $40 000. Western Australian Planning Commission: (1) 4 (2) Kimberley Region Planning Committee Mid-West Region Planning Committee Pilbara Region Planning Committee Gascoyne Region Planning Committee (3) Yet to be appointed, however, membership of regional planning committees is identified in Schedule 2, Clause 8 of the Planning and Development Act (4) All three committees were established by the WAPC on 24 March 2009. It is expected that these committees will be ongoing. (5) There are no costs incurred by the established committees to date. (6) It is estimated that total costs for each committee will be $50 000 per year and remuneration is in accordance with the amounts set by the Public Sector Commission. Armadale Redevelopment Authority; East Perth Redevelopment Authority; LandCorp; Midland Redevelopment Authority; Subiaco Redevelopment Authority advise (1) Nil (2)-(6) Not applicable

3266 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009]

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — REVIEWS COMMITTEES INQUIRIES AND TASKFORCES 598. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Child Protection representing the Minister for Culture and the Arts For all portfolios, Departments and Agencies, for which the Minister holds responsibility, — (1) How many reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces have been established since 23 September 2008? (2) Will the Minister list all the reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established in that period? (3) What is the name and qualification of each person who heads each review, committee, inquiry and taskforce that has been established? (4) Will the Minister list the commencement date and completion date for all reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established? (5) Will the Minister list the total cost of sitting fees and the total cost for each of the reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established? (6) Will the Minister list the cost of sitting fees to date and estimated total final cost of each review, committee, inquiry and taskforce that is still current? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: Department of Culture and the Arts; Art Gallery of Western Australia; State Library of Western Australia; ScreenWest; Swan Bells Foundation; State Records Office; Perth Theatre Trust; WA Museum advise (1) None (2)-(6) Not applicable GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — REVIEWS COMMITTEES INQUIRIES AND TASKFORCES 599. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Transport representing the Attorney General For all portfolios, Departments and Agencies, for which the Attorney General holds responsibility, — (1) How many reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces have been established since 23 September 2008? (2) Will the Attorney General list all the reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established in that period? (3) What is the name and qualification of each person who heads each review, committee, inquiry and taskforce that has been established? (4) Will the Attorney General list the commencement date and completion date for all reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established? (5) Will the Attorney General list the total cost of sitting fees and the total cost for each of the reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established? (6) Will the Attorney General list the cost of sitting fees to date and estimated total final cost of each review, committee, inquiry and taskforce that is still current? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: Commissioner for Children and Young People (1) Nil (2)-(6) Not applicable Department of Corrective Services (1) Nil (2)-(6) Not applicable Department of the Attorney General (1) Nil (2)-(6) Not applicable

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009] 3267

Equal Opportunity Commission (1) Nil (2)-(6) Not applicable Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (1) Nil (2)-(6) Not applicable Office of the Information Commissioner (1) Nil (2)-(6) Not applicable Law Reform Commission (1) Nil (2)-(6) Not applicable Legal Aid Commission (1) Nil (2)-(6) Not applicable GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — REVIEWS COMMITTEES INQUIRIES AND TASKFORCES 603. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Energy representing the Minister for Local Government For all portfolios, Departments and Agencies, for which the Minister holds responsibility, — (1) How many reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces have been established since 23 September 2008? (2) Will the Minister list all the reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established in that period? (3) What is the name and qualification of each person who heads each review, committee, inquiry and taskforce that has been established? (4) Will the Minister list the commencement date and completion date for all reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established? (5) Will the Minister list the total cost of sitting fees and the total cost for each of the reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established? (6) Will the Minister list the cost of sitting fees to date and estimated total final cost of each review, committee, inquiry and taskforce that is still current? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: LOCAL GOVERNMENT (1) One. (2) The Joint Steering Committee on Local Government Sustainability/Local Government Reform Steering Committee has been established to provide advice on measures that will enhance the sustainability of Western Australian local governments including the implementation of the Local Government Reform Strategy announced on 5 February 2009. (3) Ms Jennifer Mathews LLB BA, Director General, Department of Local Government and Regional Development. (4) The establishment of the Committee was announced on 15 October 2008 and held its first meeting on 7 November 2008. The Committee is scheduled to complete its work by December 2009. On 5 February 2009, the name of the Committee was changed to the Local Government Reform Steering Committee to reflect the announcement of the Local Government Reform Strategy. (5)-(6) Existing Departmental resources will be utilised. No sitting fees are payable. METROPOLITAN CEMETERIES BOARD (1) None. (2)-(6) Not applicable.

3268 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009]

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — REVIEWS COMMITTEES INQUIRIES AND TASKFORCES 604. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Energy representing the Minister for Heritage For all portfolios, Departments and Agencies, for which the Minister holds responsibility, — (1) How many reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces have been established since 23 September 2008? (2) Will the Minister list all the reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established in that period? (3) What is the name and qualification of each person who heads each review, committee, inquiry and taskforce that has been established? (4) Will the Minister list the commencement date and completion date for all reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established? (5) Will the Minister list the total cost of sitting fees and the total cost for each of the reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established? (6) Will the Minister list the cost of sitting fees to date and estimated total final cost of each review, committee, inquiry and taskforce that is still current? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: HERITAGE COUNCIL (1) One. (2) Review of the Heritage Council of Western Australia. (3) The review of the Heritage Council is being undertaken under Section 10 of the Public Sector Management Act 1994. The Premier, as the responsible Minister, will be responding to questions on the specifics of the review. (4) Commenced 9 December 2008, with a draft report to be submitted April 2009. (5)-(6) Please refer to answer 3. NATIONAL TRUST OF AUSTRALIA (WA) (1)-(6) The National Trust of Australia(WA) submits a Nil Response to all aspects of this question. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — REVIEWS COMMITTEES INQUIRIES AND TASKFORCES 605. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Energy representing the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Interests For all portfolios, Departments and Agencies, for which the Minister holds responsibility, — (1) How many reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces have been established since 23 September 2008? (2) Will the Minister list all the reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established in that period? (3) What is the name and qualification of each person who heads each review, committee, inquiry and taskforce that has been established? (4) Will the Minister list the commencement date and completion date for all reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established? (5) Will the Minister list the total cost of sitting fees and the total cost for each of the reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established? (6) Will the Minister list the cost of sitting fees to date and estimated total final cost of each review, committee, inquiry and taskforce that is still current? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: (1) One. (2) Ministerial Advisory Group. (3) Ms Andrea Creado, Director of Ishar Multicultural Women's Health Centre Inc (Master Degree in Human Development from India, Post Graduate Diploma in Counselling from India, Bachelors Degree in Psychology from Murdoch University, Currently enrolled in the Psychology Honours program at Edith Cowan University).

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009] 3269

(4) First Meeting 9 March 2009. There is no completion date for a group which will meet on a quarterly basis. (5) Travel Costs of approximately $800 for the first meeting for attendance by regional members. (6) Travel Costs of approximately $800 to date and total. Future participation will be by teleconference for regional members. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — FREEDOM OF INFORMATION APPLICATIONS 610. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Fisheries For each Department and Agency within the Minister’s portfolio, including the Ministerial office, will the Minister provide the following information for the period, 23 September 2008 to date, — (1) How many Freedom of Information (FOI) applications have been received? (2) What is the average time taken to process a FOI application? (3) What is the reason given for each FOI application exceeding the average time for processing? (4) How many FOI applications have been rejected by the Departments or Agencies within your portfolio? (5) How many of these rejections have been successfully appealed? (6) How many of these rejections are pending a decision of the FOI Commissioner? (7) What were the reasons given by the Departments and Agencies for rejecting each of the FOI applications? (8) What were the reasons given by the FOI Commissioner for upholding each of the appeals? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: (1) 11 (2) 21 days (3) Three Applications exceeded the average time for processing. Reasons for this are: Application 1 — seeking of legal advice and consultation with third parties. Application 2 — large number of complex documents falling within scope of the application which required third party consultation. Decision Maker in this request was also working on another FOI at the same time. Application 3 — Decision Maker did not commence working on the application until late in the process. Decision Maker informed the Coordinator of heavy work commitments. FOI Coordinator took over finalisation of FOI request. (4) Nil (5)-(8) Not applicable GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — FREEDOM OF INFORMATION APPLICATIONS 611. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Electoral Affairs For each Department and Agency within the Minister’s portfolio, including the Ministerial office, will the Minister provide the following information for the period, 23 September 2008 to date, — (1) How many Freedom of Information (FOI) applications have been received? (2) What is the average time taken to process a FOI application? (3) What is the reason given for each FOI application exceeding the average time for processing? (4) How many FOI applications have been rejected by the Departments or Agencies within your portfolio? (5) How many of these rejections have been successfully appealed? (6) How many of these rejections are pending a decision of the FOI Commissioner? (7) What were the reasons given by the Departments and Agencies for rejecting each of the FOI applications? (8) What were the reasons given by the FOI Commissioner for upholding each of the appeals? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: (1) 1 (2) 3 days

3270 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009]

(3) Not applicable (4) 1 (5)-(6) Nil (7) Personal information about third parties (8) Not applicable GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — FREEDOM OF INFORMATION APPLICATIONS 613. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Disability Services For each Department and Agency within the Minister’s portfolio, including the Ministerial office, will the Minister provide the following information for the period, 23 September 2008 to date, — (1) How many Freedom of Information (FOI) applications have been received? (2) What is the average time taken to process a FOI application? (3) What is the reason given for each FOI application exceeding the average time for processing? (4) How many FOI applications have been rejected by the Departments or Agencies within your portfolio? (5) How many of these rejections have been successfully appealed? (6) How many of these rejections are pending a decision of the FOI Commissioner? (7) What were the reasons given by the Departments and Agencies for rejecting each of the FOI applications? (8) What were the reasons given by the FOI Commissioner for upholding each of the appeals? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: 1. Four. 2. 25 days. 3. Not applicable. All requests have been dealt with in the prescribed 45 days time frame under FOI. 4. None. 5. Not applicable. 6. Not applicable. 7. Not applicable as no applications were rejected. 8. Not applicable as no applications have been made. WANNEROO SHOWGROUNDS CLUBROOM — ELECTION COMMITMENT 673. Hon Ken Travers to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Sport and Recreation I refer to the Minister’s answer to question No. 291, asked on 31 March 2009, regarding the Liberal Government’s commitment to rebuilding the clubrooms at the Wanneroo Showgrounds, and ask — (1) Can the Minister confirm that a formal application under the CSRFF program was endorsed and submitted by the City of Wanneroo? (2) Will the Minister table the application submitted? (3) Can the Minister provide any documentation that shows that the election commitment to provide $670 000 would be provided under the CSRFF, or that a matching contribution of $1 340 000 would be required? (4) If yes to (3), will the Minister table it? (5) Can the Minister advise why the condition of matching funding has now been imposed on this election commitment? (6) Have all proposals for the rebuilding of the clubrooms submitted by the City of Wanneroo to the Department of Sport and Recreation always complied with the guidelines for CSRFF? (7) If no to (6), — (a) which proposals have not complied; and (b) what guidelines have they not met?

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 May 2009] 3271

Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: (1) Yes. (2) No, CSRFF applications contain information that may be sensitive to the applicant. (3) No. Please refer to response provided in part (5) (4) Not applicable. (5) The election commitment was to increase CSRFF funding to $80 million over four years. CSRFF guidelines only allow up to one third of eligible project costs to be provided from that fund. The City of Wanneroo's application indicated that they would be funding the remainder of the project. (6) Yes. (7) (a)-(b) Not applicable.

______