Parliamentary Debates (HANSARD)

FORTIETH PARLIAMENT FIRST SESSION 2019

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Wednesday, 15 May 2019

Legislative Council

Wednesday, 15 May 2019

THE PRESIDENT (Hon Kate Doust) took the chair at 1.00 pm, read prayers and acknowledged country. HON GEORGE MAXWELL (MAX) EVANS, MBE Statement by President THE PRESIDENT (Hon Kate Doust) [1.02 pm]: Today, we will be dealing with a condolence motion for Hon George Maxwell (Max) Evans, MBE. Before I give the call to the Leader of the House, I would like to acknowledge the family of Hon Max Evans who are sitting in the President’s gallery today, in particular his wife, Barbara. Condolence Motion HON SUE ELLERY (South Metropolitan — Leader of the House) [1.02 pm] — without notice: I move — That this house expresses its deep regret at the death of Hon George Maxwell (Max) Evans, MBE, a former member of the Legislative Council for the Metropolitan Province and the North Metropolitan Region, and places on record its appreciation for his long public service and tenders its profound sympathy to his wife and members of his family in their bereavement. I want to start by acknowledging the family, friends and colleagues of the former member, particularly the family members who are in the chamber today. I was elected to Parliament in 2001. That was the year that Hon Max Evans finished his 15-year career as a member of Parliament. Although I did not have the privilege of serving with him, I have tapped the memory of Hon Ken Travers who did serve with him. I have some insight into Hon Max Evans from Hon Ken Travers. I am certainly aware of Hon Max Evans’ reputation for being a genuine, honest person who was committed, respected and someone whose word you could trust, which is not always the case in our line of business. Hon Max Evans was born on 29 November 1930 here in Perth and passed away on 30 April 2019 aged 88. Son to Victor and Joyce, he attended Thomas Street State School in Subiaco, and then Scotch College between 1943 and 1948, where he was a prefect in his final year. He married his wife, Barbara, on 20 December 1958 and together they had four children—Felicity, Peter, James and Richard. Before entering Parliament, Hon Max Evans was an accountant for 28 years. He worked at Hendry, Rae and Court, where he later became a senior partner, and was acknowledged as an award winner for his service to the accounting profession. His accounting background set him up with a particularly unique financial skill set that he brought to cabinet and to the achievements that he accomplished as a minister in Richard Court’s government. As Minister for Finance, Hon Max Evans is widely acknowledged as introducing the accrual accounting system, the superiority of which was described in an article in The West Australian earlier this year as — … now widely recognised, with the previously used cash system tending to understate the State’s unfunded liabilities and making it difficult to plan big projects. As Minister for Racing and Gaming, he helped shape the community-oriented structure of Lotterywest—then the Lotteries Commission—and opposed the introduction of pokies in WA. Our former colleague Hon Ken Travers described him as a classic finance minister—great on numbers and detail, and conservative in his approach to spending. He also described him as not being a natural politician because he was frank in his views, and if he disagreed with something that his government was doing, he would say so. If Max said he would try hard to change something or to advocate on his constituents’ behalf, he would do exactly that. Even if he returned to those constituents saying that he had not been able to shift the position of the government or that the relevant minister had not budged, they could trust that he had done everything possible to move their position. I am told that Hon Max Evans had one indulgence as Minister for Finance—a love of travel to expand his knowledge. His frankness came out whenever challenged about his travel. He never apologised but explained what he had learnt, and how his staff hated to travel with him because of his punishing workload. He would point out that he had regularly travelled for work when in the private sector and he was not going to change that now. His frankness and work ethic earned him respect. As a member for the Metropolitan Province, and later the North Metropolitan Region, I am told that when Hon Max Evans was delivering a speech in Parliament on something he was particularly passionate about, he had a tendency to become quite animated and would talk quite fast, and challenged Hansard! In the opening lines of his valedictory speech, he even mentioned that he requested another member to kick him should he start speaking too quickly!

3306 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019]

Hon Max Evans’ influence extended well beyond Parliament. He was clearly a member of various organisations, holding several leadership positions throughout his life, and he had a successful sporting career. He held professional positions in the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Australia. He was the president of the then Perth Chamber of Commerce in the mid-1980s, president of the WA Chamber of Commerce and Industry, honorary treasurer for the Australian Chamber of Commerce, secretary of the WA branch of the United World Colleges (Australia) Trust, chair of the Western Australian Committee United World Colleges, and a life member of the Australian Pensioners’ League, now Retirees WA. A lifelong passion for scouting saw him become Scoutmaster at Scotch College between 1949 and 1964. In the mid-1960s, he was District Commissioner for Scouts, Commissioner for Boy Scouts and Deputy Chief Commissioner for Western Australia. He was Chief Commissioner between 1967 and 1976, and had been an Honourable Commissioner since 1976. His significant involvement with the scouting community was recognised in 1972 when he was appointed as a Member of the Order of the British Empire for services to the community and then again, in 2008, when he was awarded the National President’s Award for eminent achievement and meritorious service to the scouting movement. As a member of the state athletic team, Max was the state’s 220-yards champion in 1951, and again in 1955. He won one gold, two silver and three bronze medals in Western Australian relay teams. He played A-grade hockey and was involved in organising an international hockey tournament in Perth in 1979. It is clear his sporting genes were passed on to his family, including to his son Peter. I will finish with some further reflections that have been passed on to me from Hon Ken Travers. I am told that Hon Max Evans was a person of contradiction. For example, he drove a big blue Rolls–Royce and often parked it right in front of Parliament so you always knew when he was in the house. But it was not that he was pretentious or showing off; it is just that he loved that car. I am told that he was quite an understated person as well. Hon Ken Travers reflected that you would often find out only by accident that he had made sizeable donations to various causes and to the arts. On one occasion, Hon Ken Travers was discussing with Hon Max Evans a large statue in the forecourt of Perth railway station. Hon Max Evans pointed out very casually that he owned it and had donated it, so that it could be shared. He was generous, but he did not want his generosity publicised. Hon Max Evans came into the world of politics with a clear passion and purpose in the area of finance, and he pursued that throughout his career. He was a very effective member of the Parliament, a successful minister, an active member of the community and a committed, honest and respected person. I understand that he would often use the phrase, “You should leave the camp site in a better place than you found it.” By all accounts, he left this Parliament in a better place than when he arrived. On behalf of the government and the Parliamentary Labor Party, I express my sincere condolences to the Evans family for their loss. HON PETER COLLIER (North Metropolitan — Leader of the Opposition) [1.10 pm]: I stand on behalf of the Liberal Party to support the motion. George Maxwell Evans was born on 29 November 1930 and grew up in West Perth, the son of a business manager. He attended West Perth state school in Thomas Street and joined the Subiaco Scouts aged 10. At Scotch College from 1943 until 1948, he served as a prefect, represented his school in athletics, hockey and tennis, and qualified as a King’s Scout in 1945. In 1947, he was invited by the headmaster to establish the school’s own scouting group. His interest in politics was foreshadowed by his establishment of a debating society and his membership of the Legion of Liberty, soon renamed as the Young Liberals. Max immediately began his professional career as an accountant, joining Hendry, Rae and Court in 1949, qualifying as a chartered accountant in 1954, becoming a partner in 1958, and remaining a senior partner until 1991. His standing in the profession and the business world resulted in service as a member of the National Forward Planning Committee of the Institute of Chartered Accountants from 1981 to 1983, president of the Perth Chamber of Commerce from 1983 to 1984, treasurer of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry from 1983 to 1985, and president of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia from 1984 until 1985. In 2001, he received a meritorious service award for outstanding service to the accounting profession. From 1951 to 1955, Max was a member of the state athletics team. A 220-yards champion, he won silver and bronze medals, culminating with the relay gold medal in the 1955 Australian athletics championships, defeating a world record–holder. From 1949 until 1962, he played A-grade hockey. He was later to take pride in the gold medals his son Peter won in swimming at the 1980 Olympics and the 1982 Commonwealth Games. His enthusiasm for scouting led to service as Scoutmaster of Scotch College from 1949 to 1964, award of the Gilwell badge in 1951, and successive appointments, from 1964 to 1976, as district commissioner, Commissioner for Boy Scouts, deputy chief commissioner, and Chief Commissioner for Western Australia at the age of 36. He led Western Australian contingents to scouting jamborees in 1967 and 1970. His exceptional contribution to scouting was recognised by the award of Member of the Order of the British Empire in 1972 at the comparably early age of 41, together with a National President’s Award for scouting in 2008. In other aspects of community service, Max was secretary of the Western Australian branch of the United World Colleges Trust from 1971 to 1984, and its chairman from 1984. In 1991, he was awarded honorary life membership

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019] 3307 of the Australian Pensioners’ League. His commitment to Scotch College continued throughout his life. He served on the committee that enabled the building of the P.C. Anderson Memorial Chapel, and in 1982 was made a college council life governor. A lifelong Liberal who had campaigned in Sir Charles Court’s first election in 1953, Max had not been a recent office-bearer in the Liberal Party organisation when, in 1985, he sought preselection for the Metropolitan Province of the Legislative Council, to be vacated by the late Hon Ian Medcalf. His professional and community service and standing was a factor in defeating seven other candidates, some with extensive political experience. The 1986 election was, for once, no walkover in what had been a safe Liberal seat comprising the Legislative Assembly districts of Cottesloe, Floreat, Nedlands, Subiaco and Perth. The Australian Labor Party stood aside to facilitate a potentially formidable challenge from a former Australian Democrats senator, the late Jack Evans. Max Evans not only campaigned energetically as the Liberal candidate for the then safe Labor seat of Perth, but also enlisted his son Peter for an essential supporting effort. Max was elected with an absolute majority of 3 882 votes—52 per cent against 42.2 per cent for Jack Evans and 5.4 per cent for an independent Labor candidate. His six-year term was cut short by the 1987 restructure of the Legislative Council, when the Metropolitan Province was absorbed into the present North Metropolitan Region. In 1988, he secured the second position on the Liberal Party ticket for this region led by Hon George Cash, and was re-elected at the 1989, 1993 and 1996 elections, either in third or second position. Only six months after his election in December 1986, he was appointed shadow Minister for Budget Management, which was a natural fit given his accounting experience. He was to continue in this role in opposition until 1993, also serving as shadow Minister for Sport and Recreation from 1988 to 1992. Max played a decisive role in uncovering and analysing the complex web of government business dealings known to history as WA Inc. Thanks to his expertise as shadow Minister for Finance, he was an essential member of the opposition management team from May 1992. With the election of the Court coalition government in 1993, Max served nearly seven years as both Minister for Finance and Minister for Racing and Gaming. Max deserves to be long remembered for the fiscal discipline he imposed as Minister for Finance, notably through the adoption of accrual accounting, a system that no longer risked understating the government’s liabilities. He may not have been a fluent speaker in the Parliament, but in cabinet he could be relied upon to produce a spreadsheet and give a thorough critique of any ministerial or public service spending proposal. Max Evans contributed greatly to Western Australia gaining the maximum credit rating in the 1990s. Max did not drink or gamble, but he was a particularly effective Minister for Racing and Gaming who prevented the introduction and proliferation of poker machines in an era when far less attention was paid to the social impact of problem gambling. He was sceptical of the supposed benefit to government revenue on the grounds that the more money a government has, the more it will spend, and it probably will not spend it wisely. At the same time, he understood the challenges faced by the hospitality industry, and ensured that the racing industry was properly funded. He refused the approaches of Tattersalls to take over the running of Lotterywest, as he had an accountant’s scepticism of its business model and a concern that it would result in lotteries income being absorbed into consolidated revenue. As Hon Kim Beazley emphasised at Max’s funeral on Monday, we have him to thank for the continued community grants that are provided through Lotterywest and envied by other states that have shown less foresight. In December 1999, Max stood down from cabinet in a pre-election ministerial reshuffle, and retired at the 2001 election. He was not replaced as Minister for Finance, with responsibilities given to other ministers. He was a very hard act to follow. He left a reputation for unshakeable ministerial honesty and competence, warmly attested in St George’s Cathedral on Monday by both our state Governor and his former cabinet colleague, Hon Colin Barnett. Max’s concern for both his state and its fiscal integrity continued into his retirement. In 2005, he co-authored the publication entitled “The Great Scam: 100 Years of Federation and What it Has Cost Western Australia: A Review”. Max was a pioneer home-movie maker who captured for posterity a major slice of local history. He was a motoring enthusiast who drove his 1975 Silver Shadow Rolls–Royce to Parliament House and later generously donated a Model T Ford and 1948 Mark VI Bentley to the Motor Museum of Western Australia. He lived life to the full and well. Personally, I knew Max for almost 30 years, primarily through the Curtin division of the Liberal Party. I always enjoyed his company and that of his wonderful wife, Barbara. In addition, he always offered me valuable advice, as both an aspiring and a full member of the Legislative Council. For that I will always be extremely grateful. I respect Max for all that he was, and I will always regard him and Barb as valued friends. Max and Barbara Evans enjoyed 60 years of a most happy and supportive marriage. We extend our sympathy to Barbara, to their daughter, Felicity, their sons, Peter, James and Richard, and to their granddaughters, Amanda and Emma. HON JACQUI BOYDELL (Mining and Pastoral — Deputy Leader of the Nationals WA) [1.18 pm]: I rise on behalf of the Nationals WA to add our condolences to this motion today. I am so very pleased that Max Evans’ family, and particularly his wife, Barbara, could join us as the house remembers his service to this Legislative Council and also to the community at large. As we have seen already, it was quite extensive. When Hon Max Evans read his maiden speech into this place in 1986, I had just left school so I was one of the aspiring young people who Max spoke

3308 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019] about. He wanted to see an education system that supported young people through their sporting achievements and their educational aspirations. Looking back on that time and from reading his speech, it is really important to me that when I would have been 18 years old, not even thinking about Parliament or politics, a member of this place was thinking about my future as a young person and was trying to create a better environment than the one in which they started themselves. I am forever grateful to people who deliver community service in that way. His maiden speech referred to some of the priorities he set out for himself, particularly given his experience in accounting, budgeting and some of the other things he suggested government do differently, which he achieved. Sometimes, as members of this house, that does not always happen over the term of our parliamentary career. We do not get to receive a ministerial portfolio or have the opportunity in government to set a formula for what we believe is a better place. However, he certainly did that and I congratulate him for that, and his family for supporting him through that. Without their support, as all members in this house know, we as individual members alone cannot achieve those things, because it is a big job. I think when the budget was handed down last week, it was a very good time to remember the life of Hon Max Evans. When reading his maiden speech, one of the things that jumped out at me and that I had a bit of a laugh about had me thinking, “That’s exactly right. That is how government should approach what they do.” I will quote from his maiden speech and some of the budgetary points he made at that time. He said — In my time in business I found that people in authority enjoy spending other people’s money. That captured my attention immediately! To continue — They often have little to spend themselves and find that it is a nice feeling to be in a position to put their names to newly-erected buildings. However, they must have respect for other people’s money when they work out the expenditure estimates and reduce them until the revenue matches them. That is a hard thing to do. As the Minister for Finance, he certainly did that later in his career. It is a timely reminder to members how we in government, and as members of this house, a house of review, look at our estimates hearings, budget speeches and contributions to how government should go about expenditure and being responsible about it. That really captured my attention. His commitment to small business was something that I could relate to and he was concerned about the continued support of small business in Australia and the challenges that sector faced. Some of those challenges still face small business today due to land tax, payroll tax, workers’ compensation and stamp duty. They were all areas of interest to him and to which he felt he could make a change and create an environment that was more profitable and that enabled small businesses in particular to operate in a freer environment. From reading some of his comments about people in the sporting environment, I think he was also a man who felt they should be able to access something like a gifted and talented program and have their sporting achievements recognised through to a possible career. In 1986 and prior to that, it was difficult to be a full-time professional sportsman. I think some of his comments and ideas around how in an education system we go about supporting people in a sporting career were really useful and we see that being played out now. That is an adopted process of our education system, particularly through the Australian Institute of Sport, and educational colleges, in which people are dedicated to particular sports and professional sportspeople are developed through that process. That was an idea he brought to this house and was fully supported. I think we all understand the importance of sport in children’s lives, as it creates balance in this ever-increasing pressure cooker of social media and 24/7 scrutiny. It is important for young people to have balance, and sport brings that to them. In his achievements through the scouting organisations, he recognised that children and people need to bring balance to their lives. Those things are exceptionally important and will remain so. I do not know what the next 20 years will hold in terms of social media and internet scrutiny for our young people. However, they need a way to balance that in their lives. He supported that and supported young people being able to fulfil their aspirations. As a member of this house, I congratulate him and his family on his achievements. They were many and varied as recognised by this house. He was, clearly, a long-term, passionate and active community member well into his retirement and that, again, shows what sort of community spirit he had. I will conclude my remarks and, on behalf of the National Party, pass on my condolences to his family. We thank him for his service to the people of Western Australia and I thank him for his commitment to people like me, who, when I was 18 he considered to be important. HON ALISON XAMON (North Metropolitan) [1.26 pm]: I rise on behalf of the Greens and as the member for the North Metropolitan Region to support this motion and to acknowledge the passing of Hon Max Evans. On behalf of the Greens, we wish to express our condolences to the family and friends of Max Evans. I was not lucky enough to know Mr Evans personally but I, along with all Western Australians, have received the benefit of his hard work as a minister in this place. Max Evans accomplished a number of things across his 12 years in this house, most notably in his role as Minister for Finance and Minister Assisting the Treasurer. His background, as has already been extensively spoken about,

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019] 3309 was as an accountant. He did not come into this Parliament until long after he was well established and already very well respected within his field. In fact, he took his seat for the first time at the age of 56. However, he brought those years of experience and that very deep knowledge of understanding financial management and operations to the Parliament, and I think we are all the beneficiaries of his work and expertise. His projects have allowed us to have a very clear picture of government landholdings, for instance. I note that in his valedictory speech, the government discovered that it owned three times as much land as was originally estimated. As has been said, he also introduced net appropriations and accrual accounting, which enables agencies to carry forward funds from one year to the next. He pushed Treasury to have the budget prepared in advance of the start of the financial year and the budget passed by 30 June. This, of course, ensures that agencies have the full financial year to undertake their new capital expenditure plans. These reforms have also made a huge difference to the certainty of budgeting for agencies and the accountability of their spending against their budgets. These are important reforms for both the government as well as the Parliament. As has already been said, I also note that Mr Evans had a long and distinguished involvement in the scouting movement and was an elite athlete for a number of years in a number of sports prior to entering Parliament. He led a life of excellence in many fields and obviously had a deep commitment to community service. I think the world, particularly Western Australia, is a better place, thanks to his commitment and service. I once again offer our condolences to his loved ones, in particular his wife, Barbara, his children and his grandchildren. HON SIMON O’BRIEN (South Metropolitan) [1.29 pm]: I am moved to make the following observations on this bittersweet occasion. I remind the house that the purpose of a condolence motion is, in the first instance, to offer our comfort and sympathies to the family of our late colleague, and to pay respect to his legacy and to put that on the record. As a house it is also, whether we served with him or not, to learn from his example and thereby enhance his legacy and, through all those mechanisms, provide a meaningful level of support to all who are saddened by his passing. I want firstly to acknowledge the presence in your gallery, Madam President, of Barbara Evans. I have already spoken to Barbara outside and passed on thanks from my wife, Joy, who remembers her very kindly as a senior minister’s wife who took the wives of new members under her wing and helped them out at functions, making sure that they were all right and knew what to do, and felt comfortable. More than one member’s spouse would be grateful for that service, amongst many, that Barbara Evans provided over the years. I would also like to acknowledge Richard, who is here with his wife, Kim; Felicity; and grandchildren, Emma and Amanda. All the comments I am about to offer are provided to, I hope, give some level of comfort to all of you. The other day—it seems like only the other day; it must have been a few months ago, now, but recently—Laurissa at my office came in and said, “There’s a Mr Max Evans to see you.” But what her body language betrayed was, “Simon, there’s this mercurial personality who’s about seven foot long with a shock of white hair and a beaming smile, who has just pulled up in a Rolls–Royce, complete with the silver lady on the front, and I think you really need to see him, because he obviously knows you!” So I went out and made proper introductions to Laurissa and Max, and then Max and I sat down and had a good old catch-up. He was wont to do that from time to time. I asked him what brought him down to the wild country of Applecross on that occasion, and he said, characteristically, “I thought the Roller needed to go out for a run, so I thought I’d come down and say hello!”—as one does! We had a great catch-up. We have heard that Max was the last Minister for Finance in the Court government; in fact, there was not a Minister for Finance after his pre-election resignation. I was the next Liberal Minister for Finance, and Max came around to see me after that. The term “big shoes” just does not do it justice, but he would give me advice—some of which I comprehended, and all of which I appreciated—even though my role and his were slightly different in terms of responsibility. But gee, it was great to see him, and I really appreciated it. I look back on that conversation—what was to be our final conversation—with such great fondness, so thanks for that, Max. My first term in Parliament coincided with Max’s final term, and it was a steep learning curve for me. To watch a master such as he was a great experience. I would commend the records of the house to all members here; they will learn things simply by reading his contributions in Hansard; I promise members that they will learn things. One such thing would be what the Leader of the Opposition has just reminded us of—the adage that when governments have more money, they sometimes feel encouraged to spend more money on things that they should not spend money on. On the second day I was in this place, I found myself on the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations and Muriel Patterson, who many members will know, was the other Liberal on that committee. It was always interesting when Max was the minister being examined by the estimates committee. I recall one occasion when he said, “Look, Simon, would you mind asking us this question? We’ve got to get it out there before the press deadline tonight.” There was obviously some misinformation going about the town that probably would have affected a whole lot of important things, so he just needed a vehicle to get something on the record. I dutifully asked the question and he read out a prepared response and said, “Thanks very much.” I thought, “Wow! Between me, the new young upstart in here, and the Minister for Finance, we’ve really achieved something today!”

3310 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019]

Then, on another occasion—having learnt from this, and thinking that that was how it worked—he came in, this time I think as a minister representing another minister. He gave Muriel and I a piece of paper, and on the piece of paper was a list of questions with some dot points under each one. We thought, “He obviously wants to be asked these questions, even though he’s only a representative minister”, so we made sure we asked these questions— every single one of them. Max did not seem too worried; he would just gesture at the director general he was with and say, “Oh, he can answer that.” This poor bloke was sweating more and more and then, of course, we found out afterwards that in fact these were questions that they did not want asked! In the nightmare scenario that someone came up with one of these topics, there were some suggested answers. Max thought that was a tremendous joke, although the director general did not. In retrospect, I think it was quite funny, too! But there is no doubt about it: this rascal was great at his job and, indeed, at just about every endeavour throughout his life. As Minister for Finance; Racing and Gaming, it is true that he did some travel for official purposes, but then again, he would have done that in a private capacity anyway. He took his job seriously and he would go to the races at Belmont Park, at York, at Longchamp—possibly more than once, I think. I do not know if he ever got to Louisville, Kentucky, but anyway, we will find out about that on another occasion. He would say to us in discussions and in helping us to learn where we sat in this place, “Being a Minister for Racing and Gaming has nothing to do with horses and nothing to do with liquor and cards; it’s about money. That’s the truth of the matter.” The penny drops when one gets that sort of advice from Max Evans; that is why he was the Minister for Racing and Gaming—because it was about money, and he was the best man at the time to look after the interests of the state in that particular capacity. Heck, he used to walk the walk as well. We have all seen ministers go from the dining room corridor to the ministers’ offices up the end here. There was a time when just outside, in the courtyard, there was a smokers’ corner inhabited by rascals like Hon Bruce Donaldson, Hon Greg Smith, Hon Kim Chance, Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich and me. We would be out there, having a puff, and Max would walk past. At this time a charge was being levied by the state government on the consumption of tobacco; there was also one on petrol at the time. It did not last long, but for a while it brought some shekels in. Max would walk past; he was abstemious and a former Scoutmaster, but he did not admonish us. He would say, “Good on ya, you keep smoking there. We need the revenue!” This happened on a number of occasions, and we would say, “Righto, Max. We’re on the job”, and reach for another. Then, of course, the terrible day came when the inevitable High Court challenge was upheld, because there is no constitutional right for the state to charge an excise, so that particular avenue of revenue was cut off. Max did not even break step over those sorts of things. He took them all in his stride and the next time he strode past us out there he said, “Righto, you can stop smoking now—there’s no money in it for us.” We kept smoking anyway. I want to share quickly a couple of anecdotes that members might find instructive about the character of this great man. It has already been mentioned that he spoke very quickly and sometimes tended to mumble; that was mentioned at his funeral the other day. I do not know whether that is completely fair. The fact is that he had such a quick mind that his mind was always several sentences ahead of where his mouth was. He was like a virtuoso delivering a medley of his greatest hits every time he answered a question. He would start with the first half of a sentence, move straight into the middle part of the next sentence and then into the last bit of the third sentence. Those of us in the Liberal party room obviously knew Evans-ese and so we were comfortable with it. But on one delicious occasion, 18 June 1997, Dr Chrissy Sharp, who many members know, had been in this place for a little while and asked a question of him. I think it must have been in a representative capacity. I recall her saying something like, “I’m not trying to be rude, but could you please speak a bit slower because I can’t understand anything you are saying.” Hansard was a little more circumspect and recorded it as follows. After a very long question in a couple of parts, Hon Chrissy Sharp concluded with — I humbly request the Minister for Finance to answer clearly because I always have great difficulty hearing his answers in this House. Good ol’ Hansard, hey! Hon Max Evans replied. I remember this: I thought he might have even been slightly irked for the one time in his life. He said — It is for that reason only that we give members a printed copy of the answer; I hope the member can read the answer. In this case, it will not matter, because the question requires detailed research, and I therefore request that the question be placed on notice. Max, 1: Chrissy, 0. Another extract I urge members to read in addition to his maiden speech is from his final speech given on Thursday, 23 November 2000, which was something of a valedictory speech. This is an example of the contribution he was capable of making, within this house, within cabinet and within other forums to which he had access. I know that those of us who have been here for a while will appreciate the strength that this sort of character can bring to a government and others, and perhaps newer members might benefit from the example. Max was talking, in the middle of a lot of things, about things he had done. Then he went outside his own portfolio. Members may recall

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019] 3311 that in the late 1990s there was a real issue that resolved itself through an ambitious program of infill sewerage works. There were real problems with septic tanks all over the metropolitan area. That was not his portfolio area, but here is what he could bring to the cabinet table. I quote from Hansard on that day — A minister is supposed to go the races and anyone can do that. However, one of the best initiatives was to stop the $50 levy to be placed on every resident in Western Australia for the infill sewerage program, and Hon Peter Foss will remember that—he was the minister. A great story was put for putting a $50 levy on every household in Western Australia—good, bad and indifferent. The Premier and others thought it was a great idea. Environmentalists said that it was a good idea and that it would cut out the septic tank problems. However, they did not ask the people who could not afford $50 … Luckily for me, I could read a balance sheet. That was referred to earlier, and I thank members for their comments. I knew the Water Corporation balance sheet very well because it had received a gold medal award in the preceding couple of years. The balance sheet covered everything; it was great. It indicated how much money it had. It was a very liquid organisation; — Pun intended, I should think — it had money coming out of its ears. The developers put in $100m. It had a double rate of depreciation, and I will tell members about that one day; the tax factor is quite interesting. It depreciated on a reducing balance and then depreciated it on a replacement cost, so it was a double whammy. The total was $150m, when it should have been $75m. I knew that the cash was available, and Peter and I changed all of that even though it was seen to be a very good idea. It has borrowed some money in the end, but it will have spent the $800m. That was one of the good achievements. It happened and it was not a great impost on people. I did not speak as quickly as Max delivered that, but I remember him delivering that news and I thought: wow, here is a person who through the abilities that he brings in from outside has had a major effect on the whole city and on all those households that were going to be hit up for extra expense. He also drove the creation of a government property register that realised colossal benefits for the state. Members might also be interested to know that Max was the one who saw to it that cars were provided for members of Parliament, and for very good reason. Admittedly we did not get a Roller, and I do not think he got himself an electorate car, but Max was always thinking about others. We have heard also about the tremendous contribution he made by reserving the proceeds of the Lotteries Commission in perpetuity for our community, which is something that is the envy of every other state. These are just a handful of examples of many of how Max Evans has made a difference and made this a better place. I go back to almost where it started, with the scouts. We have all heard the expression, “It takes a village to raise a child.” For a lot of kids, a scout troop is that village. Max was very satisfied that in the time of the Court government and the revival of a new cadets movement, it was considered that youth organisations were suddenly cool again, and everyone could be involved. That had a big spin-off and benefit to the scouts that has accrued to this day. He understood, as we all need to understand, that the benefit of scouting is not only about learning how to tie knots, polish shoes, fix a pushbike, iron a scarf, cook a basic meal and all those other very useful life skills; it is about providing a support mechanism, an ideal mentor mechanism, for children, regardless of their circumstances and background during their formative years when they most need positive role models and a secure environment. As we have heard, Max would often refer to the old adage: always leave the camp site in a better condition than you found it. I think that if we all adopted that attitude in everything we did, the world would be a better place. Farewell, Max. You certainly left the camp site in a better condition than you found it. Members: Hear, hear! HON ALANNAH MacTIERNAN (North Metropolitan — Minister for Regional Development) [1.48 pm]: As someone who also served with Hon Max Evans during my first term in Parliament, I would like to associate myself with the remarks that have been made today. I was talking to Hon Tom Stephens, one of our colleagues in this place who also served with Max. The phrase that came up was that Max was always reliably gentlemanly in his dealings. In those years that I was here between 1993 and 1996, a lot of biffo went on in this chamber and some very strong political contests took place. Max was in there as a warrior for the other side. One of the things that really distinguished Max is that there was never a sense that there was any personal antagonism and, indeed, there were always good personal relationships with Max and the people on both sides. Members across the chamber have outlined his very real achievements. It says something to me about the ability of people, after having an established career, to come to this place and make a contribution. We need to think about how we can ensure into the future that we have that pathway for people who have developed very relevant skill sets that will help in the proper administration of government in this place. I heard all the stories, and I agree with Hon Simon O’Brien about the purpose of remembering those on the other side, but also honouring the individual.

3312 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019]

We came to understand just how much this question of service was so deeply embedded in Max when we heard about his very early days from establishing the debating society to being involved in the scouts and all the commitments that he took on because he felt that he had a contribution to make to keep the show on the road and to keep society moving forward. I particularly remember after he retired often seeing him and Barbara and a number of their friends who were great participants in the Araluen tulip exercise at Araluen Botanic Park each year making their contribution to ensuring that the public could have this magnificent experience of the tulip festival once a year—an effort that was driven on the back of massive volunteerism. I was very interested to hear Ken Travers’ comments. As Tom and I were saying, Ken and Max had a shared passion for forensic scrutiny of detail and minutiae, which sometimes would drive other members a bit nutty. Both of them made a substantial contribution to this state through that incredible attention to detail. To Barbara and the family, I absolutely want to share the condolences of this house and say that you should be so proud of the man that was Max. THE PRESIDENT (Hon Kate Doust) [1.52 pm]: I also pass on my condolences to Mrs Barbara Evans and the members of the family who are present today. Unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity to work with Hon Max Evans; I know of him only by reputation. Certainly, having listened to the number of speakers today, I know that he not only had a full life before and after his time in Parliament, but also made a significant contribution through a range of changes that we are still reaping the benefits of in not just this place, but also the broader community. It certainly helps to have a very effective accountant; it is something that we all look for. Obviously, he did a great job here. Hon Simon O’Brien is correct; it is very important that we move these condolence motions to acknowledge the work of each member and the contributions they have made. As Hon Alannah MacTiernan said, people come to this place at varying points in their work life, at different ages and with different experiences. For the family members who are present in the gallery while these motions are being debated, it is important to acknowledge the contribution of those members, because those families have quite often given up so much for their loved one to participate and be in this place. It is very helpful and perhaps eases the burden of grief that they are dealing with to hear the positive things that their family member did while they were here. Obviously, Hon Max Evans was respected across the spectrum of this chamber for not only the work he did and the things he achieved, but also the manner in which he conducted himself in this chamber. With those few words, I pass on my condolences to the Evans family and thank them very much for the contribution that Hon Max Evans made. In putting this motion, I ask that members now rise and stand in their places to indicate their support for the motion and to observe one minute’s silence in memory of the late Hon Max Evans, MBE, an esteemed former member of the Council. Question passed; members and officers standing as a mark of respect. The PRESIDENT: I advise that in accordance with our custom and practice, a copy of the Hansard transcript of this condolence motion will be forwarded to Hon Max Evans’ family. NAPLAN ONLINE — TECHNICAL ISSUES Statement by Minister for Education and Training HON SUE ELLERY (South Metropolitan — Minister for Education and Training) [1.55 pm]: I rise today to make a brief statement about NAPLAN Online. Yesterday, students across Australia commenced NAPLAN testing, which will run for nine days. I am aware that approximately 300 Western Australian schools experienced technical connectivity issues when undertaking NAPLAN Online yesterday. I have been advised that these issues were also experienced by schools in other states and territories. I understand that the issues encountered yesterday will be distressing for a number of students and their families. Significant work has been undertaken by the Western Australian Department of Education and the School Curriculum and Standards Authority to prepare schools for NAPLAN Online. The issues that arose yesterday were not encountered during the practice testing phase. As a contingency plan, every Western Australian student completing NAPLAN Online also has a backup pen and paper test available. Schools were advised that they could seek approval from SCSA to move from NAPLAN Online to pen and paper if they experienced any issues. This morning all schools have been issued with a blanket approval to proceed to use the pen and paper test for writing if they experience any difficulties using NAPLAN Online today. Forty thousand Western Australian students and their teachers, parents and schools were disrupted and inconvenienced by technical issues with NAPLAN Online. It is disappointing to me that assurances that technical issues had all been worked through in advance were not delivered on. I have been advised that some schools are still experiencing connectivity issues today. As per my public comments this morning, schools are advised to switch to the contingency plan of pen and paper testing should they encounter any problems.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019] 3313

METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT 1332/41 — SWAN VALLEY OMNIBUS 1 Statement by Minister for Environment HON STEPHEN DAWSON (Mining and Pastoral — Minister for Environment) [1.57 pm]: Today I present for tabling metropolitan region scheme amendment 1332/41, an omnibus amendment that comprises three proposals for land within the Swan Valley. The purpose of the amendment is to rationalise the zoning and reservation of land to cadastral boundaries and to reflect its ownership appropriately. The first proposal is for the transfer of an area of approximately 6.5 hectares, being lot 33 Padbury Avenue, Millendon, and a portion of the Padbury Avenue road reserve from the parks and recreation reservation to the rural zone. The proposal area is not required for parks and recreation purposes. The second proposal is for the transfer of an area of approximately 3.29 hectares, being lot 102 Harrow Street, West Swan, from the public purposes–commonwealth government reservation to the rural zone. The proposal area is no longer owned by the commonwealth government and its zoning is to be amended to reflect this. The third proposal is for the transfer of an approximately 0.19-hectare portion of the former Riverbank Detention Centre site, being lot 9332 Hamersley Road, Caversham, from the parks and recreation reservation to the rural zone. The former detention centre has been identified as a redundant state asset and the amendment will ensure that the zoning of its exercise yard is consistent with the remainder of the site in order to facilitate its disposal through the land asset sales program. The Swan Valley Planning Committee was consulted prior to the initiation of the amendment and supported it, as the changes are consistent with the Swan Valley Planning Act 1995. The Environmental Protection Authority advised that the proposed amendments did not require formal assessment under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and provided advice on proposal 1 relating to flora and vegetation, terrestrial fauna, hydrological processes and inland water environmental quality. These matters will be managed and addressed through the subsequent local scheme amendment stage of the planning process in consultation with the City of Swan and the Western Australian Planning Commission. In accordance with the statutory provisions for region scheme amendments, these amendments were advertised for three months. A total of 20 submissions were received, comprising 15 general comments, two comments of support and three comments of objection. The Western Australian Planning Commission, having regard to the content of submissions and hearings, recommended that the amendment be finalised without modification. Copies of the submissions and the Western Australian Planning Commission’s report on submissions will be tabled today. Finalisation of the amendment will ensure that the metropolitan region scheme is kept up-to-date as the statutory regional plan for Perth, facilitate the disposal of a surplus state asset, and remove potential liabilities for the purchase of reserved land that is not required by government. I am pleased to table the documentation for metropolitan region scheme amendment 1332/41 and I commend it to the house. [See papers 2701 and 2702.] WATER DEFICIENCY DECLARATION — MALLEE HILL Statement by Minister for Agriculture and Food HON ALANNAH MacTIERNAN (North Metropolitan — Minister for Agriculture and Food) [2.00 pm]: After consultation with me, the Minister for Water, Dave Kelly, today declared a water deficiency for the Mallee Hill area in the Shire of Lake Grace and announced that the government will start carting water to provide farmers with emergency water for livestock. The official declaration follows an application from the shire on behalf of seven farmers in the Mallee Hill area. A declaration is made as a last resort after continued hot and dry conditions due to climate change have depleted on-farm and state government–managed community water resources. The declaration will see the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation cart an estimated 350 kilolitres of water each week to a central storage location, reducing the distance farmers must travel to source emergency livestock water. This is the second water deficiency to be declared this year. Last week, the Minister for Water declared a water deficiency for Mt Short in the Shire of Ravensthorpe, and water carting has commenced there. We are acutely aware of the seasonal dry conditions facing farmers in the Shire of Lake Grace and surrounding areas, and the difficulties this creates for livestock management. We continue to work with landholders affected by below-average rainfall, providing information and support about how to navigate the season ahead. RECOVERY COLLEGE Statement by Parliamentary Secretary HON ALANNA CLOHESY (East Metropolitan — Parliamentary Secretary) [2.01 pm]: The McGowan government made an election commitment to establish recovery colleges in Western Australia. I am pleased to inform members that in the 2019–20 state budget the government has committed $3.6 million over four years to the implementation of a recovery college model in Western Australia. An independent expert panel developed a co-designed statewide draft model of service. The model aims to provide a safe and welcoming place for people

3314 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019] with mental health, alcohol and other drug issues. The Western Australian recovery college will operate using a hub-and-satellite design, which will be progressively implemented statewide over a three-year period. A central hub will be located in the Perth metropolitan area, with satellites located in all regions across Western Australia. The Western Australian recovery college will be the first trans-regional service of its kind in this state. The recovery college will use inclusive educational approaches in a safe and welcoming environment to support personal recovery from mental health distress, addiction and substance use issues. People with lived experience— carers, family members, those who work in the mental health, alcohol and other drug sectors, and interested community members—will all come together to develop skills and share knowledge and experiences in health and wellbeing. This will provide a mechanism for a cultural shift in existing mental health, alcohol and other drug services. It will break down barriers, stigma and power imbalances between consumers and clinicians, and will provide clinicians the opportunity to take their experience back to their clinical services and implement change. The rollout of the first courses in the central hub, metropolitan satellite and two regional satellites will coincide with the commencement of community mental health step-up, step-down services. An early tender announcement is currently available on Tenders WA. It is intended that the request for tender will be announced on Tenders WA on 7 June 2019, closing on 16 August 2019. This government is committed to improving mental health, alcohol and other drug services for all Western Australians, providing the right care, at the right time and in the right place. PAPERS TABLED Papers were tabled and ordered to lie upon the table of the house. 2019–20 STATE BUDGET — SURPLUS Notice of Motion Hon Pierre Yang gave notice that at the next sitting of the house he would move — That this house notes that the state budget is back on track, with an official surplus delivered for the first time in five years, thanks to the responsible financial management of the McGowan Labor government. NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME — IMPLEMENTATION Motion HON PETER COLLIER (North Metropolitan — Leader of the Opposition) [2.06 pm]: I move — That this house — (a) recognises the potential benefits of the National Disability Insurance Scheme for people with a disability throughout Australia; and (b) expresses its concern with elements of the implementation of the NDIS, particularly in Western Australia, and the effect that these problems are having on a significant number of people living with a disability. I bring this motion to the house in good faith. It is not a politically motivated motion at all, but it is a debate that we need to have. I emphasise yet again: this is not a motion of criticism towards the Minister for Disability Services. I would like to acknowledge the fact that the National Disability Insurance Scheme has some problems, particularly issues of implementation, that are having a significant negative impact upon people with a disability—those whom it is meant to assist. I have an enormous amount to get through, and I will only really touch on it today. I foreshadow that I will be making more comments in my budget reply contribution. Suffice to say—I have said this before—I am firmly of the belief that the service industries throughout our community are better served at the local level than at the state level. The founding fathers in their wisdom created a Constitution that had more holes in it than it had four walls. That is because essentially it did not create responsibility for the service industries specific to one level of government. It referred to services such as health, education, disability services and police as “concurrent powers”. Those sorts of service industries that are best served at the local level are concurrent. In the just over 100 years since Federation, the federal government, regardless of its political persuasion, has made a habit of trying to impose its will on the states based on a financial premise. Although the intent may be honourable in some instances, what actually happens is that the honourable intent is lost and it becomes more of a financial imperative. Unfortunately, I can see that occurring with the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I mentioned this in the house previously. A perfect example is the national curriculum in education. When I was Minister for Education, we worked towards the development of a uniform national curriculum. In theory, it sounds good. In practice, of course, it was open to an enormous number of problems, because it did not provide sufficient autonomy or flexibility for the states. With that in mind, when I took over as Minister for Education in 2012, I insisted that Western Australia have the capacity to adopt and adapt that national curriculum. I stand by that, and that has been widely and unanimously endorsed by all states. Yes, we have a national curriculum, but underneath that we have the states with their local autonomy. With the National Disability Insurance Scheme we have a very similar situation. The NDIS came about because of

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019] 3315 a Productivity Commission report in 2011. As a result of that, then Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced the creation of a National Disability Insurance Scheme, which had universal support; it really did. The delivery of it, however, did not have universal support; there was a bit of contention, particularly in Western Australia. In Western Australia we decided, after much deliberation, consultation and debate, that we would go down the local level path. In January 2017, Hon Donna Faragher, the then minister, made the announcement that although we were under the umbrella of the NDIS, it would be delivered at the local level. I stand by that; I still think that was the best decision. Regardless, water has gone under the bridge. The current minister, Hon Stephen Dawson, made the decision not to go down that path, and I respect his decision; he is in government. Having said that, I do not think he would want a system that is going to make things worse, as opposed to better, for people with a disability. As shadow minister, I get an enormous amount of criticism and complaints about the NDIS. Having said that, I also speak with a lot of people who are very supportive of it—most people are. They are supportive of the concept, but there are some real problems with the implementation. The stories of the people who come into my office—I mean dozens of them—are heartbreaking. To the credit of the minister and his office—I acknowledge his office—I deal with those issues directly with the minister’s office. His office is always very supportive and we resolve the issue more often than not. But little bushfires keep emerging all over the place, and fixing one problem here and one problem there does not resolve the problem. It is like putting a bandaid on a broken arm. In fact, the system is actually broken in a number of areas. Ideally, of course, the NDIS would have provided for about 475 000 consistent individual plans across the nation, with portability, flexibility and empowerment—empowering one of the most marginalised groups in our community. That is ideally what we should have. In Western Australia, ideally, around 25 000 people should be accessing individual plans, which should go up to about 39 000 people by 2020. It will cost $908 million, going up to $1.76 billion, and another 10 000 jobs will be created—from 10 000 to 20 000 jobs. Is it working? In a lot of instances, yes, but in a significant number, no. That is what concerns me. The issues are quite complex, depending on each individual case, but there is a degree of consistency. Prior to Minister Dawson making the decision to go to the federal model, the Productivity Commission did another report, and it was released in October 2017. It identified a number of significant problems with the national model. I will read part of the Productivity Commission’s report. It states — • In the transition phase, the NDIA has focused too much on quantity (meeting participant intake estimates) and not enough on quality (planning processes), supporting infrastructure and market development. For the scheme to achieve its objectives, the NDIA must find a better balance between participant intake, the quality of plans, participant outcomes, and financial sustainability. — Greater emphasis is needed on pre-planning, in-depth planning conversations, plan quality reporting, and more specialised training for planners. • A significant challenge in the transition phase is developing the supply of disability services and growing the disability care workforce. It is estimated that 1 in 5 new jobs over the next few years will need to be in disability care, but workforce growth remains way too slow. — Emerging shortages should be addressed by independent price monitoring and regulation, more effective coordination among governments to develop markets (including intervening in thin markets), a targeted approach to skilled migration, and equipping participants to exercise choice. • The interface between the NDIS and other disability and mainstream services is critical for participant outcomes and the financial sustainability of the scheme. Some disability supports are not being provided because of unclear boundaries about the responsibilities of the different levels of government. Governments must set clearer boundaries at the operational level around ‘who supplies what’ to people with disability, and only withdraw services when continuity of service is assured. That is at the national level, and that is being transferred to the local level here in Western Australia, particularly with regard to funding mechanisms, access to information and transitioning from one system to another. All these issues are becoming endemic in our system. On 8 May 2018, I asked Minister Dawson — Is the minister aware of any issues or problems that exist with the implementation of the NDIS in Western Australia; and, if so, what are those problems? The minister’s response was — I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his interest in the NDIS. The rollout has begun in Western Australia. We are very proud to be part of the national scheme. As we have seen in other states, there have been teething problems in relation to the rollout across the country. One of the positive things of going late is that many of those issues have been dealt with. My view is that we are in it warts and all. I have worked together closely with my agency, but also with the sector—people with disability service providers—to make sure that this transformative reform works. Although from time to time small issues do arise, we work to address those issues as quickly as possible to make sure —

3316 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019]

I asked: what are they? The minister said — If the member wants detail on a range of things—or anything in detail—obviously he should put the question on notice. My office and indeed my agency have been working very closely with all of those who have an interest in the NDIS, particularly people with disability and service providers, to address any issues as they arise. I know that. I do not need to put the question on notice; I know what the issues are. I know the minister did not mean it, but the comment about teething problems upset a number of members of the disability sector, because they are simply not teething problems; they are real problems affecting one of the most marginalised and, dare I say it, vulnerable groups in our community. It is absolutely vital that we as a house acknowledge that and do something about it, mindful of the fact that, as I have said, we have a national scheme. I said right at the start with the NDIS that if we are not careful with it, we have the real potential to have another pink batts scheme, and I stand by that. It is good in theory, but in practice if it is rushed, with poor planning and implementation, it will be a disaster. I do not want that to happen with the NDIS. I want the NDIS to work, so that people with a disability feel empowered, feel that autonomy and feel that independence—that they are in control of their own destiny. That is ideally what the NDIS should provide. Having said that, I do not want to lecture the house. I will go through just a few of the problems that have been raised with me. As I said, they are multiple, but this is coming from the sector. In 2018, the National Disability Service did a sector report. It commissioned Baxter Lawler, a WA consultancy headed by Penny Knight and Professor David Gilchrist, to do a research report. The following observations were made in that report. First of all, 31 per cent of the sector reported operating at a loss, up from 23 per cent the previous year. That is an eight per cent increase and it is expected that the trend will rise again this year. Also, 55 per cent of the sector noted that the operating conditions of the scheme in the disability sector have gotten worse. The third point is that 73 per cent of the sector indicated the systems and processes of the scheme were not working well. Also, 46 per cent ranked getting the pricing right as the top priority and 13 per cent of organisations were discussing winding up, up from nine per cent in the 2017 report. In that report, the NDS found that key issues with the NDIS infrastructure were that service prices were in many instances inadequate, even with the recent adjustment, particularly for the complex area of disability support. Also, the red tape, inefficiency and ineffectiveness of the National Disability Insurance Agency is strangling organisations, causing significant financial investment by organisations to cope. Market stewardship and leadership is lacking at both the federal and state levels. The NDIA is an immature and inexperienced organisation. Finally, there are intractable complex design problems. That is coming through loud and clear, either through the service providers or individuals I have to deal with. They always come back to the complexity of the rollout. As I said, that is quite common. I recently went to a Make It Work forum, put on by Every Australian Counts. There were probably 200 people there, all with very similar concerns. I was sent a response to that forum and I will read in part what was wanted. I quote — 1. Simpler and quicker NDIS processes and clear communication The resounding message from the audience was that NDIS processes are too confusing, too time consuming and too difficult to navigate. And it’s really hard to get a straight answer from anyone when you try and find out more information. People want more help at every stage of the process—before entering, during planning and finding services and supports so they can make the most of their funding. And people really want to make sure there is a proper triage system so that people who need help urgently can get it. 2. Location-specific expertise Everyone in the audience agreed that Western Australia faces unique challenges with the NDIS. WA has had three schemes running in parallel and so there is a lot of confusion surrounding the transition to the national scheme. People strongly felt there should be a WA-based NDIS call centre with well-trained staff who understand issues unique to WA. 3. Get the plan right the first time People want to be able to see the plan as it is being developed so they can correct mistakes and make sure it accurately captures their needs. As one participant said getting it right the first time and investing in people early, saves a great deal of time and money later. … 5. More training for staff We all agreed that planners and LACs need better training. Often people are finding the system hard to navigate not just because it is confusing, but because staff don’t seem to understand their disability or know the answers to important questions.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019] 3317

That is coming through loud and clear. The National Disability Insurance Agency does not mean this, but it is almost like there is a business culture as opposed to a care culture. It has a system with an enormous amount of money and it wants to get it out but because it is a rushed system, it is causing enormous concern amongst individuals in the sector. I would also like to read part of an article from The West Australian of 2 May, just last week, titled “NDIS rollout failures leave many in limbo”. I will just read part of it. This is from Michael Chester, who is head of service operations, UnitingCare West. He says — Regardless of which political party holds power after the Federal election, urgent action must be taken to put the rollout of the National Disability Insurance Scheme back on track. UnitingCare West strongly supports the NDIS and is committed to providing services under a well-functioning and cohesive scheme that delivers successful outcomes for people with disability. However, we see the enormous promise of the NDIS being undermined by inefficiencies, lack of resources and poor co-ordination. … In Western Australia, the slow progress of the rollout has caused great distress for current and potential participants and their families. It is taking longer than expected for people to enter the scheme and longer again for them to receive the support they need. The rollout of the NDIS is well and truly behind schedule in WA and has not met the expectations outlined in the bilateral agreement between the Commonwealth and the State. At December 31, 2018, only 55 per cent of WA NDIS participants had been enrolled in the scheme, well short of the 100 per cent target. This roughly equates to 4000 West Australians with disability failing to be enrolled on schedule, with no clear indication of when the target will be met. Furthermore, while the rest of Australia is now in transition, many parts of WA will not even begin the process until July 1—one year behind schedule. In addition, the implementation of local area co-ordinator roles is months behind schedule, because of the late awarding of Partners in the Community contracts. Despite our best efforts to support people to interpret and access services under their NDIS plan, the issues thwarting the rollout mean that, in many cases, people with disability remain in a state of limbo. This is especially the case for people with very complex needs, particularly in the psychosocial space. … We believe it is not enough to achieve NDIS targets with those who are already in the “system”. It is the voiceless, the people sleeping rough or living in temporary accommodation whom we cannot afford to overlook if we want a fair and just NDIS. To tackle the significant challenges we face in achieving a successful NDIS, we must continue a robust and constructive dialogue without fear, because the consequences of failure are too great. One article that has captured the whole mood is by Gareth Parker in The Sunday Times of 20 January this year. He stated — PLEASE forgive the language as you consume your Sunday tea and toast, but this is how a senior WA leader in the disability sector described the National Disability Insurance Scheme last week. “It’s a clusterf–k,” he said. “It’s the worst rollout of a social program I have ever seen in my life.” For a behemoth that will cost taxpayers upwards of $22 billion a year, that’s a big alarm bell. But worse, for too many people with disabilities—among the most vulnerable in our community and most deserving of support—the system is proving to be worse than what it replaced. Every right-thinking Australian supports the intent of the NDIS, which is to furnish people with consistent, high-quality disability support over which they have choice and control. But the people who rely on it, and their families, keep telling me stories about a reality well short of that. And there are mounting reasons to question the McGowan Government’s decision to hand over control of disability care to a remote Federal bureaucracy. This was my point exactly when I started. Service industries are best delivered at a local level. It has become blatantly clear that the delivery of services at the national level is causing enormous problems. I ask the Minister for Disability Services to seek an independent review of the operational model. I will stand with him in the trenches on

3318 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019] this one. I am sure we will have collective support. We have to have a review of it, but not by the National Disability Insurance Agency. I am not casting aspersions on the NDIA; I am saying we need a consortium of universities to independently review the operating model, which in its current form is not working. We do not want to gild the lily. We do not want to have everyone telling us that it is fine and most people are better off. We are dealing with a most vulnerable group in our society. The sheer numbers of people coming through my office, and seeing people day in, day out in the media and through service providers, show that things are not all peachy. These people come into my office in tears. They are so frustrated. My office phones the minister’s office and, yes, we deal with it. But, as I said, dealing with individual issues on a case-by-case basis does not solve the problem. We have reached the point where enough is enough. I want to emphasise this, minister: please do not take this personally. We have an opportunity—just like we did with the national curriculum—to resolve the issue. We resolved the issue with the national curriculum. We ensured that we had the capacity with the national curriculum to adopt and adapt. We can do that. Let us have a look at the operating model. I am asking the minister at his next ministerial council meeting to go public and say that he seeks an independent review into the operating model of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Have a look at it. Ideally, the ministerial council meeting will fund it. The universities will come along and identify the issues, and the minister will see that the issues go right across the nation. It is not just specific to one or two little bushfires in Western Australia; it is a problem right across the nation. Then everyone with a disability, all the service providers and the government can collectively say, “Yes, the intent of the NDIS is magnificent, but the implementation is seriously flawed. So, collectively, as a rich tapestry, we are going to do something about it. We are going to identify the problems and we are going to do something about it.” HON STEPHEN DAWSON (Mining and Pastoral — Minister for Disability Services) [2.26 pm]: I thank Hon Peter Collier for bringing this motion to the house. It is a very good motion. I, and the government, have no issues in supporting this motion because it is a very important conversation to have and for all of us to be involved in. The Leader of the Opposition quoted from an answer to a question that I gave a few weeks ago when I said that we have skin in the game. We absolutely do. We have to make this work. But let us be reminded that this is a once in a generation transformational policy shift. There has not been an issue like this or a policy decision like this since the establishment of Medicare over 30 years ago. This is absolutely changing lives. There is very little that the Leader of the Opposition said in his contribution today that I disagree with. One thing is probably the comparison to pink batts—I think that was unfortunate. Hon Alanna Clohesy: And offensive. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: It was offensive to some people; however, I am not one to gild the lily. Given the situation with the rollout of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, there are issues arising. I meet the same people who the Leader of the Opposition meets. I spent almost four years as the shadow minister in opposition and I have to say that the issues raised now are not too different from the issues that were raised with me in opposition about the challenges of the then existing scheme in Western Australia. Things were not rosy for everybody—that is the reality. Yes, we had a great scheme in Western Australia, and I acknowledge the former Minister for Disability Services, who is in the chamber today. In many respects we led nationally, but we did not have all the solutions. We did not help every single person with disability who needed help. That did not exist. There were families who cried in my office, who cried to me over the phone, who were on waiting lists for years and years and years. They went through a process every single year to see whether they met the threshold and could be funded and whether their lives could change. Did that happen for them? No, it did not. Finally, having a National Disability Insurance Scheme in operation means that the federal and state governments are funding the system appropriately. Are there challenges with that? Absolutely. It is very, very unfortunate that the federal government’s last budget took money out of the disability pool and shifted it across to consolidated revenue to help balance its budget. We know there are issues with the scheme. We know that the money that is there could and should be spent, but it is not being spent at the moment. The usage of people’s plans is not very significant. The money should be spent on services. As Minister for Disability Services in Western Australia, I know that the prices paid to service providers are not what they should be. One thing I was successful in achieving was a commitment from the federal government for a WA market review, which is essentially looking at the prices. Western Australia is very different from Victoria, New South Wales or Queensland. To suggest somehow that Kalgoorlie is comparable with Bendigo, or that Laverton, Leonora or the Western Desert are somehow comparable with a suburb in Victoria is — Hon Alison Xamon: It is absurd. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: It is absurd. Thankfully, that market review is happening at the moment. In question time yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition asked me about the market review. Honourable member, it was only this morning that I saw a letter from the National Disability Insurance Agency advising that the pricing reference group will consider the findings of the WA review on 28 May. That is next week. The NDIA board will consider the productive output gap recommendations on 6 June. There will be an announcement shortly thereafter for implementation from 1 July, as suggested yesterday.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019] 3319

That is only one issue. Fixing the pricing for service providers will go a long way. That has certainly been the number one issue that has been raised with me since Western Australia joined the national scheme. There have been others. Service providers have raised concerns with me about complex needs; that is, how services provided to people with complex needs are funded. It is something that I have raised with the current federal minister, Hon Paul Fletcher, but I also raised it with the two ministers before him, with little success I have to say. I acknowledge that for the first time in the history of the NDIA board, it came to Western Australia last year. It met with service providers and people with disability in this state. It took some of those issues on board and the pricing review came out of it. There was an acknowledgement that we did things well in Western Australia. I have said this before—though certain people with disability take issue with it—I think our local area coordinators scheme or system that was in operation in Western Australia served us well. Some people with disability have had problems with LCs or LACs previously because of individuals — Hon Donna Faragher: People are people. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: People are people. For the most part, LACs performed a great role. I am very pleased that the NDIA has acknowledged that. Earlier this year, it announced some contracts to a couple of providers, APM and Mission Australia, to have those local coordinators in place in Western Australia. That is great. They have started to come on board; although in two areas, in the wheatbelt and Geraldton, no decision has been made about whether those positions will be in-house in the NDIA or run by outside organisations. Regardless, these positions are vital. Service providers are now telling me that in the absence of local coordinators, they have started to pick up that work and they are doing it in-house. They should not have to; they are not funded to do that. It is a good acknowledgement by the NDIA that it is doing this now, and it is needed. Another concern of mine about the National Disability Insurance Scheme has been the funding and provision of services in regional and remote Western Australia. I use my own electorate as an example—the Kimberley or the Pilbara in particular. There will never be enough people in some of those communities to make it worth the service providers’ while to be out in the community full time to offer the services needed. I am talking about a handful of people. There is a need from one perspective, in my view, to have a combination of funding in people’s packages but also some block funding to enable service providers to deliver services in those communities. I am thinking of places like Jigalong, where I was last week. Since the federal NDIA has been in operation in Western Australia, it has been out to communities such as Jigalong. An extra five or six people in Jigalong have found that they are eligible for the NDIS. Those people would always have been eligible for the NDIS or service provision from a disability agency but never got it. No-one ever went out there or did the proper work to find out what services these people needed. We never gave them stuff. A handful of people should have been receiving services for a very long time and never did. That was under the last scheme and had been happening up until now. I am pleased to say that that will be fixed. There absolutely are challenges with the NDIS. I want to quote from “Every Australian Counts” to remind ourselves why we need a National Disability Insurance Scheme. There are 10 reasons we need the NDIS. The document states — National Disability Insurance Scheme … is a ground-breaking change to the way disability services are funded and delivered. Here are ten ways the NDIS will benefit all Australians.

• It’s a national system. If you, or someone you love, is born with a disability or acquires one later in life, you all no longer run the risk of falling through holes in Australia’s safety net based on what state or territory you live in.

• People with a disability and their families and carers can participate in the social, economic, and cultural life of the nation with the supports and programs they choose.

• Families will be able to access support and services for assistance in meeting the needs of their family member with a disability, reducing physical, emotional and financial stress.

• The NDIS is based on equality. You will be able to equally access existing services regardless of when and where your disability was acquired.

• There will no longer be an expectation of unpaid care as the norm.

• As a Medicare-type system, the NDIS will provide people with a disability and their families and carers with the regular care, support, therapy and equipment they need from a secure and consistent pool of funds for these services and support.

• It focuses on early intervention and delivering supports which produce the best long term outcomes, maximising opportunities for independence, participation and productivity.

• Each NDIS plan is individualised and person-centred. Support is based on the choices of the person with a disability and their family.

3320 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019]

• The NDIS is fiscally responsible. It is not welfare but an investment in individual capacity leading to more positive results for people with a disability, their families and carers.

• All Australians benefit from the NDIS because disability can affect anyone, anytime. Everyone will benefit from a more inclusive, more diverse community. I do not think anyone in this place would have an issue with any of those 10 points, but we have an issue with where this scheme is at the moment in Western Australia. I continue to raise my concerns at the Disability Reform Council and have raised it with the federal minister. Multiple letters have been sent to federal ministers about things that need to be fixed with the scheme. There has been acknowledgement over the past few weeks from the current federal government and the opposition about the scheme. Guess what is happening on Saturday? Both sides have put out announcements about changes that they finally see need to happen to the NDIS. Hon Peter Collier interjected. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: Honourable member, I did not interrupt you. I am on a bit of a roll so I want to keep going. Even where we find ourselves with the rollout of the NDIS, I remain absolutely of the opinion that we made the right decision. I spent the first four months of the scheme, day in, day out, meeting people with disability; their families; their carers; service providers, big and small, in regional and remote areas; trade unionists; the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia—everybody who had an interest in this. Overwhelmingly, people with disability wanted to be part of the national scheme. They feared missing out. They saw that more innovation would happen as part of a national scheme. That was hammered home to me time and again. Yes, many service providers—not all—expressed a view about going to a scheme that they did not feel comfortable in. Leader of the Opposition, I share a frustration about how Geelong tightly controls the scheme. We have had some movement in relation to a state manager in Western Australia. Nicole O’Keefe, who is a fantastic individual, is doing a great job, but she has not been furnished with the responsibilities that I think a state manager should have that could fix things locally. To her credit, she takes phone calls from service providers and she fixes things. Because of the way that the National Disability Insurance Agency is structured, she does not have local control. I have prosecuted that case with the federal minister, and the previous two ministers, and I have also had conversations with Linda Burney. If there is a change of government this weekend, she may become the minister. I have had numerous conversations with her about the need to actually loosen that structure and enable someone on the ground in Western Australia to help fix the problems and issues locally. Western Australia is very different from other places. We had a mature system in Western Australia in many respects, which came out of families who saw the need 30 years ago for support for their loved ones—brothers, sisters, children—and got what was the Disability Services Commission going. We have a proud history. People with disability have said to me that they want to be part of the national scheme. Could members imagine if Medicare was run only on the east coast and we had a different scheme in Western Australia? How would that work? They wanted to be part of that national scheme. They wanted to see the benefits of it. I did not go into this blindly. Having spoken to everybody who has an interest in this, I knew that there were challenges associated with joining a national scheme, but I thought we would be in it and work with the other states and territories to fix the scheme and make it what it should be—the best it could be for people with disability. I have to say that one of the benefits from going in last is that, although we have experienced some issues in Western Australia, we have not experienced some of the issues that the early implementers experienced in the eastern states. The National Disability Insurance Scheme and the National Disability Insurance Agency have moved with the times. There has been criticism, though, of the federal government’s staffing cap. Even though the money was there to have staff in the NDIA to enable it to do what it needed to do, there was a stupid staffing number cap that meant it could not employ people to do the work in the agency. It was absolutely ludicrous. It was nonsensical. That has not helped. An announcement has been made and that has been lifted. It was not rocket science; if we are to roll out a scheme across the country, we need people on the ground—women and men—to do the work, and that was not there first of all. That has changed. The state also acknowledged the need for transition funding. This is a big change. Bear in mind that many of the service providers have been operating in three spheres over the past while—the WA NDIS model, the national scheme in Western Australia and the existing DSC scheme. Many of them were just happy that a decision was made so that they will not have to have three lots of books or three different kinds of operating methods, but will now have just one. We acknowledged that because of the shift to a national model, we would have to put some money into transition funding. We have now done two phases of transition funding to help service providers transition to the national scheme. We put $20.3 million on the table as an acknowledgement of the need to help organisations, whether with their IT systems, training of staff or whatever. The first round focused on those things. The second round, which went out recently, was about ensuring that the operators who deliver disability services in Western Australia actually look after their staff. We acknowledge that this sector has some of the lowest-paid staff across the board. As a result of the changes in the disability system, we were seeing more and more organisations offering their staff only zero-hour contracts. They would not guarantee, on a weekly basis, that the

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019] 3321 staff delivering services to some of the most vulnerable Australians could actually live like the rest of us and could get car and housing loans or pay their bills. People were leaving the sector or moving from service provider to service provider. That transition funding has focused on those two sorts of things. A further round of transition funding will come out later. In Western Australia, we have also created structures across the state government to help us do what we need to do to make sure that we have the systems in place as the NDIS rolls out in this state. That included ensuring that all state government agencies that have an interest in or provide services to people with disability are now on our interface steering committee. Bear in mind that it is not just the Disability Services Commission or the Department of Communities, but also the education system, the transport system and the Department of the Premier and Cabinet— it is all of those agencies. That is an opportunity for those agencies to know that the rollout is happening and to ensure that no-one is falling through the cracks, from a state perspective, as a result of the rollout of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. That has been working well. We have also established our Transition Governance Advisory Group in this state, which I chair and which meets every couple of months. That has the key players around the table— the service providers, people with disability, advocacy organisations, the trade union movement that represents staff who work in this area, and the different department representatives. The National Disability Insurance Agency is also around that table, so it is listening to the concerns that are being raised. The Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Minister for Disability Services, is right: many of the issues we are experiencing in Western Australia are being experienced across the country. I am glad that the two federal parties have acknowledged the need for change over the past few weeks. I will talk about both parties. I have constantly said that I refuse to be partisan in this portfolio in dealing with people with disability, so I want to acknowledge what both parties nationally have said in the lead-up to the election. Federal Labor has a 10-point plan, which includes having a new culture that puts people with disability first. It plans to establish an NDIS future fund, it wants more and better-trained staff, it wants better planning, and it wants more choice and easier reviews. Labor will ensure equitable access to the NDIS, fix the gaps between the NDIS and mainstream services, value the skilled disability workforce, keep people with disability safe, boost advocacy, ensure a strong disability services sector, and improve research and evaluation. These are all very good things that are all long overdue. Of course, there was an announcement by the federal Morrison government that it is committed to getting it right. It wants to provide individual choice and control to people with disability, ensure that the NDIS is fully funded by building a stronger economy and keeping the budget in the black, roll out new participant planning pathways, make sure that people with disability have a single point of contact with the NDIS, and allow people to choose to be on a longer NDIS plan, of up to three years, if their disability is stable. We are seeing some positive changes happening. It does not matter that there is an election on the weekend. If that was the catalyst, so be it. I acknowledge and appreciate getting to work with the shadow Minister for Disability Services in this area. We have to work together—we have to fix this issue together. I am committed to working and fixing it. HON ALISON XAMON (North Metropolitan) [2.47 pm]: I rise on behalf of the Greens to indicate my support for this motion. This is a really important issue that this Parliament keeps revisiting. I note the bipartisan commitment to the National Disability Insurance Scheme and to wanting to make sure that we are monitoring what is happening with the rollout. I also recognise that when bringing these sorts of issues back to this chamber—we have discussed this issue multiple times—we could always have a motion that focused simply on one particular area of need. I note the minister has already talked, for example, about the particular issues facing people who have complex needs. I could spend two hours talking about what is happening for prisoners. There are issues with access to the NDIS by Aboriginal Australians, particularly those in remote communities. We know that culturally and linguistically diverse communities have particular issues that we could be talking about. Of course, a whole bunch of issues have arisen for the service providers themselves. That is before we even start talking about the impact on carers and families. We need to remember that while we are unpicking the complexities that have emerged around the rollout of the NDIS, the NDIS remains not only one of the biggest reforms this country has seen, but also one of the hardest-fought-for reforms with the most noble of motivations—that is, equity of access and equity of outcome for people with disability. I am really concerned to make sure that when we are legitimately talking about the issues that are arising, as we are now, we keep our eye on the prize of ensuring that this particular program succeeds at all costs. I think every person in this place wants to ensure that that is the case. We know that people who acquired a disability as a result of an accident were potentially eligible to receive insurance payouts, which meant that they were better placed to ensure they had the level of services they required to be able to live a decent life, as opposed to people who were either born with a disability, had a progressive medical condition or, for legal reasons, were unable to access a payout. Of course, this was patently unfair and needed to be addressed. However, at the same time, we have to recognise that to date the implementation of the National Disability Insurance Scheme has been challenging. In fact, I would say that in WA we have, arguably, experienced, if not the bumpiest, at least the longest road to get to this point. Members will recall that I introduced a motion at the beginning of this fortieth Parliament that was debated in October 2017, calling for certainty as Western Australians had been waiting a long time for an outcome. However, we have come a long way since then, even though I am recognising absolutely that we have so much more to do.

3322 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019]

As at 31 March this year, 13 478 Western Australians have an approved NDIS plan and, as we know, projections are for a total of 39 000 people to be in the scheme within just over 12 months. Although implementation challenges are always to be expected, it seems that the scale of difficulties experienced in the implementation phase have been so fraught that I think there are genuine concerns that the viability of the scheme may be at threat unless the National Disability Insurance Agency responds to what the sector and people with disability and their carers are saying to it. Given this, it is fundamentally important that we ensure that mechanisms are in place that allow people with disability to express their ideas and their solutions for the issues that affect them. On that note, I acknowledge and thank the minister for the investment into individual and systemic advocacy. It is something I have been calling for over the last two years simply because this is what people with disability have been calling for. That has been heard and been acted on, and it is really important. I also suggest that it is something that needs to remain on an ongoing basis. It was very, very welcome. Although on many fronts the problems with the transition to the NDIS within our state are common to those experienced elsewhere, it is apparent that the lengthy delay in WA joining the scheme has created some additional difficulties for Western Australians. We can see this because, very simply, there are still some parts of WA in which the scheme has not yet been rolled out. As a result, some people who are working in the sector are concerned that WA is less likely to be considered for trial sites for innovative solutions to some of the problems because other states are much further along the rollout process. Hon Stephen Dawson: Do you mind if by way of interjection — Hon ALISON XAMON: Member, I have limited time, as you do. Conversely, I hope that, in theory, the delay should be able to bring some benefits because we are in a position to take some of the learnings from mistakes that have occurred in other states. I hope that will at least be the silver lining to that. We know, for example, that in New South Wales there is a six to nine-month waiting list for early childhood and early intervention and prevention services, which, particularly in the context of a young child’s life and child development, is unacceptably long. We should be able to work with our New South Wales counterparts to make sure that we avoid the same sort of thing happening here. I made this point also when the minister announced funding for systemic disability advocacy in the transition to the NDIS. There is no doubt that the NDIS is representing enormous change and it makes sense that additional funding is directed towards it to highlight the systemic issues that will inevitably arise during the implementation of what is, as has already been said, such a significant reform—the biggest reform since Medicare. However, it does not detract from the need for ongoing funding for systemic advocacy as the core service. Similarly, for the NDIS to be effective, other core services such as the provision of housing, justice and advocacy for people with disability will all need to be in place and operating well on an ongoing basis. This is a huge challenge and a huge investment. In Victoria and New South Wales, the withdrawal of systemic advocacy funding at the end of their NDIS transition period resulted in understandable outrage only for the governments there to step in and provide ongoing funding. It is really important that we maintain that. I want to comment about people with complex needs. This has already been raised but it is a particular issue. The transition to the NDIS is requiring applicants to complete a number of administrative requirements to meet the eligibility criteria. As such, we are finding that people with complex needs who have very little resources available to them are at the greatest risk of having their level of support disrupted. I am also the Greens spokesperson for disability as well as for mental health, so I am hearing directly a lot of the concerns that other members have talked about. I have heard some pretty heartbreaking stories about the NDIA’s failings in this space. One in particular comes to mind—namely, that of a father with a severely autistic teenage son with incredibly challenging behaviours. Recently, the son’s supported accommodation arrangement broke down and the father subsequently became suicidal, yet in this time of absolute crisis, the father was unable to access any timely support from the NDIA and a service provider had to step in without any assurance they would receive funding from the NDIA to do so. I commend that service provider for stepping up and doing what was clearly needed, but this way of operating will not be a sustainable way for the agency to operate and cannot be relied on in the future. It is also apparent that one of the key barriers to access to the NDIS in WA is the centralised decision-making model, which has been by employed by the NDIA, and everyone has already spoken about that. Remote decision-making is impacting on not only the timeliness but also the quality of the service. Advocates are finding that when previously they were dealing with local review team issues, they were resolved fairly quickly, whereas now that decisions are being made at the national level, unfortunately, things are moving far more slowly. It is particularly hard for a person who is living and working over east to grasp what is and is not applicable within a Western Australian context, especially while trying to fully appreciate the implications of an individual’s disability. This centralised model of decision-making is having a disproportionate effect on the people who I think need the greatest level of support. I was very pleased to hear in the minister’s remarks that there is hope and there might be an opportunity to talk about changing the level of authority that might be given to the state manager over here. That would certainly help to alleviate some of the problems, because the disconnect between Bendigo and people here on the ground has been a huge issue.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019] 3323

I want to comment about the previous local area coordinator process. It is the case that for a lot of people, the previous LACs were wonderful. They had terrific relationships with people at the local level and had a very familiar understanding of the appropriate service delivery within our local communities and were very easily able to connect them. However, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge that for some people the previous LAC process was not ideal and it seemed to be heavily reliant on how good the relationship was with their particular local area coordinator, so it was a bit of a mixed bag. Having said that, I think there must be middle ground here so that people who have a good understanding of the local community within which people with disability are living can coordinate these services and assist with plans and eligibility, and at the same time ensure that there are avenues available to enable people with a disability to go to other people if they are not having much joy with the person to whom they have been allocated. I have to recognise that, as always, these issues are amplified for people living in the regions, particularly when options for face-to-face planning in the first place are so much fewer than for those who live in the metropolitan region. For example, currently, if someone who lives in the wheatbelt wants to complete their plan face to face, they have to travel to either Midland or Northam to do so. At the moment, the system is struggling to cope with producing draft plans so that the applicant can be clear about what is and is not included in the plan before it can be signed off. This means that there is a reasonable likelihood that the plans will need to be reviewed through the centralised system. I want to make some specific comments about the NDIS and psychosocial disability. The NDIS, in theory, presents an opportunity for people who are living with psychosocial disabilities to access support that may not previously have been available. It is fundamental that the particular characteristics of what constitutes a psychosocial disability are well understood and that the system is flexible enough to be able to respond appropriately. We know that psychosocial support needs are very often episodic; sometimes people may require a huge amount of support, and then find that within a couple of months they require very, very little support. I refer to a report that was commissioned by the University of Sydney and Community Mental Health Australia— of which I used to be vice-chair—and was released last month. It shows that people who are currently being supported under other mental health programs are at risk of being left without any supports at all after these programs are rolled into the NDIS. The three commonwealth-funded programs for people living with serious mental illness are Partners in Recovery; Personal Helpers and Mentors—or PHaMs, as it is referred to; and Support for Day to Day Living in the Community. The intention was that all current recipients of these funding streams would transition to the NDIS before June 2019, at which time these programs were to be terminated. The authors of the report have, however, found that 50 per cent of the more than 8 000 people currently accessing these programs have not yet transitioned over, which is forcing the commonwealth government to fund these programs for an additional 12 months, until June 2020. The report suggests that without major changes to the processes of application and assessment, there will still be a large cohort of these people who will not be NDIS participants, even by that date. It is not all smooth sailing, even for the 50 per cent of people who had managed to apply to the NDIS. Of that 50 per cent, half were assessed as eligible; a quarter were found to be ineligible; and a quarter were still waiting to hear, or their outcome was unknown. Ultimately, this means that out of all the people accessing the three programs I mentioned, only 25 per cent are supported through the NDIS. Unfortunately, this also means that 75 per cent are not. The research project also sought staff perspectives on the barriers that people with psychosocial disability face when applying for the NDIS. They included GP’s and specialist’s lack of understanding of the NDIS, the client, or of psychosocial disability; a limited amount or lack of evidence available, due to limited service engagement by clients; clients’ fluctuating mental health and thus fluctuating ability to even manage the application process; and the cost of gaining expert advice. Unless some of the problems identified in this report are resolved, I am afraid there is the very real possibility that many people will lose access to their existing supports. Although this is a national issue, it is particularly concerning for Western Australians because of the delays in the rollout of the NDIS here. Fewer than 50 per cent of Western Australians receiving Partners in Recovery funding have applied to the NDIS, compared with 84 per cent of clients who have applied nationally. This is a clear example of a known and, I think, well-articulated risk, and one that we must take steps to address or there will, inevitably, be a crisis. Again, I want to remind members that we are talking about large numbers of people who are among the most vulnerable within our community and we must, at all costs, ensure that those currently receiving support do not end up losing it. It will cost us more in the long run if that happens. About 3 500 to 4 000 Western Australians currently receive funding from one of these programs. As things currently stand, the majority of them will not transition successfully to the NDIS and will be left with less than they currently have. This is not the outcome we want. More broadly, beyond those currently accessing commonwealth funding, we know that people in WA who should be eligible for support are not receiving it. So far, of the people in WA accessing the NDIS, only seven per cent have a psychosocial disability, whereas modelling shows the figure should be sitting at around 14 per cent. I note that in this year’s budget papers, the Mental Health Commission has advised that it is aware that this is a problem and that it is committed to ensuring that people with psychosocial disability who are not eligible for the NDIS continue to have access to the services they require in the future, because it is going to be a problem. I am pleased

3324 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019] to see that the government is acknowledging this issue, and I will be paying very close attention to see that this happens and that no-one is left with less support than they had prior to the introduction of the NDIS; clearly, that would be completely counter to the principles of the program. In my remaining time, I want to make some comments on the issue of carers. Of course, the transition to the NDIS has broader impacts than those on individuals with a disability applying for assistance; it also has implications for existing supports for families and carers. I quote from a statement from a National Disability Insurance Agency spokesperson that was reported in an ABC online news article only a couple of days ago — The size and scale of the NDIS means that it will not be without challenges, but ultimately it is a significantly better way of providing support for Australians with a disability, their families and carers. That is what was said by the NDIA, but the problem with this statement is that carers cannot apply for funding through the NDIS because it operates as an insurance model for the person with a disability. The difficulty with that is that a large chunk of existing funding for carers under the National Respite for Carers Program is now being rolled into the NDIS, only to be replaced by a newer carer support program called the Integrated Carer Support Service, which has a much smaller bucket of money. This means that the people who are often the most instrumental in caring for their loved ones will potentially have less capacity to do so because they will no longer have access to the same level of carer support that they had prior to the changes. We need to ensure that we have complementary services for carers that sit outside the NDIS. There is no question that the NDIS represents an enormous opportunity for people with disability right across Australia, and we are all committed to the principles that underpin it. It is also equally clear that implementing change on this scale is proving enormously difficult and that there is a very real risk that a number of people will fall through the cracks. We need to do everything we can to ensure that this does not happen. HON DONNA FARAGHER (East Metropolitan) [3.07 pm]: I also rise to say a few words on the motion before the house. I want to thank Hon Peter Collier for bringing it to the house for debate today. Like other members, I agree that it is an important motion for us to discuss. It is important for us, as members of Parliament, to discuss issues of significant concern in respect of this national reform. It is equally important for those who are directly and indirectly impacted to know that we are talking about these issues and that we recognise the issues faced by people with disability, their families, carers and service providers. We are aware of the issues affecting them, and we know the importance of getting them fixed. I think there is collective agreement across this house for that to occur. I stand today for a couple of reasons—first and foremost, as someone who has a very strong desire to see the lives of people with disability and their families and carers improved, and for them to reach their full potential. I had the honour of being the Minister for Disability Services and shadow minister for a number of years; I have to say that it was a highlight of my ministerial career to become the Minister for Disability Services. I will always hold that very dear. As I have said in this place before and will do so again—indeed, it has been reflected in the debate today—I believe most sincerely that the portfolio of Disability Services is one that should be bipartisan in nature. As a general rule, I think that ministers, shadow ministers and other parties with an interest in this portfolio should act in a bipartisan way. That has been reflected by both the minister and the shadow minister again today. In saying that, it does not take away the ability to raise issues and concerns about the portfolio. I remain concerned about the issues that I continue to read and hear about that people with disability and their families and carers face as they navigate through the National Disability Insurance Scheme process. I remain concerned also about the impact the transition is having on service providers and the sector generally. As has been said, obviously, the McGowan government took a different view from that taken by the former Liberal–National government on how the NDIS would be rolled out in this state. It will come as no surprise to anybody that I take the view that it was not the right decision. I do not intend to go through all the history of how we landed where we did. I listened intently, however, to what the Minister for Disability Services said. I do not think he intended it in the way he said it, but I want to make it clear for the record. I do not want to verbal the minister, but he indicated that when he came into government, he met with a number of people—I understand that he did and I accept that—and that they really wanted the national scheme. If someone were to read just Hansard, the inference from that would be that in fact the former government was not supportive of the national scheme. I do not think that that is what the minister intended, but that is just the way it came across. For the record, as the former Minister for Disability Services who had responsibility under our government for finalising a decision, I indicate that the Western Australian NDIS was the NDIS. People had different perspectives on that— generally, it was those who were not supportive of the decision that we took—but the Western Australian NDIS was the NDIS. It was the same national scheme. The difference was that that WA NDIS delivered the scheme locally; that was the central difference. The WA NDIS fully reflected the principles and intent of the NDIS as designed in consultation with people with disability and their families and carers. Through the WA NDIS, Western Australians would have been given the same access to all the benefits of the national scheme. There was no difference in relation to that. They would not have been disadvantaged in any way in comparison with people participating in the scheme in any other state or territory. There was consistency in reporting, full portability and consistency in eligibility and a range of other areas. The commonwealth would not have agreed to our having the WA NDIS if we had not agreed to that. I acknowledge that the minister might not have meant it in the way he said it.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019] 3325

Hon Stephen Dawson: I didn’t. Hon DONNA FARAGHER: He says that he did not. However, if someone were to read Hansard as it was, I would not like it to be thought that we were not implementing the national scheme. I wanted to clear up that point. I will not say anything other than we in government felt that, after careful consideration, the WA NDIS would better serve people with disability and their families and carers across the state. Was the system perfect? No, it was not. I think that, in many ways, we were ahead of the game compared with other states and territories. Were we perfect? No, we were not, and as minister, I did not suggest that we were. Hon Alison Xamon referred to local coordinators. Many people had very good experiences with local coordinators; however, I heard directly, and I accept, that not everyone had a positive experience. That is the reality. As I said through interjection, people are people and not everyone is going to get on and they are not always going to share the same view. Overall, though, from my experience and from the consultations and discussions I had, the more locally based model was beneficial. It was particularly so for a few reasons, and a couple were reflected today also, especially for families living in regional and remote Western Australia where perhaps the availability of and access to services and resources is generally more limited. That is a particularly unique circumstance for Western Australians due to the vastness of our state and—I think Hon Alison Xamon and the minister referred to this—particularly for families with children and other family members with significant complex needs. I met a number of families with children with highly complex disabilities. They were concerned about how they were going to navigate through the system, if, effectively, at the commonwealth level it meant talking to someone in Geelong, when the needs of their children were complex. Notwithstanding that, the minister and the government chose to take a position different from that taken by the former government. Do differing views remain about the best approach? Yes, there certainly is still divided opinion within the community. However, although I hold a view on that, and I will continue to hold that view, we are now in a process of transition. Irrespective of personal perspective, it is important to ensure that the transition happens as smoothly as possible. I will agree with everyone in this chamber that that is now what we need to ensure happens. It needs to be undertaken as smoothly as possible. However, as Hon Peter Collier, the minister and Hon Alison Xamon have already indicated, a raft of significant issues are ongoing. Regularly we hear interviews and media reports. I do not often refer to journalists in a debate but Gareth Parker on 6PR has been consistent in raising issues about the NDIS. I often get into the car and he either is on the phone speaking to somebody, has just spoken to somebody or is about to, whether they are a family member or a service provider. That is very helpful for the debate. All too often in the area of disability services—this is a very unfortunate situation—it is not talked about and it is not talked about enough. Regardless of whether people have a disability or they know someone who has a disability, everyone needs to understand what is going on and what the issues are. I get upset that disability services is not considered to be as high profile as it should be. I am sure the minister would agree with me on that. Time and again we hear stories of parents who are trying to navigate through this system. There are problems with planning, access and flexibility. This does not affect everybody, but there are clearly issues that should not be insurmountable but are causing immense anxiety and distress to those families who are already dealing with a range of issues. Time and again, family members are having to speak to well-meaning people on the other end of the line, but every time they call, they talk to someone different, so they have to go through that process again and again. That must be very distressing. I agree with the minister that this is a significant nationwide reform. It is not something that will always run smoothly, as much as we would like it to. I do not disagree with the minister; even when the trials were underway in the state, there were issues. I do not shy away from that, but I think we were in a better place than the National Disability Insurance Agency is in, because, in many respects, the systems were already established within the state. I accept that during that trial period, there were significant concerns, particularly for service providers, who, in some cases, were working across three different systems, effectively; they might have been operating under the old Disability Services Commission system, if I can put it that way, in certain areas within the WA NDIS trial sites, or under the NDIA trial sites. There were three different systems with three different requirements. It was very confusing and difficult. That is when certainty was required sooner rather than later, and I absolutely recognise that. I am perhaps more an onlooker now in this matter, but I remain concerned about the transition. I agree with all the comments that have been made. I saw a couple of opinion pieces, one of which was by Joan McKenna-Kerr, who would be known to many people in the house, in The Australian of 27 March. She prefaces the piece by referring to the importance of bipartisanship support for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. She says — But after six years, there are growing problems that need to be addressed urgently—and we say this not to detract from NDIS, but because we support it. In particular, the red tape that is choking parts of an already fragile disability sector, and creating significant stress for people with disability and their families, needs urgent attention. The inadequately designed payment system that leaves service providers out of pocket— with resources diverted from disability services to propping the system up—must be fixed immediately.

3326 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019]

At the same time, the impact of the National Disability Insurance Agency … policy on the financial sustainability of not-for-profit businesses supplying services is in need of immediate attention. In response to our concerns, we frequently hear that the disability sector lacks “market readiness”. In other words, the sector does not have the smarts to operate and compete in this new world. This, of course, is false. The truth is the disability sector has been thrust into a national bureaucracy that requires organisations to have working capital (many of them have very little); investment in staff training to operate the machinery of NDIA; financial reserves to fund extensive new IT systems to communicate with the NDIA portal; and new business systems to support this additional infrastructure. In addition, organisations suddenly need the financial reserves to underwrite services on behalf of government before receiving payment. When this is compounded by reduced funding for some services, and a very problematic payment system, the implications for many service providers are not hard to imagine. This massive transition of the disability sector is occurring with little systematic planning to provide adequate investment to support the transition. Indeed, there appears to be little knowledge, or understanding, of just how extensive the change is—and the risks associated with it. Thankfully, the resilience of the disability sector has been astonishing up to now, but cracks are beginning to show. It needs to be clearly understood that NDIS is a public-sector market. As such, government has a unique responsibility to ensure that its policies do not negatively impact on the supply and quality of services to consumers. Where this occurs, it can exacerbate already thin markets, or create gaps in service provision—for instance, community support workers, or complex needs and services in regional areas. Unfortunately, we are already hearing from service providers who have serious concerns about their capacity to continue providing valuable services to people with disability. Of course, there was another opinion piece in The West Australian of 3 May, which gives a more Western Australian flavour to the issues at hand, by Michael Chester, titled “NDIS rollout failures leave many in limbo”. I think the shadow minister also referred to it. I will not go through all of it, but I want to reiterate a couple of points that were made. Notwithstanding the fact that UnitingCare West strongly supports the NDIS, he indicated — … we see the enormous promise of the NDIS being undermined by inefficiencies, lack of resources and poor co-ordination. He went on to say — In Western Australia, the slow progress of the rollout has caused great distress for current and potential participants and their families. It is taking longer than expected for people to enter the scheme and longer again for them to receive the support they need. The rollout of the NDIS is well and truly behind schedule in WA and has not met the expectations outlined in the bilateral agreement between the Commonwealth and the State. At December 31, 2018, only 55 per cent of WA NDIS participants had been enrolled in the scheme, well short of the 100 per cent target. This roughly equates to 4000 West Australians with disability failing to be enrolled on schedule, with no clear indication of when the target will be met. He went on to say — Despite our best efforts to support people to interpret and access services under their NDIS plan, the issues thwarting the rollout mean that, in many cases, people with disability remain in a state of limbo. He also said — … the implementation of local area co-ordinator roles is months behind schedule, because of the late awarding of Partners in the Community contracts. I was pleased to hear the minister indicate that there is a commitment to have local coordinators. I would be keen to get more detail on the extent of their role, and I will talk to the minister about that behind the Chair, but according to this opinion piece, the implementation is months behind schedule. I am still very strongly of the view that the role of local coordinators is important, particularly in a vast state such as ours, to ensure that people receive the support that they need with local knowledge, local understanding and particularly understanding of the needs of the individual with a disability and their families and carers. That can be achieved only by someone being here in Western Australia and knowing the person and their individual circumstances. Again, I thank the shadow minister for bringing the motion to the house. It has been a good debate. I hear from the minister his frustrations and that he is continuing to work through various other issues of transition and I call on him to continue to do so, which I know he will do.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019] 3327

HON JACQUI BOYDELL (Mining and Pastoral — Deputy Leader of the Nationals WA) [3.27 pm]: I thank Hon Peter Collier for bringing the motion to the house today. I agree that it has been a well-informed debate. It is useful from a public perspective to have this discussion, because, hopefully, it will help to allay some fears and concerns. It has been good to hear from the Minister for Disability Services some new information in this conversation. The issue of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which is exceptionally important to all our constituents, should be brought to the house as a motion on notice because it allows members to raise the concerns that we are all hearing in our offices and it allows the minister to put on the record some of the things that he is doing and some of the things that will be undertaken by the NDIS. As a result of this debate, I will be able to speak to some of the people who have come to see me about their concerns and give them that new information. It has definitely been exceptionally useful for me. I agree with everyone’s comments in the house today that there needs to be a bipartisan approach to how we support people with disability and their families. Everybody has that same goal in mind. On most occasions, oppositions, shadow spokespeople, governments, ministers and backbenchers treat this portfolio with the respect it deserves, because the people we are trying to assist at the end of the day do not need us to use it as a political football. Certainly, that has not been the case today; the tone of the debate has been exceptionally valuable to all members. I do agree that a bipartisan approach is a respectful and responsible way to talk about disability services and the National Disability Insurance Scheme in general. I want to go back. I will not go through the history of the national disability agreement, why we got to the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and things like that. There is agreement about why we got to the point of instigating the NDIS. I would note that in 2011, the Productivity Commission described the NDA system as — … underfunded, unfair, fragmented, and inefficient, and gives people with a disability little choice and no certainty of access to appropriate supports. What I have heard in the chamber today is that the Minister for Disability Services, the former Minister for Disability Services—Hon Donna Faragher—and the government are taking steps to try to roll out a scheme that supports recipients, because nobody wants to end up back in that position. The issue is raised today because there is a fear among people with disability, carers and service providers that we may end up back in that position if this issue is not discussed and the problems that are being encountered by recipients are not brought to light. That is why I bring some of the concerns that have been raised with me to the house today—so that a light can be shone on them, and so that the minister understands some of the issues that are being fed back. I am sure he does, and that he is working on them as we speak. That is the objective. It is not a criticism; the objective is to say that this is actually out there. I will list some of the objectives in the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act itself, because we are trying to set up a scheme to support those objectives. Some of the objectives of the NDIS act include supporting the independence and socioeconomic participation of people with disability; providing reasonable and necessary supports for participants, including early intervention supports; enabling people with disability to exercise choice and control in the pursuit of their goals and in the planning and delivery of their supports; facilitating the development of a nationally consistent approach to the access to and the planning and funding of supports for disability; and promoting the provision of high-quality and innovative supports to people with disability. It will be no surprise to any member of this house that I am going to focus on how that is being effected in the regions, because the further we get from the metropolitan area—as we know, Western Australia is a vast state— we find that many small communities require the support of the NDIS. The minister himself talked about the Jigalong community. How do we get to those communities and allow them access? How do we reach that aspiration that the act itself suggests are the objectives, and allow a productive support system for people with disabilities? Those things become much harder for people who live regionally. I am going to focus on particular areas that have been highlighted to me as issues that people in regional or remote areas will find particularly difficult to deal with when this scheme is rolled out. The motivation exists and we all support it. We understand why it exists. That is a great thing. Care providers, service providers and people with disabilities all have the same aspiration, so we are all on the same page. That is a good starting point. I think it is good to examine the rollout to see where there are potentially some unintended consequences, particularly in the regions, and supporting this motion today enables us to do that. A very quick search identifies that the rollout of the NDIS has been followed very closely by the media. I think that is because this is real and tangible, and immediately affects the lives of people with disabilities and their families. Those issues are emotive and difficult to deal with. We are dealing with people who may have very complex needs. There are people who may have been previously supported by the old Disability Services Commission or disability payments or the NDA who, as a result of the NDIS, will not get further support, so managing and transitioning those people into the aspiration of the NDIS is difficult as well. There were many different stories, and we are not going to go through them all today. In the short time that I have available, a main area of concern to me—other members have mentioned this today—is red tape. The feeling from recipients and service providers and care providers is that the creation of a massive amount of paperwork in the

3328 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019] rollout to NDIS is overwhelming. The red tape in that process and the bureaucracy of the rollout at all levels seems to be overwhelming for people at the other end of the phone—that is where they are—who are already dealing with quite difficult situational circumstances, complex disability needs, and sometimes social issues within their family. Getting a face-to-face assessment is impossible for people in regional areas and seeking the advice of their service provider is not always an option either. It is a challenge for people living in the lands or out in Warburton or Kalgoorlie to get a service provider who can come out and visit them and do an assessment in their home. It is just not possible. The National Disability Insurance Scheme being based out of Geelong creates an issue for Western Australia in particular because of the remoteness of a lot of our regional communities, where there are internet challenges and workforce challenges, not to mention medical challenges. Hon Stephen Dawson: One of the really positive initiatives that the NDIA has undertaken recently is actually engaging Aboriginal medical services, which we never did. It has been really, really positive. They’re going into those communities regularly and they’re starting to provide some services, just as an aside. Hon JACQUI BOYDELL: Again, that is another useful and important piece of information. The Aboriginal medical services being engaged, because they do visit those communities—most of them, if not every day, probably on a weekly basis—is a good thing, absolutely. Hon Stephen Dawson: Sorry to knock you off. Hon JACQUI BOYDELL: That is okay. From the information of people I am working with, and as reported by the media as well, it is not uncommon for people to have to wait up to nine months to have their care plans approved. If there are mistakes in that first care plan, they then have to go back through the process and have it reassessed, which adds to their level of stress and anxiety, of course. Ultimately, that is a further delay in having their plan updated and reviewed. If we can provide a more streamlined approach when people make a genuine mistake, it will mean that they will not have to go right back to the beginning to have their care plan approved. One concern I have is that, while the client is waiting for that care plan to be approved, how are their other disability support needs being met? While they are in limbo between their old scheme and the NDIS, who meets any new challenges that come up? Who provides the funding for any critical medical equipment that the person may need? I think there is some level of grey area in that, whereby people are being shunted between the two, and do not know quite who to go to, or who will fund the piece of critical medical equipment that they need. These are real cases that people are dealing with. People have to update wheelchairs and other equipment at home that assist them to manage in their day-to-day lives. That is an issue. I worry about how they are being supported when they are in limbo between the two schemes. I was pleased to note the minister’s response to my question yesterday that the government has committed to ensuring that those who have not been fully transferred receive the care and support that they have until an ultimate decision is made on their care plan through the NDIS. That is a good thing and we will be able to report that. People do not need to be worried about losing their current support. Some people who need to access these services live in incredibly remote areas of the state. They have limited housing in their communities and sometimes their housing is overcrowded. They have limited or absolutely no access at all to the internet and phones, and public phones are not available. How they interact with and are captured by the scheme is an ongoing challenge. I know the minister is fully aware of that, being a member for the Mining and Pastoral Region. Indeed, since he has become minister, I have had a few conversations behind the Chair with him about the fact that we both know that the people we represent in the vast areas of the Mining and Pastoral Region are going to struggle with how they engage with the NDIS. It is good that the minister is aware of that, has been from the outset and is continuing to work on it. The red tape, not just for people with disabilities, but for service providers makes things very, very difficult. The second thing I want to touch on, which seems a crazy anomaly when we first hear about it, is the inability of participants to secure care or to spend the money that they get through their care plan if it has been approved. Having sat through the debate today, if members are not familiar with the scheme or what is happening with it, it might seem to be a reasonable outcome. The reason for that is that there is a lack of service providers in their community and a lack of workforce. Workforce is one of the biggest challenges that the industry faces. There are gaps all over the state in performing those tasks. In areas such as the goldfields, the Kimberley or extensive areas of the Pilbara that are already challenged in attracting and incentivising carers into the disability sector, the issue increases tenfold. More disability support workers are required, but they are just not available. Although a person with disability may have their care plan approved and everything is fantastic and going well—they have got through the red tape—they may have nowhere to spend the money. The person may have been transitioned, but how are they being supported when there are no service providers or caregivers to help them implement the plan that they have put in place for themselves? I want to highlight a case reported by ABC Goldfields on Saturday, 11 May. The article was about a gentleman called Paul Fitzgerald. I am sure many members have seen it. He has retired and has been diagnosed with motor neurone disease. His care plan has been approved. In the article, he said — “We got the planning part of it sorted out with all the money, and now we can’t spend it because we can’t find the people to help us spend it,” Mr Fitzgerald said.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019] 3329

What do we do to assist Mr Fitzgerald who has been diagnosed with motor neurone disease? He already requires assistance. He has put everything in place, done all right things, but there is no service so he cannot spend the money. There is an underspend in that area. That really concerns me. Is the minister trying to say something? Hon Stephen Dawson: That is why we need that block funding, so I can actually plan stuff in regional WA. Hon JACQUI BOYDELL: I will get to that, minister. I am going to quickly touch on the problems for service providers, which I think other members have talked about, with the pricing model. I am very glad that the review is happening. I have also spoken with Nicole and the NDIA, and I know they are very keen to have some local Western Australian focus on the pricing model reflective of our geographical challenge. They have been very accessible and understanding of the problems we have. Hon Stephen Dawson: She is great. Hon JACQUI BOYDELL: Yes. The overwhelming feedback, of course, is about the administrative and financial burden on service providers and the way they access their funding. I just want to come to some of the comments the minister made. One was about block funding, and I entirely agree that it needs to happen. I absolutely agree with the comments about the local area coordinators. Mr Fitzgerald is a case in point. He— there will be many more like him—needs a local area coordinator to assist him to access services as he deals with his disability. As I said, the review of the pricing model is absolutely paramount and it needs to happen. It needed to happen from the outset. Like Hon Donna Faragher, I have always believed that a locally based Western Australian NDIS is in the interest of Western Australians, so maybe we can make some changes through what the minister has heard about how we deal with Western Australia managing the NDIS moving forward. Where to from here? The price setting needs to be done by an independent body and not the NDIA. We have already said that today. There needs to be less red tape and more focus on participants. NDIS planning must be more flexible to allow for local decision-making. There needs to be support for a very diverse disability sector and a focus on employment of people with disabilities in the NDIS. There must be greater stewardship by the state government. I know the minister is doing that on a daily basis and when he meets with the federal government on this issue. There seems to be a greater need for support in the transition period because people are being left wondering what is going to happen. HON PETER COLLIER (North Metropolitan — Leader of the Opposition) [3.47 pm] — in reply: I thank everyone for their contribution to this debate. It has been very rewarding and worthwhile. I think it is one of the rare occasions in this chamber when there is furious agreement on an issue. It shows the necessity to identify or recognise the fact that we have some issues with the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Fundamentally, we all agree with the concept of the NDIS. There are no problems with that, but the scheme has some problems, and that has been recognised. I thank the Minister for Disability Services, in particular—but not at the expense of everyone else—for his goodwill on this motion. I will go through a couple of things that have been said. I, first, pick up on the comments of the last speaker, Hon Jacqui Boydell. As a Kalgoorlie boy, I acknowledge the fact that service delivery in the regions is often neglected or, at best, not necessarily neglected but not delivered as efficiently as it is in the metropolitan area. The minister picked up on this as well. It is absurd to assume that the service delivery in Meekatharra, Port Hedland or wherever is going to be the same as in the golden triangle in the east. It is not going to happen. That is one of the biggest problems we have here. Services are best delivered at the local level. I totally concur with that. Three different members raised the issue of local area coordinators, which have really been missed. I have to say that that takes things to the local level. People with a disability felt that connectedness with local area coordinators— that is missing. Yes, they are not perfect, but I am not asking for the system to be perfect—there is no social delivery sector in the community that is perfect—but it was working well for a lot of people. A lot of people with a disability feel alienated because they no longer have that local connectedness. I am glad Hon Donna Faragher brought up the national scheme confirmation. I thank her for that because I, too, was a little confused about the minister’s comment. I want to make it quite clear that the opposition most definitely agrees with the National Disability Insurance Scheme at the national level, but we felt that it is best delivered at the local level—that is, delivered at a local level under the national umbrella. I stand by that. I will come back to that in a minute. The area of complex needs was brought up by Hon Donna Faragher and Hon Alison Xamon. That area has been most profound in terms of people who are suffering at the hands of what is seen as not intentional inefficiency, but some inefficiencies exist. I thank the minister for his support of this motion because it is a recognition that we really do appreciate that some issues exist within the sector. There is one thing I would like some confirmation on, through interjection if possible: I suggested the possibility of an independent review of the operating model. I am not talking about the pricing model. I asked a question on this yesterday. I will be pleased to see the pricing review, but this is an independent review of the operating model. I will explain to the minister what I mean by that. This is not to undermine the

3330 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019] system. In fact, I promise the minister that this will be a real show of leadership on his part. I mentioned the national curriculum. When I first attended an Education Council meeting as the chair and we were about to sign off on the national curriculum, I said, “No, I’m not signing it. I’m not going to sign it until we have the capacity to adopt and adapt.” Do members know what? Everyone unanimously agreed with it. I reckon if the minister said at the next meeting, “Let’s have an independent review and make this thing better”, he will be held up as a beacon for leadership in this area. The minister would not be saying that we disagree with the NDIS, that we think it is complex, it has failed and all that sort of emotive stuff. He will show leadership if he says, “There are some issues. Let’s try to refine the whole model and not radically change it.” I am talking about the operating and pricing issues that exist, the issues to do with complex needs and the issues in the regions. He could say, “Perhaps we can tweak it a little and make it a better system.” If the minister showed that leadership, I promise that everyone would support him. Hon Stephen Dawson: I am happy to consider that. I think we will see an element of that post this weekend anyway. I am happy to consider going a bit further. Hon PETER COLLIER: Good. I appreciate that. Post this weekend, having been there and dealt with both persuasions of government at a national level, I have to say that they are almost as bad as each other sometimes. Good luck. Whoever wins on Saturday—I hope the Liberal–National government is re-elected—we are in it for the right reasons; that is, to ensure that we have the best National Disability Insurance Scheme that we can possibly have. With that, if the minister were to ask for an independent review of the operating model, he would be showing a great deal of leadership. The minister would have my support and, I am sure, the support of everyone in this chamber. Question put and passed. COMMITTEE REPORTS — CONSIDERATION Committee The Chair of Committees (Hon Simon O’Brien) in the chair. Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations — Seventy-seventh Report — “2017–18 Budget Cycle—Part 2: Annual Report Hearings” — Motion Resumed from 8 May on the following motion moved by Hon Alanna Clohesy — That the report be noted. Hon TJORN SIBMA: Thank you very much, Mr Chair, for giving me the opportunity to continue the remarks I commenced this time last week, which was the day before the 2019–20 budget was brought down. As was explained in other contributions, this committee report is part of a cycle. It is the second instalment and reflects on the committee’s examination of the 2017–18 budget cycle. There is, I hope, some value in reflecting on what we discovered throughout the course of those annual report hearings, as the issues we encountered to some degree are perennial ones and certainly will remain or are likely to remain relevant. The CHAIR: If Hon Tjorn Sibma wishes the call, he has it. Hon TJORN SIBMA: Thank you very much. Time can really move fast. The CHAIR: You only had one minute from last week. Hon TJORN SIBMA: As I was saying, despite the fact that these hearings were held in November last year and deal with the prior budget year, issues come to the surface throughout this process of examination that reveal themselves perennially and are likely to do so until root causes are more stringently identified and dealt with. One issue of concern to me, and I imagine for other committee members and indeed perhaps other members of this chamber, is the accountability, openness and transparency of government trading enterprises that operate under a different legislative scheme but are nevertheless certainly not absolved from the need to be transparent and open in their dealings. I want to again reiterate the singular finding of this committee report as it relates to one of those GTEs— namely, Synergy. The committee found that Synergy exhibits a culturally entrenched ambivalence about its statement of corporate intent responsibility. That is no insignificant finding. Pages 23 to 27 of the committee’s report go into some detail about how and why that finding was made. In my view, the finding goes to the heart of the matter; that is, the prevailing corporate culture within Synergy, at least at the senior management level, is poor. I might reflect on my own personal experiences of dealing with agencies throughout these processes in the very short time that I have been in this Parliament. I have to say that Synergy has distinguished itself with its arrogance by the fact that it comes to these hearings sometimes ill prepared to deal with lines of questions that should be anticipated. I find that a great disappointment. As this report makes clear, any reasonable person should be concerned about the conduct of Synergy, at least over the course of the preceding two financial years, for these reasons. These are facts. The first reason is that Synergy’s 2016–17 annual report, which was the period before this one, did not include any information at all concerning its actual performance as measured against the targets that were established for that agency by way of its statement of corporate intent. No data was provided about how

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019] 3331 the agency performed. A reflection in the body of this report is not insignificant either, but it was taken no further— that is, the omission could perhaps be taken to be a technical breach of Synergy’s reporting requirements as established under the Electricity Corporations Act 2005. There was a nontrivial issue in that particular year, in that Synergy recorded a $12.5 million after-tax loss. In fact, it was that outcome that actually generated a fair degree of inquiry and further examination of Synergy. The second issue was that when Synergy attempted, to some degree, to make amends for that omission in the annual report for 2017–18, which is the period under consideration by this report, it mistakenly referred to targets that related to the wrong financial year—that is, to 2016–17. We seek performance within the appropriate period for a good reason, because we want to know how the agency performed within the context of that financial year. We are chasing information like the EBITDA data—earnings before income tax, depreciation and amortisation—because we want a sense of how the agency is managing its cash flow. That is a very good indicator of corporate health. We want a sense of the return on assets to get a sense of the varying profitability among its different asset bases, and we also want to get a sense of the return on capital employed to give an indication of whether the capital investment decisions made by the senior management of Synergy are actually the best ones. This may be mandated, but there seems to be reference to net promoter scores. I always find that an unusual inclusion for an agency such as Synergy, which has a unique market power. Nevertheless, those other financial ratios provide information that is necessary to get a good and timely handle on. That responsibility was not discharged because the agency mistakenly, and bizarrely, referred to the wrong year. With respect to that mistake, as it was discovered by the committee, I can advise—this is in the report—that the Minister for Energy wrote to the committee in January this year confirming that an error had been made and that an addendum to the annual report, which would provide accurate information against the appropriate metrics, would be tabled early in this year’s parliamentary sittings. Indeed, an addendum was tabled, although it was tabled in the Legislative Assembly. No explanation was incorporated in that addendum. As a snapshot, Synergy provided erroneous information, the committee picked up the error, and the minister said, “Yes, there seems to have been a mistake here; Synergy will correct the record.” However, it corrected the record in the wrong place and without any explanation or apology. Frankly, I find that to be unacceptable and more than sly. This mistake was made in the context of endemic late tabling by Synergy of core documents, like statements of corporate intent. When this issue was raised in the context of hearings, other than just acknowledging the fact that these things are uniformly late, the CEO of that organisation provided no explanation of why that has been the case and certainly gave no indication of a really serious effort to remediate that and table the statements in the appropriate period. I say all this without attempting to make any partisan observation at all. I note, and welcome, the fact that the Treasurer is engaged in a reform project for government trading enterprises, which seeks to improve the accountability and governance arrangements for agencies such as Synergy, but I would not like to take any early optimistic view about that outcome, if only because of Synergy’s response to the much hyped, or much promulgated, Langoulant review. When asked about whether findings made in that review were likely to eventuate in any broader self-examination or remediation, Synergy effectively said, “No. We know there is a report, but we haven’t really looked into the issue.” If we were making these sorts of observations about the culture of a small and relatively inconsequential agency, we might be entitled to say our piece. The CHAIR: Hon Tjorn Sibma. Hon TJORN SIBMA: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. If this was a small and inconsequential agency, we might be able to make these remarks, suggest areas for improvement by the appropriate minister, and perhaps take some comfort that those areas would be corrected. If it were the unfortunate case that no remediation was made, we could at least be somewhat reassured or mildly comforted by the fact that the impact on the community might be only trivial if that error were to perpetuate itself. But Synergy is no small and inconsequential agency; it is large and essential, and it occupies a position of largely unparalleled market power and influence, yet it is largely inoculated against the application of market forces. Therefore, as a chamber, we must retain confidence in its management and operations and, at the very least, in the accuracy of the information it provides to this Parliament. I wish I could retain confidence in the agency in that way, but I cannot let go unmentioned that the operations of Synergy have come in for some criticism—that is putting it mildly—by the Economic Regulation Authority. I will not dwell too much on a matter that is largely unrelated to the report, but it provides context for Synergy’s conduct, which I think is concerning. I will read to the chamber the notice provided by the ERA on 3 April this year. I will quote it very briefly — The ERA has investigated Synergy’s balancing submissions in 14,812 trading intervals between March 2016 and July 2017, and has concluded that the prices offered exceeded Synergy’s reasonable expectation of the short run marginal cost of generating the relevant electricity in 12,908 trading intervals, — Of that original number of 14 812 — and that Synergy’s behaviour was related to its market power. This may be a breach of the Market Rules.

3332 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019]

The ERA has calculated that Synergy’s pricing behaviour increased Synergy’s revenue by between $40 million and $102 million above what it would have received over the 15-month investigation period if it had bid according to the market rules. The ERA will now bring proceedings before the Electricity Review Board, in the interests of Western Australian consumers. I do not want to prejudice what the outcome of that may well be, but I draw the attention of members to this if only to illustrate that Synergy has a serious reputational issue to address. It is not isolated to the information it provides to Parliament by way of its statutory reporting obligations. It might well start by remediating and evaluating the quality of the information it provides to Parliament through those mechanisms if only to partially rehabilitate its reputation, because we cannot permit an agency of this size, of this power and of this essential nature, to be run in a way that does not meet the very basic levels of accountability and decency that this Parliament demands on behalf of the people of Western Australia. Hon DIANE EVERS: First, in my brief introduction on this, I want to say how strongly I value the opportunity to ask questions when we go through the annual report hearings and how strongly I encourage other members to take part in those hearings when they come about and to take part in the budget estimates hearings that will be held soon. The estimates hearings are our opportunity to drill down into the issues that we consider important. When we go through the facade of question time in the house, which we will embark on shortly, we ask a prepared question and get a prepared answer. In the hearings, we get to go beyond that and ask questions, listen to the answers and see how it relates to the other information we know, the budget information or the annual report information, and follow up with another question. Sometimes we do not know the target of our question; sometimes we are fishing, in a way. We can find information that may bring out things like Hon Tjorn Sibma was talking about regarding Synergy. That is what we want to hear. We want to find out whether any errors or issues are being covered up, and that is the benefit of these hearings. They are not the facade we see sometimes in this place; they are an opportunity to find out more about what is happening within the accounts of the departments and agencies that represent our government. I see that as a real reason for our being here. I recommend to others that they be involved in this. Members will notice in the report that some of the things we focused on were key performance indicators, effectiveness indicators and efficiency indicators. They are something I have great belief in, but, unfortunately, sometimes they are useless. The one I have mentioned many times is “dollars per hectare burnt”. Why would that be an indicator of anything other than being able to pick the best spot to burn a lot of area really fast, with very little resources? Does it really achieve anything other than being able to tick the box to say that, yes, we achieved our 200 000-hectare target this year? It is not useful. To have that KPI and tell departments that is how we judge whether they do a good job is wrong because they think that is what they are aiming for: “We have to cover a lot of hectares, so, no, we won’t do that bush, which really needs attention, because it is within a kilometre of a very fragile asset or near a rural community; instead we will burn this area that is 100 kilometres or more from anywhere else; it was burnt a couple of years ago anyway and it may have rare flora or fauna in it.” The department is not thinking about the other parameters. Luckily, I think some pretty smart people work for us and, hopefully, they take those other parameters into account. But when that KPI—that judgement of their value and whether they have achieved their goal—is dollars per hectare burnt, sometimes the pressure from this chamber as well as from the media is: how many hectares were burnt this year and how much money has been spent on it? It comes back to that, so we have to address the issue of KPIs. Paragraph 4.6 in the report refers to government goals, the main reason we are here. The government is here to set the government’s goals; Parliament is here to recognise and, hopefully, support them and achieve some good. Once those government goals are set, what do we really want to achieve? I think the Premier came out with a list of 12 points that he has in mind for what he would like to achieve. We then distributed those ideas to the agencies, and with whatever support we could give them, the agencies needed to come up with the goals for their agency. If agencies know what their goals are—which is not just whether an agency burnt 200 000 hectares this year, but might be whether it has protected our assets, our people, our homes and the natural environment—they can use those goals to set their KPIs. Then they have KPIs that match the real goals and not just fictitious numbers that somebody has pulled out of their head to represent what they think might be the issue we are looking at. They can then get to the point where they present those KPIs in their annual reports and we get to scrutinise them. Through this period, we asked many questions about agencies’ KPIs, the times they reviewed them and when they were last reviewed. The answers we got were many and varied, but often they did not really understand the question, so we will keep working on that. There is room for improvement on the KPIs. Committee interrupted, pursuant to standing orders. [Continued on page 3344.] Sitting suspended from 4.15 to 4.30 pm

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019] 3333

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE FINI GROUP — MEDIHOTEL 484. Hon PETER COLLIER to the minister representing the Minister for Lands: I refer to question without notice 437, answered on Wednesday, 8 May 2019. (1) Did LandCorp undertake any independent valuations of the land at any point prior to going to tender? (2) If yes to (1), was stage 1A valued as a complete parcel of land or by each lot? (3) On what dates were the independent valuations undertaken? (4) Will the minister table the valuations; and, if not, why not? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question. (1) Yes. (2) The parcels were valued on an in globo and on a single-lot basis on the proposed development at that time. (3) They were undertaken on 17 November 2016 and 18 November 2016. (4) Yes. The documents require redacting as they contain information pertaining to an active tender process. This could not be completed in the time given, so the documents will be provided to the member tomorrow. FINI GROUP — MEDIHOTEL 485. Hon PETER COLLIER to the minister representing the Minister for Lands: I refer to question without notice 437, answered on Wednesday, 8 May 2019. (1) Will the minister confirm that lot 3 of stage 1A is 3 009 square metres? (2) Will the minister confirm that this parcel of land sold for $220 000, inclusive of GST? (3) Will the minister advise how a value of $220 000 was reached for the sale of this land? (4) Were there any higher offers for this parcel of land; and, if yes, how many and for what value? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question. (1)–(2) Yes. (3) Fini Group, as master developer, submitted its proposal in response to LandCorp’s multi-stage competitive sales process for the purchase and development of stage 1A, lots 1 to 3. LandCorp entered into three separate contracts of sale with developers operating under the master developer’s proposal, namely MHKP Asset Pty Ltd for lots 1 and 3 for $4.62 million, GST inclusive; and Aegis Health Pty Ltd for lot 2 for $9.24 million, GST inclusive. The total sales price for all three lots was $13.86 million, GST inclusive. (4) Fini Group provided the highest offer for the stage 1A land. The lot configuration was modified from the initial sales release and therefore other offers are not comparable on an individual lot basis. GOVERNOR’S ESTABLISHMENT 486. Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN to the Leader of the House representing the Premier: I refer to the increased allocation in the state budget to the Governor’s establishment to meet “strategic advocacy and diplomacy outcomes”, and for additional staffing to host functions and hospitality based events, conferences and seminars. (1) On what occasion or occasions did the Premier discuss this role for the Governor with Hon Kim Beazley, AC, and what was said? (2) What precisely are the “strategic advocacy and diplomacy outcomes” the Governor is meant to achieve? (3) Who will determine those objectives and who will decide whether those objectives have been met and by what performance criteria? (4) Was any advice sought or received from the Solicitor-General or the State Solicitor or otherwise about the proposed role and its compatibility with the doctrine of separation of powers between the Governor and the executive; and, if not, why not? (5) If any such advice was received, will the Premier table that advice; and, if not, why not? (6) Is there a business case or other needs analysis to support the additional allocation of funding; and, if so, by whom was it prepared, when, and will the Premier table it? (7) If there is no such business case or analysis, how was the amount and purpose of the funding determined?

3334 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019]

(8) Will the Premier provide a breakdown of how the additional $1.4 million will be spent, and, specifically, how much is to be spent on — (i) staff, including their roles, titles and pay levels; (ii) hospitality-based events; (iii) conferences; (iv) seminars; and (v) food and beverages? The PRESIDENT: Before I give the call to the minister, I am just going to say that that question probably does not meet the criteria for concision. You might want to think about that, member. Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN: I take your point, Madam President. The PRESIDENT: Thank you. It is a bit late, but, anyway. Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. Given the level of detail required, we are unable to provide an answer in the time provided. It is requested that the member put the question on notice. I note that this question has about 15 parts. COMMUNITY KINDERGARTENS — ENROLMENTS 487. Hon DONNA FARAGHER to the Minister for Education and Training: I refer to the answer given to question without notice 215, asked on 20 March 2019, about community kindergartens. Will the minister provide a further breakdown of the total funding allocated to each community kindergarten for — (a) operational funding; (b) staffing costs; (c) linked school administration support; and (d) any other costs not listed above? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. This answer is correct as at 12 February. (a)–(d) The information is provided in tabular form, so I seek leave to have the answer incorporated into Hansard. Leave granted. The following material was incorporated —

COMMUNITY KINDERGARTEN (a) (*) (b) (c) TOTAL 2019 2019 Grant Salaries: Admin Support Teacher and EA Albany Community Kindergarten $16 203 $210 065 $17 020 $243 288 Bullsbrook Community Kindergarten $15 213 $105 032 $17 020 $137 265 Byford Community Kindergarten $15 105 $105 032 $17 020 $137 157 Glen Forrest Community Kindergarten $14 005 $105 032 $17 020 $136 057 Hazel Orme Community Kindergarten $17 081 $210 065 $17 020 $244 166 (Coolbellup) Hillarys Community Kindergarten $15 213 $105 032 $17 020 $137 265 Kindaimanna Community Kindergarten $13 565 $105 032 $17 020 $135 617 (Kelmscott) Lockyer Community Kindergarten $32 779 $420 129 $17 020 $469 928 (Albany) Lower King Community Kindergarten $14 995 $105 032 $17 020 $137 047 (Albany) McDougall Park Community Kindergarten $16 751 $210 065 $17 020 $243 836 (Como) Mount Helena Community Kindergarten $13 675 $105 032 $17 020 $135 727 Mullaloo Community Kindergarten $16 641 $210 065 $17 020 $243 726

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019] 3335

Padbury Community Kindergarten $14 885 $105 032 $17 020 $136 937 Pineview Community Kindergarten $14 885 $105 032 $17 020 $136 937 (Coolbellup) Rossmoyne-Riverton Community Kindergarten $17 409 $210 065 $17 020 $244 494 Seaview Community Kindergarten $17 081 $210 065 $17 020 $244 166 (Cottesloe) Spring Road Community Kindergarten $14 995 $105 032 $17 020 $137 047 (Kalamunda) Tuart Hill Community Kindergarten $14 885 $105 032 $17 020 $136 937 TOTAL $295 366 $2 835 871 $306 360 $3 437 597 (*) The grant is paid in two instalments following the February and August census. The 2019 grants in the table above are based on the February 2019 census. Some minor changes to the second instalment may be made if the August census varies from the February census. (d) Some in-kind Departmental resources are applied to administering the community kindergarten program.

JUVENILE OFFENDERS — MONITORING 488. Hon NICK GOIRAN to the minister representing the Minister for Police: I refer to the minister’s response to my question without notice 461, answered on 14 May 2019, in which the minister informed the house that the monitoring of reportable offenders is undertaken by the Western Australia Police Force sex crime division and other operational police in the state, that this monitoring is ongoing, and that the frequency of interaction will vary on a case-by-case basis. (1) Is any training provided to those required to perform this monitoring? (2) If yes to (1), will the minister table the document that records the content of that training? (3) Are any assessment tools or similar—in the form of policies, procedures, guidelines or similar—made available to those required to perform this monitoring? (4) If yes to (3), will the minister table those documents? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The answer has been provided to me by the Minister for Police, and the Western Australia Police Force advises the following. (1) Yes. (2) No. The course documents for this training are operationally sensitive. However, a list of modules has been provided for tabling. [See paper 2703.] (3) Yes. (4) No. This information is operationally sensitive. KUNUNURRA YOUTH BAIL HOUSE — RELOCATION 489. Hon JACQUI BOYDELL to the minister representing the Minister for Corrective Services: I refer to the recently proposed relocation of the Kununurra bail house service and the contractor Hope Community Services’ local government development application for seven additional beds in the facility to provide additional government contracted services. (1) Was there a tender process for awarding a contract or grant for additional services to Hope Community Services, which were to be run from the Kununurra bail house? (2) If yes to (1), will the minister table any related documents and/or undertakings regarding the award of this tender and or grant to Hope Community Services? (3) If no to (1), will the minister table any related documents and/or undertakings to Hope Community Services that it had the confidence to purchase a $750 000 property from which to provide the additional services? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) No. The Kununurra bail house delivers services under a tender that was initiated under the previous Liberal–National government. A tender process was not required for this variation of the existing contract. (2) Not applicable. (3) Hope Community Services was required to relocate the Kununurra bail house to continue existing contracted services due to the expiry of its existing lease and the property owner’s intention not to renew it.

3336 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019]

GERALDTON SOBERING UP CENTRE 490. Hon MARTIN ALDRIDGE to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Health: I refer to parliamentary questions asked by me about the ill-considered closure of the Geraldton Sobering Up Centre by the McGowan government in the name of “funding of election commitments”. (1) Is it correct that only three of the remaining nine sobering-up centres in Western Australia are meeting their contracted targets? (2) Is it correct that one sobering-up centre, in Roebourne, has no target at all? (3) How does the minister justify closing the Geraldton Sobering Up Centre when it admitted more people per annum than the three smallest sobering-up centres combined? (4) If the minister’s claims are to be believed that the Geraldton Sobering Up Centre was closed due to a failure to meet contracted targets, can the minister guarantee the future of centres in Derby, Wyndham, Port Hedland, Roebourne, Carnarvon and Kalgoorlie? Hon ALANNA CLOHESY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. I am advised of the following. (1) Yes. Of the nine sobering-up centres currently operating in Western Australia, three centres achieved the target for the number of admissions per annum in 2017–18 and the other SUCs achieved 95 per cent, 90 per cent, 83 per cent, 57 per cent and 33 per cent of the target per annum. (2) Yes. The service agreement for the Roebourne SUC was varied in 2016 to include two low medical withdrawal beds. The Mental Health Commission permitted unused SUC beds to also be utilised for low medical withdrawal and, for this reason, no target was set for the use of SUC beds. In responding to the local needs of Roebourne, the Mental Health Commission has negotiated with the provider of the Roebourne SUC to increase the number of low medical withdrawal beds from two to four beds. Targets for the sobering-up and low medical withdrawal services will now be defined and set to reflect the new configuration of beds. (3) Although Geraldton SUC met approximately 50 per cent of its target for the number of admissions, a significant percentage of all admissions were for a small client group who used the service on most nights that the centre was open. For the full-year period 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2016, there were 1 447 admissions. During this time, one client had 143 admissions and the top 10 users accounted for 44 per cent of admissions. The aim of sobering-up services is to reduce the impact of alcohol and drug–related harm in the community. The contracted model of service is not appropriate as an alternative for accommodation services. (4) There are no plans to close any of the SUCs. The Mental Health Commission will be conducting a review of all SUCs to determine whether the current model is meeting local community needs. FOREIGN BUYERS SURCHARGE 491. Hon RICK MAZZA to the minister representing the Minister for Finance: I refer to the 8 May 2019 article in The West Australian headed “Developers pan surcharge”, in which it is said apartment developers are complaining that the seven per cent surcharge for foreign property buyers has smashed off-the-plan sales, putting new projects in jeopardy and damaging job creation. (1) Can the minister confirm data from urban planning design and research firm Urbis that the sale of new apartments to foreign buyers fell from 120 in the December quarter to just 14 in the March quarter? (2) How much money has the foreign buyers duty raised in the year to date? (3) Is the government on track to raise about $120 million over three and a half years to 2021–22? (4) Is the government confident with its expected revenue forecasts from the scheme? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Finance has provided the following information. (1) The department does not hold data relating to the purchase of residential property by a foreign person prior to 1 January 2019 and cannot verify the data in the report. (2) There has been $4.3 million raised to 14 May 2019. (3) The expected revenue from the foreign buyers surcharge was revised down significantly in the 2018–19 midyear review in light of updated information on foreign buyer activity from the Foreign Investment Review Board. Expected growth in revenue from the surcharge has also been amended to reflect the outlook for the residential property market. (4) Collections from this revenue source, which commenced only on 1 January 2019, are being monitored, and forecasts will be reviewed, as with revenue from all sources, in the 2019–20 midyear review.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019] 3337

HEALTH STAFF — ASSAULTS AGAINST 492. Hon COLIN TINCKNELL to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Health: I refer to staff assaults within the health system. (1) How many assaults on staff have there been in the public health system in the past five years, and what is the underlying trend? (2) What kinds of assaults are occurring? (3) Where are the main hotspots for hospital staff being assaulted? (4) Are high-risk areas being identified; and, if yes — (a) what security measures have been employed in these high-risk areas; and (b) do any of our at-risk hospital staff have personal-protection garments; and, if so, what are they and when are they required? (5) Can the government please highlight how it plans to better protect our doctors and nurses against serious assault? Hon ALANNA CLOHESY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. Due to the detailed nature of the question, I am advised that the Department of Health is not able to provide the requested information in the time required and I therefore ask the honourable member to place this question on notice. STUDENTS — FOETAL ALCOHOL SPECTRUM DISORDER 493. Hon ALISON XAMON to the Minister for Education and Training: (1) Has any funding been allocated in the 2019–20 budget specifically to identify and support students with foetal alcohol spectrum disorder? (2) If yes to (1), how much funding has been allocated and what program and services has the funding been allocated to? (3) If no to (1), why not? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1)–(3) Students with FASD are eligible for an individual disability allocation when FASD-related impairments meet the criteria for one or more of the eight eligibility groups—for example, intellectual disability. On 10 May 2019, I announced that the state government has committed an additional $40 million to the individual disability allocation. The educational adjustment allocation is provided to schools to support students who, although not eligible for an individual disability allocation, have a range of additional learning support needs, which includes learning support needs related to FASD. FRACKING — KIMBERLEY 494. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE to the Leader of the House representing the Premier: I refer to my question without notice 199, asked in the Legislative Council on Tuesday, 19 March 2019, to the Leader of the House representing the Premier. (1) In relation to the Premier’s visit to Japan and South Korea where he met with representatives of Mitsubishi Corporation, Mitsui and Co, Tokyo Gas and Inpex, will the Premier table the briefing notes specifically related to fracking, removing the commercial and third party information? (2) If not, why not? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1)–(2) No briefing notes specifically related to fracking were produced for these meetings. MIGRATION — FEDERAL LABOR POLICY 495. Hon CHARLES SMITH to the minister representing the Treasurer: I refer to the recent election campaign announcement of federal Labor’s family visa program. (1) Has the Treasury conducted any analysis similar to the New South Wales state government that would indicate how many additional aged migrants would arrive from overseas? (2) If yes to (1), how many?

3338 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019]

(3) If no to (1), why not? (4) Does the government concede that hospitals, infrastructure and services in Perth are already overloaded, as recently demonstrated by hospital bed overcrowding issues, including patients dying waiting for a bed, ambulance ramping and road congestion, all of which will only get much worse under this policy? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) No. (2) Not applicable. (3) Treasury works with the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage to prepare and update forecasts of population growth to inform budget and planning decision-making. It does not separately analyse the impact of federal election announcements. (4) No. ANIMAL ACTIVISM — TRESPASS 496. Hon COLIN de GRUSSA to the minister representing the Minister for Police: I refer to disruptive behaviour by vegan activists in Leederville last week, including by activists who have recently been convicted of on-farm trespassing incidents. (1) Were any activists at this protest in contravention of any court-ordered conditions? (2) Will the state government consider legislative changes to effectively deter recidivist activists from being involved in these types of behaviours? (3) Do the disruptive actions of these activists contravene WA Criminal Code section 62 with regard to unlawful assembly or any other aspect of the Criminal Code? (4) Is the minister aware if any recently convicted activists have breached any court-ordered conditions? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Police has provided the following answer. The Western Australia Police Force advises the following. (1) None of those present was in contravention of any court-ordered conditions by being at that location and protesting. One had breached his bail conditions by failing to report to police. (2) The state government and the Western Australia Police Force are working with stakeholders to develop options for the introduction of legislation to create circumstances of aggravation for trespass offences. (3) Their actions in Leederville did not contravene section 62 or any other section of the Criminal Code. Three activists present in Leederville have been arrested and convicted for trespassing offences. (4) The matter should be referred to the Leader of the House representing the Attorney General. DUKE OF EDINBURGH’S INTERNATIONAL AWARD 497. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN to the minister representing the Minister for Youth: (1) By what authority was a decision made to change the name of the Duke of Edinburgh Awards to the “Duke of Ed Awards” and who made this decision and when? (2) Has His Royal Highness Duke of Edinburgh given his consent to this renaming; and, if so, will the minister table any evidence of such consent; and, if not, why not? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The Duke of Edinburgh’s International Award has not changed its name. The Duke of Edinburgh’s International Award has been operating for over 60 years. A number of branding names have occurred throughout this time. The “Duke of Ed Award” is the shortest acceptable use of the name in a branding sense. Within the United Kingdom, the award is called the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award. In the other 130 countries where the award operates it must include the word “international”, hence the name in Australia is the Duke of Edinburgh’s International Award. (2) In Australia, the national office of the Duke of Edinburgh’s International Award advises what names may and may not be used. Hon Simon O’Brien: That does not answer the question. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: Yes, it does.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019] 3339

Hon Simon O’Brien: I am sorry, it does not. Why does the minister sign off and present these when it does not do that? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: That answers the question. Goodness gracious! Hon Simon O’Brien interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! Unfortunately, we do not have supplementary questions as it happens in other places. If a member wants to seek further information, they should ask another question on another occasion. FORRESTFIELD–AIRPORT LINK — SOIL CONTAMINATION 498. Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS to the Leader of the House representing the Premier: I refer to my question without notice 359 asked on 10 April 2019 on the PFAS-contaminated soil excavated from the Forrestfield–Airport Link project. (1) Has the director general of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Mr Darren Foster, been made aware that in April 2018 the Minister for Transport had discussed with the then deputy chair of the Peel Development Commission, Mr Greg Poland, the potential disposal of PFAS-contaminated soil excavated from the Forrestfield–Airport Link project into sites other than the Perth Airport, as evidenced in the answer to questions without notice 164 and 178 asked earlier this year? (2) If yes to (1), on what date was he informed and in what manner? (3) Has the director general been informed that various discussions on the potential alternate disposal of PFAS-contaminated soil excavated from the Forrestfield–Airport Link project to sites other than the Perth Airport site that included the Peel Development Commission, the Shire of Waroona, the Shire of Boddington and the Public Transport Authority, were held between April 2018 and January 2019? (4) If yes to (3), on what date was he informed and in what manner? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Department of the Premier and Cabinet advises the following. (1) No. (2) Not applicable. (3) No. (4) Not applicable. SANDALWOOD HARVEST 499. Hon COLIN HOLT to the Minister for Environment: I refer to sandalwood harvesting contracts. (1) Can the minister confirm that Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions has issued only a one-year sandalwood harvesting licence to the Forest Products Commission; and, if not, what is the correct licence time frame? (2) Can the minister confirm that the harvesting of sandalwood by native title holders is now considered part of the 90 per cent crown land allocation? (3) How will the government balance the needs of the developing Aboriginal sandalwood companies with those of the Forest Products Commission? (4) What concerns does the minister have if the Forest Products Commission applies for and is granted a three-year or longer harvesting licence, leaving other sandalwood harvesting licence holders with limited access to sandalwood, potentially putting Aboriginal businesses at risk? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions has not issued a licence to the Forest Products Commission. The department of has issued one-year licences to Forest Products Commission contractors. These are set to expire on 30 June 2019. (2) This matter is under consideration. The department is working with stakeholders, including the Forest Products Commission and Aboriginal groups, on the allocation of the sandalwood resource to ensure a sustainable sandalwood industry. (3)–(4) These questions should be directed to the Minister for Forestry.

3340 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019]

MEEKATHARRA–WILUNA ROAD — SEALING 500. Hon ROBIN SCOTT to the minister representing the Minister for Lands: (1) Can the minister point to a budget line item related to the sealing of the Wiluna–Meekatharra road? (2) If no to (1), what plan does the government have for sealing the road? (3) Will the minister confirm that successive Western Australian governments have failed to seal the road in the 62 years since the closure of the Wiluna–Meekatharra rail line? (4) What studies have been conducted on the costs and benefits of sealing the Wiluna–Meekatharra road? (5) Is the minister able to table such studies? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1)–(5) The McGowan government recognises the importance of the Wiluna–Meekatharra road as a key transport link between the northern goldfields and the midwest, Gascoyne and Pilbara regions. Earlier this month, the Minister for Transport met with the Shire of Wiluna where a proposition was presented to undertake a pilot project to seal the initial four kilometres of the road leading out from the Wiluna town site. This would then connect to an existing 10-kilometre section of sealed road that finishes approximately 15 kilometres west of the town. This project would be undertaken using a direct management delivery model, which would help promote regional growth through the provision of employment, training and business opportunities for the local Aboriginal community. Discussions are underway in relation to this proposal. SOUTHERN FORESTS IRRIGATION SCHEME 501. Hon DIANE EVERS to the Minister for Regional Development: I refer to the minister’s response to my question without notice 405 asked in the Legislative Council on 7 May 2019 about the proposed southern forests irrigation scheme. (1) What proportion of water contract applications are from parties who are not landholders in the SFIS region, and are any of these parties publicly listed companies or owned by publicly listed companies? (2) Will the minister detail the total volume of water in contract applications submitted by Blue Sky companies, including Blue Sky Water Partners, Blue Sky Water Fund, Blue Sky Alternative Investments or other parties related to any of these; and, if not, why not? (3) Will local landholders participating in the SFIS have the right to sell their water allocation to parties who are not landholders in the SFIS region? (4) Will it be possible for participants who are not landholders in the SFIS region to profit from the scheme by selling their water allocation? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question. (1) All water contracts are with landholders that are within the southern forests irrigation scheme region. No parties that are publicly listed companies or owned by publicly listed companies have water contracts with the SFIS. (2) No water contracts have been purchased by Blue Sky companies. (3) Landholders can sell or trade water only to other landholders connected to the scheme and who are a members of the Southern Forests Irrigation Co-operative. (4) In addition to the above, the cooperative rules require a member to hold land within the SFIS region. METRONET — THORNLIE–COCKBURN LINK 502. Hon TIM CLIFFORD to the minister representing the Minister for Transport: I refer to the Thornlie–Cockburn Link section of the Metronet project. (1) Will the minister please confirm that all work for the Thornlie–Cockburn Link is within its existing rail corridors? (2) Will the minister please provide the details of the outcome of the negotiations with the local council to minimise the impact of the Jandakot eastern link road on Ken Hurst Park? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Some areas of land outside the existing railway corridor are required for stations, bridges, car parks and roads.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019] 3341

(2) The Public Transport Authority will provide access to the proposed station via a new access road linked to Ranford Road. Construction of the access road to the Ranford Road station will have no impact on Ken Hurst Park. The Thornlie–Cockburn Link project being delivered by the PTA is not responsible for the Jandakot eastern link road. WATERING POINTS — YANDEYARRA RESERVE 503. Hon KEN BASTON to the Minister for Agriculture and Food: I refer to the answer to question without notice 474 asked on 14 May about the upgrade of watering points at Yandeyarra reserve. (1) Can the minister confirm whether the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development will seek to have $198 093.82 reimbursed by the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage from the Aboriginal Affairs Planning Authority’s emergency response fund? (2) If yes to (1), will it be reimbursed in this financial year? (3) If no to (1), why not? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes. The state will also be seeking to recover other costs from the Mugarinya Community Association Inc. (2) Yes. (3) Not applicable. LITHIUM REFINERY — KWINANA — MINES SAFETY AND INSPECTION LEVY 504. Hon TJORN SIBMA to the minister representing the Minister for Mines and Petroleum: This question was not registered as received, so if the answer is not available, I will ask it again tomorrow. I refer to the minister’s answer to my question yesterday concerning the potential application of the mine safety and inspection levy to planned and prospective lithium refineries. (1) If the classification of a facility as a mining operation is as clear cut as section 4(1) of the Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994 outlines, why is the minister’s department discussing the issue of classification with project proponents at all? (2) Has the department advised the minister of the financial benefits that would accrue to the state government if lithium refineries were classified as mining operations subject to the levy? (3) If yes to (2), what are the details? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN replied: I am pleased to advise the member that the question has been received and I thank him for it. The following information has been provided by the Minister for Mines and Petroleum. (1) On occasion, despite the view of the regulator, proponents contend that the activities conducted on their proposed project do not fall within the definition of “mining operations” as outlined in section 4(1) of the Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994. When these occasions arise, the proponent is provided with the opportunity to state their position to the State Mining Engineer. The current discussions reflect this process. (2) No. There are no financial benefits to the state, as all receipts under the mines safety and inspection levy are held in a special purpose account and expended solely for the purpose of administering the Mines Safety and Inspection Act. (3) Not applicable. INFRASTRUCTURE WESTERN AUSTRALIA — SUBMISSIONS 505. Hon PETER COLLIER to the Leader of the House representing the Premier: I refer to the creation of Infrastructure Western Australia and the public submissions process. (1) How many submissions were submitted by government agencies, statutory authorities and government trading enterprises? (2) Will the Premier provide a list of the government agencies, statutory authorities and government trading enterprises that provided a submission; and, if not, why not? (3) Will the minister table those submissions; and, if not, why not?

3342 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019]

Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Sixteen state agencies, statutory authorities and government trading enterprises made submissions. (2) The state government agencies that provided submissions were: the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions; the Department of Education; the Department of Fire and Emergency Services; the Department of Health; the Department of Finance; the Department of Jobs, Tourism, Science and Innovation; the Department of Justice; the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries; the Department of Transport; the Office of the Government Architect; and the WA Police Force. The state government trading enterprises that provided submissions were: Horizon Power, Synergy, Water Corporation and Western Power. The state government statutory authority that provided a submission was the Peel Development Commission. (3) No; refer to the response to part (c) of Legislative Assembly question on notice 4086. FORESTRY — GREENBUSHES 506. Hon DIANE EVERS to the minister representing the Minister for Forestry: I refer to Brickworks Ltd’s ASX media release of 21 March 2019, “Property earnings underpin record first half underlying NPAT”, which outlines the company’s intention to sell its Auswest Timbers Pty Ltd hardwood operations in Greenbushes. Will the government take this opportunity to — (a) rapidly phase out native forest logging to protect native forests for their potential sustainable use by industries such as tourism, recreation and honey production; their unique value as wildlife habitat; and their significant carbon capture and storage capacity; and (b) support workers directly employed in this industry to retrain and find alternative employment? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question. The following information has been provided by the Minister for Forestry. (a) No; the McGowan government supports the native timber industry and its contribution to the Western Australian economy. (b) Not applicable. While the business is for sale, it continues to operate. HOMELESSNESS 507. Hon COLIN TINCKNELL to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Community Services: I refer to the size and nature of homelessness in Western Australia, which is being reported as a major problem that is increasing across several areas of the state. (1) Can the minister please outline the true extent of homelessness by advising whether information on the number of people sleeping rough is being captured; and, if it is — (a) the estimated number of people sleeping on the streets; (b) in which areas the problem is most evident; (c) the long-term trends; and (d) are any government funds allocated to assisting those without anywhere to call home? (2) What is currently being done to help homeless people get off the streets? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) This information is captured by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in its census. The closest definition of “rough sleepers” is persons living in improvised dwellings, tents, or sleeping out. (a) As at the 2016 census, there were 1 083 persons living in improvised dwellings, tents, or sleeping out in Western Australia. (b) This information is available from the 2016 census at the ABS geography of statistical area level 3. The highest number of persons living in improvised dwellings, tents, or sleeping out was recorded in Perth city, with 271, followed by the Kimberley, with 147. (c) The 2016 census shows the following trend in persons living in improvised dwellings, tents, or sleeping out: in 2001, it was 1 410; in 2006, 1 016; in 2011, 929; and in 2016, 1 083. (d) Yes.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019] 3343

(2) In 2018–19, the Department of Communities will fund approximately $98.2 million to deliver a range of homelessness services including crisis accommodation, such as family and domestic violence services that assist with the prevention of homelessness, and outreach for those sleeping rough. The Department of Communities also offers significant support, including bond assistance and rental subsidies, across the housing continuum that enables individuals to find a home of their own. Homelessness is a complex social issue that requires a collaborative response from all levels of government and the community. The Department of Communities is leading the development of a 10-year strategy on homelessness, which will be a whole-of-community plan that looks at better ways to help people who are homeless, or at risk of homelessness, to access accommodation and support. POLICE — SHOOTING — GELORUP Question without Notice 473 — Answer Advice HON STEPHEN DAWSON (Mining and Pastoral — Minister for Environment) [5.06 pm]: Yesterday in question time, Hon Diane Evers asked me question without notice 473 as the minister representing the Minister for Police. I indicated that I saw some errors in the answer, so I now provide an updated and corrected answer to her question. Further, the answers to parts (1) and (5) state that the question should be referred to the Minister for Environment. As Minister for Environment, I have provided an answer to parts (1) and (5), so I seek leave to table those answers and have them incorporated into Hansard. Leave granted. The following answer from the minister representing the Minister for Police was incorporated — Answer I thank the Honourable Member for some notice of this question. The following information has been provided to me by the Minister for Police: The Western Australia Police Force advise: (1) This question should be referred to the Minister for Environment. (2) Bunbury Police spoke with the shooter in question and who stated the shooting was on his land. No offences have been identified by the WA Police Force. (3) Three. (4) Police were advised prior to the culling of kangaroos that shooting would be occurring between 8.00pm and midnight. Subsequently the owner of the property was spoken to by Bunbury Police who confirmed he was shooting on his own land. (5) This question should be referred to the Minister for Environment.

The following answer from the Minister for Environment was incorporated — Answer (1) Two licenses were valid for Gelorup on 9 January 2019 for the control of kangaroos causing damage. Both licensees were the land owners with the authorised persons listed being professional kangaroo shooters. (5) Both of the licenses had conditions requiring the licensee to notify both police (local station) and adjoining land owners prior to undertaking any shooting activity.

QUESTION ON NOTICE 2040 Paper Tabled A paper relating to an answer to question on notice 2040 was tabled by Hon Alannah MacTiernan (Minister for Ports). FISHERIES — SAWFISH — LIVERINGA STATION Questions on Notice 2043 and 2044 — Answer Advice HON ALANNAH MacTIERNAN (North Metropolitan — Minister for Regional Development) [5.07 pm]: Pursuant to standing order 108(2), I wish to inform the house that the answers to questions on notice 2043 and 2044 asked by Hon Robin Chapple on 2 April 2019, to me representing the Minister for Water, will be provided on 4 June 2019. HOSPITALS — SENIOR EMERGENCY STAFF Question on Notice 2059 — Answer Advice HON ALANNA CLOHESY (East Metropolitan — Parliamentary Secretary) [5.08 pm]: Pursuant to standing order 108(2), I wish to inform the house that the answer to question on notice 2059 asked by Hon Alison Xamon on 2 April 2019, to me as parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Health, will be provided on 4 June 2019. MEDICAL CANNABIS — PRESCRIPTIONS Question without Notice 465 — Answer Advice HON ALANNA CLOHESY (East Metropolitan — Parliamentary Secretary) [5.08 pm]: In response to question without notice 465 asked by Hon Colin Tincknell on 14 May, I have an answer to provide, which I now table. [See paper 2705.]

3344 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019]

AGED-CARE ACCOMMODATION — LEONORA Question without Notice 425 — Answer Advice HON ALANNA CLOHESY (East Metropolitan — Parliamentary Secretary) [5.09 pm]: In response to question without notice 425 asked by Hon Robin Scott on 8 May 2019, the Department of Health has provided an answer, which I now table. [See paper 2706.] PARLIAMENTARY DEPARTMENTAL SURVEYS Statement by President THE PRESIDENT (Hon Kate Doust) [5.09 pm]: I remind members about the surveys provided to all members last week. If you have not already done so, I ask that you please complete the annual performance surveys for the Department of the Legislative Council and the Parliamentary Services Department. Those emails were sent to members on Monday, 6 May, and hard copies were placed on members’ desks on Tuesday, 7 May. If you have not already completed them, please do so and provide your responses by Friday, 17 May. Thank you. COMMITTEE REPORTS — CONSIDERATION Committee The Deputy Chair of Committees (Hon Martin Aldridge) in the chair. Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations — Seventy-seventh Report — “2017–18 Budget Cycle—Part 2: Annual Report Hearings” — Motion Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting. Hon DIANE EVERS: I will pick up where I left off with the key performance indicators. We need to look at the goals of government, to have those goals relayed to the agencies, to make sure the agencies reflect those in their goals for their each individual agency, and then to create KPIs that are effective in reaching those goals. KPIs are what employees or staff use to direct how they are going to make decisions, and how they are going to carry out their job in order to achieve the goals that we want achieved. I refer to page 7, paragraph 4.11, headed “Meaningfulness”. If we do not have meaningful KPIs, there is really little point in having them. Having KPIs that are not meaningful and do not aim the staff towards doing the things that we want them to do may actually be directing them to other ends—to things that we do not want. If they are just aiming to reach those KPIs to make the paperwork look good, it could backfire and not be what was intended. At paragraph 4.11, the report states — The Committee takes the view that KPIs must be meaningful to those who read annual reports, such as Members of Parliament and the Auditor General. ‘Meaningfulness’ was identified in the 2017 Service Priority Review with the Panel commenting that ‘while the intention of OBM — Outcome-based management — is to measure agency and program performance outcomes, the way it currently operates inhibits meaningful evaluation’. The panel went on to say — [r]eporting against KPIs is high level and does not always satisfactorily link against individual funded programs. KPI reporting does not provide useful details or meaningful transparency around program effectiveness or achievement against goals. There we are. We had a service priority review in 2017 that said that these KPIs are just not doing it. They are not meaningful and not reflecting the goals of the government. The issue of meaningfulness arose during a committee hearing with the Art Gallery of Western Australia. One of its key performance indicators is the average cost of managing the collection per gallery object. The KPI efficiency indicator was $46.35 for each object of art in our Art Gallery. Further questioning went on to reveal that the objects in the Art Gallery vary in value—some may be a few hundred dollars, and some may be up to a million dollars or more. An average cost of $46 to maintain or manage these objects tells us absolutely nothing. That is not really the point. Again, is it dollars per object that we are really looking at when we look at our Art Gallery? I understand we want to know that our art collection is being managed properly, but where is the meaning in a dollars per object figure? It just did not work out. Through questioning, we even had the response that a KPI is something that is given to it, and it has to work towards that. Maybe that is one of the issues. Some of the organisations I was part of before coming into this place had to determine their KPIs. They were small organisations—usually community organisations. The board of directors would get together with the staff to work out the strategic plan and identify what they wanted to achieve and how they wanted to demonstrate that they had done the right thing. They then would work with staff to say, “Okay; how are we going to make that work in a meaningful way so that staff are

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019] 3345 working towards those goals, but also we can report back on it?” If they cannot report on what they have done, and if they have no measurement for what they are trying to achieve, it is very difficult for them to determine whether they have achieved their goals. We need to work with our departments and our agencies to develop those KPIs. The DEPUTY CHAIR: Hon Diane Evers. Hon DIANE EVERS: What I was saying earlier about the key performance indicators—what was I saying earlier? Hon Sue Ellery: You don’t like them. Hon DIANE EVERS: Yes! We have to develop these KPIs with staff to make sure we come up with something meaningful, because that way we can determine whether we are achieving the aims we want to achieve. Another one that came up in our hearings was the accidental residential fires per 100 000 households as an indicator for the Department of Fire and Emergency Services to determine whether its fire safety education programs are working. The target was fewer than 65 fires, and the number was recorded as 56.2. “Great. We’ve done it— 10 per cent lower than what we targeted for.” Did that mean the education program was working? Maybe. Was it just a normal variation through the year? Did we get lucky? So many other factors come into it, but that is good; I appreciate that we are trying to keep the number of house fires down. I went on to ask whether we have a similar figure for the number of houses lost in bushfires, but that did not even figure. It was not part of it—bushfire management is something else—yet when we talk to people, we find that our reaction to bushfire is so much stronger when a house is lost. It is nowhere near the strength of our reaction when a life is lost, but we do not like to see houses lost. We go out to protect those. Of course, it is a given that we are trying to protect everyone’s lives, but we often hear of numerous fire brigades turning out to protect houses that are in the line of the fire. Losing a home is heartbreaking, whether through accidental house fire or bushfire. We do not want to see that happen. If we were to say that one of our aims was to reduce the number of houses lost in bushfire, maybe we would have another indicator of how well we are doing. As many people may have heard me say in the past, we need to change how we manage bushfire and prescribed burns, because this dollars per hectare mentality does not actually protect the bush. It spends the money; it ticks a box. Everybody is happy; we have done what we said we were going to do. That is not the case. Of course we want to save lives. We do not want to lose a life in a bushfire. I do not say that should be a KPI; I think that is a given. We know that is something we are against. However, saying we do not want to lose human-built assets or infrastructure might be another one. We can ask: What is the value of infrastructure lost? Is that what we are actually trying to protect? Then, of course, we do not want to follow that KPI if it will put a human life in danger. There are so many factors to take into account that we must have a complete and thorough review of this. I hope that is going on, because as we are travelling, we are not hitting the goals that I perceive the population of Western Australia to be saying they want. I do not think anybody is out there saying, “We just want you to burn as much as you can.” I know it gets talked about in here as though that is the case, but when working with the brigades, or in those rural communities, people are worried about the human-built assets, the environment and the biodiversity—the flora and fauna—that we are trying not to lose. That is what should be guiding our prescribed burns, because that way we can focus on those areas of prime importance around the assets that we care to protect. It may only be a kilometre-wide zone around towns, or leaving areas that have not been burnt for some time. It may be a risk, but if we can contain it in that area, it could be part of the naturally occurring cycles that happen, and then we might get back to a more natural system of our forest burning and then thriving again. Back to the key performance indicators, they need to be useful, and they need to demonstrate to the staff the goals of the agency and of the government. That will move us much further ahead in reaching those goals, if we have a clear indicator to staff of what is expected of them. Consideration of report postponed, pursuant to standing orders. Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation — Fifteenth Report — “Annual Report 2018” Resumed from 4 April. Motion On motion by Hon Stephen Dawson (Minister for Environment), resolved — That the report be noted. Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs — Forty-ninth Report — “Mechanisms for compensation for economic loss to farmers in Western Australia caused by contamination by genetically modified material” — Motion Resumed from 10 April on the following motion moved by Hon Matthew Swinbourn — That the report be noted. Hon DIANE EVERS: It seems like it has been some time since I spoke on this. I am quite pleased that this inquiry occurred. It is a good step to be asking whether this is an issue that we need to do something about. I am not very

3346 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019] happy with the outcome, but it is a step. It is a step that we will not be the only ones looking at. Earlier this week, another legal case was decided in Canada, in which a couple was awarded $2 billion because of the cancers they contracted from using glyphosate. I think this is the third one this year of mega millions of dollars—in this case $2 billion—against Monsanto, which is now owned by the German company Bayer. It will be interesting to see how that plays out. I am sure that this case will be appealed. We have to take note here that around the world more and more legal cases are being brought to trial on the issue of glyphosate. Glyphosate and genetically modified organisms are not the same thing, but we know that we use considerably more glyphosate when we are growing such crops as Roundup Ready canola. This inquiry raised the issue that genetically modified crops have had an impact on some farmers. Apparently, there was not enough information, because we have seen only one court case based on genetically modified crops. However, this will be happening more and more, unless we find that people are growing less of the GM crops. The reluctance I have is with GM canola, which survives through the process of being sprayed with glyphosate. This practice was brought on when Monsanto found that its patent for glyphosate was running out. It needed to ensure that it maintained strong sales, and this coincided beautifully with finding some plants that had become glyphosate resistant. Monsanto made use of this to make the canola glyphosate resistant. It all sounds well and good. This is a weed control mechanism that many farmers appreciate, because weed control is one of the big issues facing our farms. In maximising their production, they need to minimise any competing plants. At least, that is how the theory goes. This has increased the use of glyphosate. As far as I know, none of the three cases were related to growing Roundup Ready canola, but of the 1 000 or more that are in train to go to court, I would not doubt that there are more than a few. This raises the question about genetic engineering and genetic modification of plants. This is one of the earlier GMOs. Since then so many others have come up. Some have entered Australia, and are being tested for production. Genetically modified cotton creates its own toxin within the plant to fend off a particular insect. These things come and go. We know that in the USA they are doing soybeans, potatoes and, I think, tomatoes and papaya. Trials of safflower and a few other things are happening in Australia as well. In addition to these genetically modified crops, other genetic engineering is not of the same sort, where part of one organism is inserted into the DNA of another. The technology is expanding so fast. I cannot say that it will all be bad, but I also would not find anybody here who would say that it will all be just fine. We do not know. We change things slowly—step by step. Unfortunately, this step has been changed, and it may be some time before we actually realise whether the change in the DNA in genetically modified crops is affecting our population. We know that our population is suffering numerous health problems that our parents’ and grandparents’ generations did not have so many issues with. We have not yet related those back to the specific causes. Now, with glyphosate, we have done that. It has been determined to be a cancer-causing chemical, and that has now been proved in court. The same thing happened with cigarettes, over time. We took some time to realise that they were actually causing cancer in our lungs. I think that was known from the 1950s, but it was not until the 1980s that it was proven in court and something was done about it. This is something that will be with us for some time. We will continue to experience health issues related to the chemicals that we use and the genetically modified food that we eat. It is a part of our diet. We would have to work pretty hard to make sure that we are not getting any of it, because if we are buying any package or processed food, they very likely carry soy or corn products, and we may be getting some of that GM material. This inquiry was based on the farmers, and the issues of contamination across farms. The contamination that we face in our own bodies may become the subject of another inquiry at some point. I think there will be another rally tomorrow, and I presented a petition in here some time ago looking at the potential of banning the use of glyphosate. A large group of people believe this should happen, and it will face us somewhere down the track. It is a liability issue. If we go on allowing it past the point of knowing that it is actually causing damage, maybe one day the state will actually be liable for some of this, because we made the decision to allow those crops to be grown and to allow the heavy use of the chemical on our farms, gardens, reserves and everywhere else. It could come back to bite us. This issue does not require an all-or-nothing response. This inquiry into the contamination of GM across the boundaries of farms raised the issue of other problems between farmers. We like to say that those problems can be worked out over the fence and that everything will be fine, but we all know that not all farmers get along with each other or their neighbour. It would be nice to have something in place, some sort of mechanism, to address those issues between neighbouring farmers so that they do not have to work them out across the fence or in pubs and cafes. It would be nice if they could work together and go through a process similar to that in the Family Court— some sort of arbitration process in which they can present their case and it will be understood. That is what this was asking for, and it is what other countries are looking for as well so that we can work out how this should be done. Addressing these serious concerns over the fence does not always work. It requires the acquiescence of possibly the less popular participants in the court of public opinion. A farmer may give in to the other farmer because they have a higher standing in the community, but that is not a fair and equitable way of managing it. The problem will only increase. Although many farmers are choosing not to continue with GM canola, they are now looking to go with new technology or gene editing, so some of these issues may spring up again and we will

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019] 3347 be asked whether we should allow them. Up to this point, we have been going back to Food Standards Australia and New Zealand to make a decision, but FSANZ relies on the material provided by the organisation that is introducing the crop. Given the lack of scientific rigour exhibited by FSANZ to date, it would be naive to think that greater research will occur with new introductions. Even though farmers are getting out of it, in some situations they have found that there is no better productivity. In these situations they have higher seed costs, increased chemical applications and increased pressure to ban glyphosate, and no right to save their seed. Resolved, on motion by Hon Diane Evers, that consideration of the report be postponed to the next sitting of the Council. Select Committee into Elder Abuse — Final Report — “‘I never thought it would happen to me’: When trust is broken” — Motion Resumed from 8 May on the following motion moved by Hon Nick Goiran — That the report be noted. Hon NICK GOIRAN: This is the consideration of the final report of the Select Committee into Elder Abuse, which was tabled on 13 September last year. Last week when we had a brief opportunity to consider this report—I thank Hon Pierre Yang for his contribution last week to the consideration of this select committee report—I was looking at risk factors, and the reason for that is that the committee was commissioned with 10 things to do, if you like, or 10 terms of reference, and the fourth of those was to identify risk factors. On previous occasions, I dealt with the previous three terms of reference—to determine an appropriate definition of “elder abuse”, identify its prevalence and identify the forms of elder abuse, including, but not limited to, neglect. Last week we were looking at the fourth of the terms of reference; that is, to identify the risk factors. In that respect, I had already taken members through a number of categories of risk factors and indeed some examples of those risk factors. In particular, I took members through the seven major risk factors that the committee identified may increase the likelihood of elder abuse and the reasons for those seven major risk factors. I concluded with the sixth of those seven risk factors and was just about to look at the seventh risk factor, which is carer stress and perpetrator factors. If members take the opportunity to refresh their memories about this report, they will see that the committee noted that people who might be susceptible to inflicting elder abuse are those who are feeling emotionally or physical exhausted due to prolonged periods of stress relating to caring for someone. That is to say that the behaviour of the carer themselves, due to the stress that they are under—whether that be emotional or physical exhaustion— can manifest in elder abuse. Indeed, it was noted by the committee that these carers are often unpaid family members, that the abuse can take place because of a lack of skills or support, and that family carers often had low health literacy or did not necessarily have the right information, and that this had the consequential effect of causing unintentional abuse. The committee’s attention was drawn to the concept of the sandwich generation, which is those who are looking after their own children as well as their parents while they are working. These are all matters that were brought to the attention of the committee as to why it is that carer stress can be a risk factor leading to a higher prevalence of elder abuse. I say all that because I noted in recent times the suggestion within government quarters that they had never heard of a family member seeking to take advantage of another family member or indeed pressure that family member. To those individuals who said that in recent times, I ask them to familiarise themselves with the final report of the Select Committee into Elder Abuse. If I can be so frank, I suggest to the ministerial expert panel that is looking into end-of-life choices and currently embarking on a consultation phase with the community that it will not have done its job properly if it has not at least read this report. The panel cannot say that it has consulted with the community without mentioning a word of elder abuse or having read the report and knowing full well that a committee of the Legislative Council looked into elder abuse and delivered a unanimous report. To those members of the panel who say in the consultation forums, as has been reported back to me, that they have never heard of scenarios in which family members have pressured other family members, I ask them to read this report. They should not pretend to be on the expert panel and that they are doing consultation without familiarising themselves with the issue of elder abuse. The CHAIR: Hon Nick Goiran. Hon NICK GOIRAN: As I continue to look at this issue of carer stress and perpetrator factors, I draw to members’ attention that the committee was informed that there is a general lack of knowledge about carers’ legal responsibility for enduring powers of attorney and guardianship, and that that lack of knowledge of legal responsibilities can be found in the cohort who are the stressed carers. That is yet another factor that leads to the increasing risk of elder abuse by such individuals. In looking at carer stress and perpetrator factors and the issue of risk, finding 18, at page 43 of the committee report, states — Carer stress or carer fatigue is a risk factor for elder abuse and symptoms of carer stress can be early indicators of an increased risk of elder abuse in a relationship.

3348 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019]

Finding 19 states — Elder abuse that occurs as a result of carer stress can be a result of not having the necessary skills or support services to provide effective care for an older person. I pause to again make a call-out to the ministerial expert panel on end-of-life choices that end of life will involve carers—by definition, carers will be involved in the end-of-life process. That is already the case in Western Australia. If the ministerial panel is not aware that carer stress is a problem—because some carers do not have the necessary skills or support services—that can be only because it has not read finding 17, which makes that very clear. If the panel is also unfamiliar with the problem of carer fatigue, it is because it has not read finding 18, which also makes that very clear. Finding 20 states — Carer stress can arise due to factors related to an older person being cared for, including the person’s behaviour, mental or physical health or other circumstances. Again, I make a call-out to the ministerial expert panel to familiarise itself with finding 20. I repeat — Carer stress can arise due to factors related to an older person being cared for, including the person’s behaviour, mental or physical health or other circumstances. In other words, if a terminally ill person is being cared for by a family member who is under stress, there is a higher risk that elder abuse will take place. That is a unanimous finding of this committee. It is yet another finding that the ministerial expert panel, if it is serious about its consultation, has a duty and obligation to be familiar with. When it eventually provides a report to government, the panel will need to address the issue of elder abuse. Recommendation 7 of the committee states — The Government facilitate more support services and information for carers of older people in Western Australia. Interestingly, since that time we have had the government response to this report. I note that the government response to recommendation 7 states that it supports recommendation 7 in principle — The Government agrees that carer stress or carer fatigue is a risk factor for elder abuse. I pause there. I ask the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Health, in the absence of ministers in this chamber due to urgent parliamentary business, to take it upon herself to draw to the attention of the ministerial expert panel the government response to recommendation 7. It may be the case that the attitude within government is that it does not care what the Legislative Council committee had to say on this matter. However, I am simply drawing to the government’s attention its own response—its own words—to recommendation 7. The government response to recommendation 7 is that it agrees that carer stress or carer fatigue is a risk factor for elder abuse. I ask someone in government to please pass to the ministerial expert panel the government response to recommendation 7, because, apparently, during the consultation, some of the members of the panel suggested that they know nothing about this. Therefore, if someone in government could let them know the government position on this issue, that would be helpful while it is busy consulting. The government response to recommendation 7 goes on to say — Communities — That being the Department of Communities — allocated $1million in 2017–2018 to Carers WA to provide supports, services and programs (including counselling and training), social support, advice, respite, employment and engagement activities for unpaid carers. A review of the Carers Recognition Act 2004 (WA) is underway to assess its objectives and look at opportunities for further support and recognition of carers. The Government will continue to work with the sector to equip unpaid carers with the necessary skills and support services to provide effective care for an older person. Additionally, carer needs will be addressed as part of Communities’ response to elder abuse and as part of its broader mandate to support carers in our community. That concludes my comments on the seven major risk factors that have been identified by the committee. The committee report also notes other contributing factors. One of the cultural attitudes that was drawn to the attention of the community is what has been coined “inheritance impatience”. I remember reading recently a suggestion by some individuals that they have never heard of that phrase. I must on another occasion find out exactly who said that. To the best of my recall, it was a Western Australian legal practitioner. It could well have been a member of the Law Society of Western Australia—that is where I might have read this. They said that in their experience in that area of law, they have never come across a situation of inheritance impatience. I want to tell members what I was told by a constituent who went to one of the ministerial panel consultation processes. Incidentally, it is somewhat of a sick joke to call it a consultation process, when all it says is, “We don’t want to hear from you if you have a different view from us; only tell us if you agree with us”. However, be that as it may, that is the process. That particular consultation process was chaired by Mr McCusker. I understand from my constituent that Mr McCusker was looking at the issue of capacity, and he somehow suggested that capacity

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019] 3349 decisions for people who are making a will are more complex than they are for people who have a terminal illness and are making decisions about the treatment they might undergo. I look forward to the opportunity to interrogate my learned friend Mr McCusker about that. I have to say, with great frankness, that that makes no sense to me whatsoever. In fact, I would have thought it would be exactly the opposite. Nevertheless, this is what is coming out of the so-called consultation process. I for one am concerned, because, as a member of the Select Committee into Elder Abuse, I know that in Western Australia there is an issue with inheritance impatience. If that is not true, it would not be in this report, and four members would not have signed off on it. I therefore ask the ministerial panel to familiarise itself with this cultural attitude. Hon Alison Xamon: Can I just interject? I want to be clear. People said it is not an issue? The CHAIR: Order! The member’s time has almost expired, but he is seeking the call. Hon Nick Goiran. Hon NICK GOIRAN: There was a suggestion that inheritance impatience and the pressuring of family members at end of life is not an issue. Hon Alison Xamon: That is wrong. Hon NICK GOIRAN: Yes, that is wrong. The second issue is the circumstances in which capacity is more complex. We will certainly pick that up on another day, because it is a very important issue. Consideration of report adjourned, pursuant to standing orders. Progress reported and leave granted to sit again, pursuant to standing orders. ESTIMATES OF REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE Consideration of Tabled Papers Resumed from 14 May on the following motion moved by Hon Stephen Dawson (Minister for Environment) — That pursuant to standing order 69(1), the Legislative Council take note of tabled papers 2664A–D (budget papers 2019–20) laid upon the table of the house on Thursday, 9 May 2019. HON DR STEVE THOMAS (South West) [5.51 pm]: I thank members for the brief opportunity this afternoon to try to come to the conclusion of my contribution to the budget debate. It has been suggested that this budget debate has been quite forensic; it has also been described as somewhat long. I assure members that every bit and every thing that I have raised, every piece of information that I have deposited are all things that I passionately care about, and are all things that have budget references applied to them. We will jump to budget paper No 2, volume 2. I only want to cover a few significant issues in a couple of portfolios. Page 509 of budget paper No 2, volume 2—for those who are following—begins the transport portfolio, and here I want to address a couple of key issues. On the bottom of that page is the heading “New Initiatives”, the first of which is line item “On-demand Transport Reform” with a budget of $3.1 million. At the bottom of the “Ongoing Initiatives” column is the line item “Westport Planning”, with a budget of $1 million in the current financial year, $1.1 million in the next financial year, and then $5 million each for the first two of the first three forward estimates years. Reference to those are made over the page. On-demand transport reform refers to, amongst other things, the taxi industry. I will make a few brief comments about regional taxi services, particularly with the Minister for Environment representing the Minister for Transport here. I have given notice of a disallowance motion for the regulations for the on-demand taxi services—that is, particularly the metropolitan on-demand services. I do so not in any flippant way, but to try to make sure that everybody present understands that regional taxi services are suffering considerably. Katanning and Denmark’s services have closed down. Albany and Kalgoorlie’s services are on the brink. Busselton, Bunbury and Mandurah’s services are all in trouble. Those regional taxi services are not part of the on-demand bill that applies a buyout based on what we effectively call the Uber levy. The buyback of plates, the contribution to the purchase of plates that occurs in the metropolitan area, does not occur for regional taxis. That makes it a difficult process. What the government suggests, which is absolutely true, is that under the act regional taxi plate owners officially lease their plates; they do not purchase their plates. In a technical sense that is true. But when regional taxi plate owners have exchanged funds to transfer those plates to somebody else, stamp duties have applied. In the same way that we discussed the duties bill not that long ago and we talked about duties that apply to leases as well as duties that apply to the purchase of capital items, in these cases, leases apply. These things were given a value by the state, the transfer of these things were acknowledged by the state, and a share of the price was taken by the state. If the state thinks that it can walk away from regional taxi services and that people in regional areas do not need a taxi service, it needs to think again. This is particularly important in those areas in the south west, such as Busselton, Bunbury, Margaret River, Albany and Denmark, which have lost their services, because those places look after not only locals, but also a significant tourism industry as well. Tourists who go wine tasting in those lovely places in Denmark and Albany and have one too many need that taxi service to provide a service there. It is important.

3350 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019]

My intention is to withdraw my disallowance motion when the government has undergone, an adequate consultation process and come up with a package that looks after and protects, to some degree, regional taxidrivers. I accept that regional taxi licence plate holders will not get the same payment as the metropolitan ones, particularly when they do not pay the levy. That is problematic. That deal was struck, and I am not sure that everybody who struck that deal understood the potential ramifications on regional areas. But, if that is not the solution, a greater solution must be found, and I have a few suggestions. Maybe the minister can respond to this at an appropriate time. The government could reapply, or apply, geographical restrictions to metropolitan taxidrivers so that we do not get metropolitan licence holders going to regional areas to take Thursday night, Friday, Saturday and Sunday traffic and then disappear back to Perth, which metropolitan taxidrivers in some circumstances can do at this point. That would provide some protection for those regional areas. If they had a different system, and a leasehold system, that potentially is one option the government might look at. The Department of Transport and regional taxidrivers also need to discuss an economic proposition; that is, no taxi service should be required to provide a service for which it loses money. If the government is requiring a taxi company to provide a service for which it loses money, the government will have to increase its component of the payment of that. There is a system that subsidises some of those regional areas now. I have to say that it is slow and unwieldy, and the Department of Transport could improve the way in which it does that. Something needs to happen to allow regional taxidrivers to continue to exist, because on the original proposal, they certainly would not now. I am pleased that the government has made some moves in this direction and that the implementation of on-demand transport includes assistance for regional taxi operators at $3.1 million. That is a step in the right direction and we thank the government for that. We just think the government needs to go to a little further, and the ideal outcome here, as we have proved occasionally at other times, is that negotiations that provide a better outcome allow for the withdrawal of the disallowance at the appropriate time. The alternative, if a disallowance was ever to get up, would be to create chaos in the metropolitan taxi system. That is certainly not my intention. My intention is to make sure that regional taxi companies are not forgotten in the process. If members want to call that a bit of blackmail, I guess I will probably accept that as a reasonable definition. I am sure the government, with its windfall budget, will be capable of providing some additional assistance in a form yet to be determined I suspect for regional taxi providers, and I expect to see that in place. On the same page, Westport planning has been allocated a significant amount of money, about $13 million. I will make this comment on Westport planning. For those who do not know, the Westport planning process is about where the government will potentially combine the ports of Fremantle, Kwinana and Bunbury. It will work out where the best method for the management of the shipping trade is in Western Australia. I went to a Westport briefing in Bunbury a couple of months ago and I was intrigued to see a slide of all the various options that were being considered. Every time a chart that said, “Possible expansion of Bunbury port” it had a nice little line that said, “Not an economic reality”, or words to that effect. My question about the Westport proposal is: has the port of Bunbury been excluded from the start, and is the government going through a consultation process despite having already decided that the new port will be either Kwinana or Fremantle in some form or another and Bunbury is to be excluded? The words on the chart were “not economically viable”. Every time we called for an investment in the port of Bunbury, the chief of the Westport group said in his presentation that the port of Bunbury is not economically viable. I do not know whether that is the case. Perhaps that represents the policy of the government more than it does the independent review of the Westport process. I would like the government to respond to that. I would be interested to know whether it is realistically looking at expanding Bunbury in some form or another. If it does not expand Bunbury and it decides to enhance Fremantle, because it can hold that for the next 20 years, it needs to look at Roe 8. At the Westport briefing, it was suggested that it was not so much looking at ports, but the infrastructure in the lead-up to ports, particularly transport infrastructure. Logistics was its focus. If the government’s focus is Fremantle, it had better look at the logistics of Roe 8. The construction in Kwinana is the alternative, and that might be where we get to, but there are some logistical issues down there. It appears to me that the Westport process has largely excluded Bunbury, and I would love to know whether that is the case. Another announcement was made this week, and I could not find it in a press release or in the budget, but it was printed on the morning of the budget, so it was obviously released the day before. The government will put in $4 million to kickstart some of the Bussell Highway dualling, which is very welcome. It is not enough to complete the whole something like $80 million project. Some commitment to it is a good idea. Can the minister indicate where that money can be found in the budget as there does not appear to be a line item anywhere? That is just to ensure that it is guaranteed and put in place. I would be interested to know. It is basically going forward. An article in the South Western Times contained a comment from the Minister for Transport, which states — “The McGowan Government has consistently called for Commonwealth funding towards this important project … we are getting on with the job and will be optimistically working with the next Federal Government to allow the project to be rolled into the wider Bunbury Outer Ring Road project.” That was from the South Western Times of 9 May. The next day we saw a similar comment from the minister. On 10 May, in the Augusta Margaret River Times, an article states — “We are getting on with the job and will be optimistically working with the next Federal Government to allow the project to be rolled into the wider Bunbury Outer Ring Road project.”

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019] 3351

I think that is a very good idea. Does the minister know why I think that is a good idea? It is because I suggested it a year ago. If members are looking for evidence of rolling that in, if they go to the POWAnet and look at the media clips of 11 May 2018, there is a thing there called the state budget. If they listen to that, they will hear Hon Dr Steve Thomas say that, in his view, the government should roll the Bussell Highway dualling into the Bunbury Outer Ring Road project. I said that a couple of days after last year’s budget was brought down. It has taken the government only a year to catch up, which is good, but I am glad that it got there in the end. My view has always been that we should build the southern end of the Bunbury Outer Ring Road, dual the Bussell Highway and then come back and build the northern end. By that stage, we might have worked out precisely where the path is going to go. It is nice to see that the government has caught up. Hopefully, that will continue. I want to spend a bit of time—not much—finishing on the environment. We do this quite poignantly because it is an issue that the minister and I are quite passionate about. I wish to make a couple of comments before I close my contribution on this budget. There are a couple of key issues. For the most part, the environment budget has done fairly well. I want to make a couple of suggestions to the minister. I like the Indigenous ranger program. The minister and I have discussed that previously. I think we are both supporters of that project. The one contribution I would make is that it needs to have a stronger educational component to it. I would like the Indigenous ranger program to have further and higher education as a component of the program itself so that it becomes an information sharing issue between Indigenous rangers and lecturers, for example, in environmental management, but also provides additional skills and qualifications. It is a good project. I know that the minister supports it. Perhaps at some stage the minister could look at putting in higher education as a higher priority. I know it comes with a cost but I am sure I will support the minister on that. Hon Stephen Dawson: I will respond to that in my reply because most of those rangers are getting certificate 3s or indeed certificate 4s and there are opportunities for further education. Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: I am talking about tertiary education. I would like to see it progress to tertiary education. Hon Stephen Dawson: As an option. Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: Yes, as an option, not a requirement, and encouragement to do so with an environmental degree. I turn to page 578 of the budget papers, and service 8, “Environmental Management Services to the Environmental Protection Authority”. I reiterate what I have said publicly; that is, in my opinion, we have a problem with the EPA setting forward its guidance proposals on emissions. I urge the minister to look at the solution that I have proposed, which is that the EPA be encouraged to put its proposals forward as an environmental protection policy under section 3 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. I do so with great respect for the work of Dr Tom Hatton, the chair of the EPA. His work has been fantastic. However, I think there is a problem in presenting what he presented in the way of guidance. The issue is this: the EPA went through guidance, and every time a major project was proposed, because of its guidance, it would recommend 100 per cent offsets. Generally speaking, the minister would probably have to oppose or not support the EPA in most of those cases. Whether we are in the Labor Party or the Liberal Party, at some point we need some development, and 100 per cent offsets would have been immensely problematic. The problem is that the head of the EPA and the EPA would be at war with the Minister for Environment, who would have to be incredibly brave every time. I know that might suit the agenda of the Greens, which hamstrings industry and nothing ever happens, but it is not a good outcome for people in Western Australia; it is not going to work. The problem we have now is that Dr Hatton goes away and reconsiders what he has done. If the only option and the direction in which he goes is guidance, we have exactly the same problem. If he comes back with it going in the guidance form, it becomes untenable. His other option at that point is to toss the whole thing out. I think that undermines the credibility of a very intelligent, articulate and passionate environmental advocate. I do not want to see that position undermined. If it comes back as an environmental protection policy, it is possible at that point for the chair to maintain all the dignity that he has earned over the last few years as an excellent protector of the environment in this state and for the government and the opposition and all the minor parties to then debate whether this is the appropriate and best way forward. That would happen in public and in the house. I think that would be the best outcome for everybody. I urge the government again to have a good look at that process because we are here to provide solutions, not problems. As far as I can see, that is the only solution that provides a way forward with dignity for all those people involved. I urge the minister to consider that again. I turn to page 585 of the budget papers, which refers to the waste avoidance and resource recovery account. I suspect that the minister and I will have a lot of debates about this over the next couple of years. I say to members that it is quite interesting when the minister and shadow minister both have a passion for doing something about the waste stream. We may disagree on some of the ways we seek to get there, but the reality is that that debate is an incredibly healthy one. It is good to see the minister investing in it. I have some question marks about awarding the container deposit scheme to that particular company, but in the end I may well have done the same thing. Hon Stephen Dawson: It was an independent process.

3352 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019]

Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: Yes. I have no intention of attacking the minister on that, although we will assess that in a couple of years to work out whether a better outcome might have been served elsewhere. Let me finish by referring to page 590 of budget paper No 2, volume 2, and the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions. I again ask the minister to change the name. I am sure I will come up with something particularly good. Hon Stephen Dawson: You can ask! Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: The Department of Parks and Wildlife—DPAW—is better than DBCA. I thought about DBCA and came up with a suggestion for the minister—“Don’t Bloomin’ Complain Again”, but then he might apply that to me. Hon Stephen Dawson: I never would! Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: My last point is on ecosystem management in south west forests. At page 90 of the budget papers it states — A range of threatening processes continue to impact the integrity and functioning of our natural ecosystems … I agree with that, but I particularly love the last sentence in paragraph 29 on page 590 of budget paper No 2, volume 2. It states — Invasive weeds and diseases will continue to be monitored, and management and control will focus on regional priorities and neighbouring land managers. I am not sure that invasive weeds and diseases, for the most part, are adequately monitored, and I am absolutely certain that they are not managed and I can guarantee members that they are not controlled. We have been dealing with this for a long time now. The Biosecurity and Agriculture Management Act 2007 does not function how it was meant to, and government departments are not being held to account for how they manage biosecurity. We have abandoned ship, as it were, on enforcing biosecurity on private land. We do not even examine it on public land. I am astounded. I was in the other place and was one of the significant speakers on that bill when it went through that house. It was assumed in the lower house that a clause in that bill would say that state government departments would be monitored by the lead agency, which is the Department of Agriculture and Food, and that noncompliance would be in the department of agriculture’s annual report. That was at least something. At least individual landholders could be fined $20 000 or $30 000, although, mind you, no fine has ever been issued. Without a whimper that clause was removed by this Council and now government departments are not accountable for the management of weeds. When I asked the minister what quality assurance management had occurred within the department’s pest management processes, the answer was none. Occasionally, the then Department of Parks and Wildlife and the then Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia would meet up and have a cup of coffee and discuss it, but there is no adequate control. It is not as though the department of agriculture has been effective in controlling weeds on private land. As far as I can tell, it has never prosecuted a single person for not controlling these significant weeds on their land. We have abandoned ship on this. We have let this slip absolutely. Members can be sure that I will be revisiting this issue in the next couple of years. I can also recommend a very worthwhile book for members to read titled Feral Future: The untold story of Australia’s exotic invaders. It is about how feral species get in and how they become endemic. Cane toads and cottonbush—I will not start because I will not finish. However, without some more activity, we face a feral future. It is not good enough. With those words, I rest. HON DIANE EVERS (South West) [6.12 pm]: I am the lead speaker for the Greens in the debate on the consideration of the budget papers. The first thing I would like to say is that it is excellent to see fiscal responsibility. With all due respect, I want to refer to the condolence motion today. I listened to a number of people speak in this chamber with such respect and admiration for Hon Max Evans. It was very touching and I want to say that I identify with a lot of the things that were said. We were told that he was very responsible with money—he understood the value of it and the importance of it in making the state strong and resilient for times of need. That seems to be happening in this budget. It is quite a conservative budget, which is understandable given that the year after next is an election year. The way our system works is that the incumbent government gets to splash cash on politically motivated but, hopefully, worthwhile projects. Understanding and acknowledging that makes things easier. Our Parliament has four-year terms, so when a government spends responsibly prior to an election, it can be the outcome of having done the hard yards in the first couple of years. Unfortunately, I will not continue my admiration of this budget. As I have said in other years, I am very disappointed that there is next to no acknowledgement in the budget of our changing climate. It should not be hard to get it in there. We are beginning to use those words in our daily conversations. It was said three times in the other house last week and twice in here. A press release went out declaring water deficiency declarations

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019] 3353 in the great southern, which mentioned climate change. We know it is happening. We feel it around us. This is the most pressing issue for the world, for Australia and Western Australia, but this budget does not take it into account. I fear for us because considerable damage will be done by natural events and there will be considerable litigation when people are unfairly damaged by the effects of climate change. I do not know if anyone has noticed but it seems as though the only ones who get this—there are quite a few other people who do—are our students, our future leaders. They are marching in the streets demanding that we do something, if only to ensure that they have a chance of addressing our unconscionable actions that have been driven by our greed over the past few hundred years and our pigheadedness in the past few decades. Knowing full well that we have been causing havoc with the earth’s normal cyclical climate patterns, we have just continued to make it worse. It seems as though Labor has noticed those 200 000 school students in the federal election. But will anything change? Change is needed now. Change is needed soon. As I said, climate change was mentioned last week in this and the other house, but that excludes Hon Tim Clifford’s question about whether the government would declare a climate emergency—a suggestion that was swiftly rejected by the minister. The United Kingdom understands. It has declared a climate emergency. Our Australian government is based on UK rules and most of our population is of its heritage. Hon Stephen Dawson: This is the same UK that has been trying to deal with Brexit for not months, but years. If they cannot fix Brexit, how are they going to fix climate change? Hon DIANE EVERS: I guess the first thing is to acknowledge it and make it count in the budget. Let us see if we can get there before them. Let us make it a contest. Who can address climate change first? If we want to be in a competition, let us try to win it. We should be able to; we know what we are doing. Let us move on from there. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! Only one person has the call, and that is Hon Diane Evers. Hon DIANE EVERS: Australia has a small population yet it continues to emit greater carbon emissions and greater quantities of methane than the UK. We are at the top of the game in this. We know how to pollute the air and planet, and we are doing it big time. In addition, we export fossil fuels. Coal and gas are burned and cause carbon emissions in other countries. To extract and export these fuels, of course, we burn fuel. There are emissions related to mining fossil fuels. It goes on and on and we are digging deeper and deeper holes. Hon Michael Mischin: Are you walking home tonight or taking a car? Hon DIANE EVERS: I am walking, thanks. Hon Robin Scott interjected. Hon DIANE EVERS: That is not what I am saying! The PRESIDENT: Order! Member, you have only two minutes to go; do not pick up on the interjections from others, please. Hon DIANE EVERS: Where is the investment in renewable technology? Where is the payment from profitable mining companies for the damage they are causing now and into the future? Why is there not a carbon capture program—one that works and not the Clayton’s method promised by Chevron? We need one that works. Now we are stepping in to assist the hopelessly inefficient dream of carbon capture of fossil fuel–derived emissions. Why is something not being done? To think that we are doing this through technology when we have such easy access to growing trees and improving our soil health. These things can address these issues and they can do it now. Around the world different people are saying that they are going to plant a million trees or a billion trees. Let us just start by stopping the cutting of our trees and maybe it will pick up from there. An offset program must be restricted to Australia to reward landholders who improve the productive capacity of their land while cleaning the air and producing valuable commodities. We have to look holistically, and not solve a problem while we create another. I hope that the Environmental Protection Authority guidelines will come back soon and that some way will be found to impose carbon offsets on those who pollute in Western Australia. Those carbon offsets must be held in Australia. We should reward those Australians who are doing the right thing. We need to start at home. We need to think globally, but act locally. Our local area is Western Australia, and we should be looking to fix it up first. It was outrageous that the Environmental Protection Authority’s guidelines were rejected out of hand. I expect better of this government. I expect it to support farmers and insurance companies, who both know that climate change is human caused. Even mining companies have to acknowledge that climate change is human caused. In 2017, this Parliament unanimously agreed that climate change was human caused. I was most buoyed by that. I thought we were onto something and would be able to talk about climate change, but we have fallen back. We said the words and then we stopped. Why do we not do something? The students are waiting and they want action. They want action today. Debate adjourned, pursuant to standing orders.

3354 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019]

LANCE CORPORAL JOHN DWYER Statement HON STEPHEN DAWSON (Mining and Pastoral — Minister for Environment) [6.20 pm]: I recently had the great pleasure of attending a very moving ceremony at Karrakatta Cemetery. It was a headstone dedication for Lance Corporal John Dwyer. Lance Corporal Dwyer was an Irishman who came to Australia in the late 1890s. Before he came to Australia, at the age of 18, John was conscripted into the British Royal Irish Regiment in 1896, in which he served for 12 years. Upon moving to Australia, he spent a few years in Western Australia before World War I began. At that time, John joined the 11th Battalion of the Australian Imperial Force, which was the first battalion to land at Gallipoli on what is now known as Anzac Day. John suffered multiple injuries, including bullet and bomb wounds. He then went on to fight in France for two years before returning to Australia. John led a very lonely life in Australia and died alone of cancer, aged 71, after suffering from his wounds all his life. Lance Corporal Dwyer had lain buried in an unmarked grave in Karrakatta cemetery for over 70 years. A couple of months ago, I was contacted by Ashayla Ramsay, who works for the Returned and Services League of Australia in Western Australia and brought Lance Corporal Dwyer’s story to my attention. It was very moving to attend the ceremony a few weeks ago. Lance Corporal Dwyer’s great grandnephew, Peter Dwyer, made the trek over from Kilkenny in Ireland. It was Peter who had brought Lance Corporal Dwyer’s life and the fact that they did not know where his grave was to the RSL’s attention. The ceremony was very moving. It was attended by representatives of his family and Ireland’s Honorary Consul to Western Australia, Mr Marty Kavanagh, who read the poem An Irish Airman Foresees His Death. Representatives of the RSL and the Western Australian community were also in attendance. It is very important we acknowledge those people who have given up their lives to keep us safe—in this case Lance Corporal Dwyer, an Irishman who came to his adopted country and fought to keep his fellow citizens safe. I congratulate Shay Ramsay on her work to ensure that Lance Corporal Dwyer was finally acknowledged and recognised. I also thank Peter Dwyer from Kilkenny, who flew to Western Australia to be part of the ceremony and whose work resulted in his great granduncle’s life being acknowledged in Western Australia. ABORIGINAL YOUTH SUICIDE Statement HON ALISON XAMON (North Metropolitan) [6.23 pm]: I rise to speak again about the coroner’s inquest into the deaths of 13 children and young people in the Kimberley. Tonight I would like to speak about the contents of that report that related to our child protection system. As I have mentioned previously, one of the significant strengths of this State Coroner’s report is the individual stories it contains and the insight they provide into the lives of the 13 children and young people. One case outlined in the report is that of a young girl who died by suicide in 2013. Her mother, whose life had been marred by alcohol and domestic violence, which resulted in severe injuries and ill health, was periodically not able to care for her daughter. This young child was clearly very vulnerable. She was living intermittently with her mother and members of her extended family. When she was six years old—that is, many years before she died—an individual raised concerns with the Department for Child Protection and Family Support about the child’s care. The coroner’s report states — On 12 April 2006 (during one of those periods when the child was in the care of her mother) the Department of Child Protection and Family Support was contacted by a concerned individual who reported that the … child had been left in the care of a man who drank heavily. This individual also reported that the child was not attending school and appeared not to be adequately fed. This person requested that the Department of Child Protection and Family Support make relevant enquiries. Despite that report, no assessment of the child’s welfare was undertaken, and seven years later, when the child was 13 years old, she died. The second case was of a young boy who suffered extremely poor health from birth. His doctor indicated that his was the worst case of failure to thrive that he had encountered. That boy was subjected to “sustained periods of neglect and abuse throughout his short and tragic life.” After investigation, neglect was substantiated at least twice by child protection services and support was provided to the child’s mother, but the child unfortunately continued to be neglected. He died when he was 17 years old. Child protection had some involvement directly with the child or child’s immediate family in 11 of the 13 cases investigated by the coroner, yet only six formal investigations were undertaken. In four of the 13 cases, the coroner made adverse comments about the Department of Child Protection and Family Support, finding a deficiency or failing in the department’s actions. The coroner found that child protection had failed to undertake proper assessments about the wellbeing of the children and, as such, had failed to meet the objects of the Children and Community Services Act.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019] 3355

In his 2014 report following his investigation into suicide by young people in Western Australia, the Ombudsman also raised concerns about child protection and questioned whether appropriate assessment and response to cumulative harm was occurring. More than half of the young people in the Ombudsman’s investigation had contact with child protection, and almost half experienced more than one form of maltreatment and were therefore likely to have suffered cumulative harm. The Ombudsman also noted — Child maltreatment, and its individual forms, has been identified in the research literature as a factor associated with suicide. He found that child protection services potentially have an important role to play in preventing suicide by young people. These failings, which have been identified by the Ombudsman and the coroner, are very concerning. The grave concern I have is that if the coroner had not looked into these cases, how would we know that these failings were occurring? By the time the coroner or the Ombudsman are looking into these cases, it is clearly far too late. The only way we know that we have seriously failed to protect and support children is when a case hits the headlines, which is invariably for tragic reasons. The coroner’s findings, therefore, provide further evidence of why we need an independent mechanism to oversee service provision to vulnerable children. It is about time that we started looking at that. It is not a new idea, nor is it particularly innovative. It was recommended by the Blaxell inquiry back in 2012—for members who have not read that report, I have; it makes for harrowing reading— a 2016 report, a current inquiry by the Joint Standing Committee on the Commissioner for Children and Young People, the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, and the Department of Communities’ 2017 statutory review of the Children and Community Services Act 2004. Also, in November 2017, the WA Commissioner for Children and Young People also recommended exactly the same thing. Clearly, there is broad recognition of this need. I have to say that the need is growing. Last financial year, over 5 000 children were in out-of-home care in WA, and this number has risen by over 90 per cent since 2007. Children are entering care earlier, they are staying longer and, tragically, they are starting to display increasingly complex behaviours. Aboriginal children, who constitute only 4.5 per cent of our population, nevertheless constitute 55 per cent of children in care. When children are removed from their families, we know it has a profound and long-term impact and can in itself be a source of great trauma. Removal does not necessarily improve their long-term outcomes, but it is quite obviously unacceptable for them to be kept in situations in which they are experiencing harm and neglect. I, of course, acknowledge that working in child protection and, in fact, working in remote and rural parts of Western Australia, can be extremely challenging. I am not suggesting for a second that it is anything other than an incredibly difficult job. I note concerns raised by members of the Aboriginal community that children are being placed into care because of neglect, when this has arisen as a direct result of poverty. Whenever possible, we should be ensuring that we assist children to stay in the family home with appropriate supports. I am devastated when I hear about children being removed from their families simply because of the effects of poverty. National data shows that WA, despite this, is spending a significantly smaller percentage of its child protection expenditure on family support or intensive family support than New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland. I think this is an appalling situation. It is clearly an area we have to look at investing in. We absolutely need to have form in this area. We need to prioritise the provision of parenting support, early intervention and intensive family support. We also need to have, finally, independent scrutiny of our service provision, particularly for the most vulnerable children in our community, those who are in the child protection system. I think the coroner’s report clearly shows how we have failed these children. It is completely unacceptable not to act on these findings. These are the sorts of things we need to address and I hope this government will seriously turn its mind to establishing that independent oversight. House adjourned at 6.33 pm ______

3356 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019]

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Questions and answers are as supplied to Hansard.

PORTS — DREDGING — ROEBUCK BAY 2040. Hon Robin Chapple to the Minister for Ports: I refer to the proposed dredging in Roebuck Bay in the Kimberley, part of which is Ramsar listed because of its internationally significant migratory birds, a hotspot for rare snubfin dolphins, and a marine park jointly managed with the Yawuru Traditional Owners, and ask: (a) how much is being spent on the dredging; (b) how many more ships are estimated to be able to use the Port if the dredging goes ahead; (c) has a cost–benefit analysis been undertaken on the proposal; (d) if no to (c), why not; (e) if yes to (c), will the Minister table the document; (f) has Kimberley Ports Authority considered altering the under keel clearance regulations to allow a larger window of time for ships to enter; (g) if no to (f), why not; (h) does the Kimberley Ports Authority, the department or the Minister have the power to change the under keel clearance so that dredging is not required; (i) if no to (h), why not; (j) in metres and centimetres, what is the minimum clearance available between the deepest point on vessels and the seabed for ships entering the Port of Broome; (k) can the Kimberley Ports Authority provide evidence that there will not be any risk of maintenance dredging following the initial proposed capital dredge in Roebuck Bay; (l) if no to (k), why not; (m) if yes to (k), will the Minister table the evidence; (n) in its proposal, has the Kimberley Port Authority considered the effects of cyclones and big wet season events in the accretion of dredged areas, for example, as in the unexpected circumstance at Darwin harbour, where studies showed no maintenance dredging would be needed, but in fact regular maintenance dredging is now required; (o) if no to (n), why not; and (p) if yes to (n), will the Minister table the document? Hon Alannah MacTiernan replied: (a) The total allocated budget is $15.3 million. (b) The business case for the dredging program was based on the economic benefit for Broome and the State through the extended tidal access to the Broome wharf, in particular, for cruise ships. The Government’s commitment to fix Broome Port prompted Carnival Australia to re-commit to home berthing its P&O ships in WA in October last year, saving the regional port town being removed from cruise itineraries. Carnival alone contributes about $32 million in economic benefits by visiting places like Broome, Albany, Busselton and Geraldton. (c) Yes. (d) Not applicable. (e) The Cruise Ship Industry Report, WA Homeported Cruise Ships 2015–16, contains the cost benefit analysis and details the potential that the industry will have on Western Australia. [See tabled paper no 2704.] (f) Yes, however this did not provide a substantial change to port access compared to current static under keel clearance, nor did it satisfy the cruise industry’s requirements for tidal access. (g) Not applicable. (h) The Kimberley Ports Authority’s Harbour Master has the power to adjust the under keel clearance requirements. Dredging is still required to enable safe access for larger vessels at all tides. (i) Not applicable. (j) The minimum clearance in the Port of Broome is 1m plus 10 per cent of the draft of the ship. Currently the channel has a depth of approximately 4.1 m at the lowest tide, and post dredging the depth will be 10m.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019] 3357

(k) The project is to dredge a high spot and widen the approach channel which is removing rock and hard consolidated material not sand and sediments that can be transient, so future maintenance dredging is not anticipated. (l) Not applicable. (m) A review and mapping of historical Department of Transport bathymetry survey data extending back to 2007 was undertaken. The data shows the underwater sand dunes movement due to tides etc. over the past 9 years is outside of the channel and will have little or no impact. [See tabled paper no 2704.] (n) The bathymetry survey data has been assessed dating back to 2007. During that time there have been cyclones and extreme wet season events. The hard material dredging in the channel will not significantly change the channel approach design. (o) Not applicable. (p) See answer to part (m). PORTS — DREDGING — ROEBUCK BAY 2041. Hon Robin Chapple to the minister representing the Minister for Transport: I refer to the proposed dredging in Roebuck Bay in the Kimberley, part of which is Ramsar listed because of its internationally significant migratory birds, a hotspot for rare snubfin dolphins, and a marine park jointly managed with the Yawuru Traditional Owners, and ask: (a) how much is being spent on the dredging; (b) how many more ships are estimated to be able to use the Port if the dredging goes ahead; (c) has a cost–benefit analysis been undertaken on the proposal; (d) if no to (c), why not; (e) if yes to (c), will the Minister table the document; (f) has Kimberley Ports Authority considered altering the under keel clearance regulations to allow a larger window of time for ships to enter; (g) if no to (f), why not; (h) does the Kimberley Ports Authority, the department or the Minister have the power to change the under keel clearance so that dredging is not required; (i) if no to (h), why not; (j) in metres and centimetres, what is the minimum clearance available between the deepest point on vessels and the seabed for ships entering the Port of Broome; (k) can the Kimberley Ports Authority provide evidence that there will not be any risk of maintenance dredging following the initial proposed capital dredge in Roebuck Bay; (l) if no to (k), why not; (m) if yes to (k), will the Minister table the evidence; (n) in its proposal, has the Kimberley Port Authority considered the effects of cyclones and big wet season events in the accretion of dredged areas, for example, as in the unexpected circumstance at Darwin harbour, where studies showed no maintenance dredging would be needed, but in fact regular maintenance dredging is now required; (o) if no to (n), why not; and (p) if yes to (n), will the Minister table the document? Hon Stephen Dawson replied: Refer to Legislative Council Question on Notice 2040. REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT — KIMBERLEY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 2048. Hon Robin Chapple to the Minister for Regional Development: I refer to the Kimberley Development Commission (KDC) and ask: (a) how much funding did KDC receive in each year over the last five financial years, please list amount by year; (b) what is the budget for this financial year; (c) how many staff work for KDC, please list by job title and if it is full time, part time or contract; (d) how many people are on the KDC board, please list by position held; (e) how much remuneration did the Board members receive for the last financial year, please list amount by position held;

3358 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019]

(f) how much has the KDC spent on consultants over each of the past five years, please list by year, amount and consultant; (g) please list the projects currently being worked on by the KDC; (h) why does the KDC’s ‘Mission Statement’ not include any reference to ‘sustainable development’; (i) why does the KDC’s ‘Objectives’ not include any reference to making sure that economic development does not compromise the globally significant environmental and cultural values of the Kimberley; (j) will the Minister amend the mission and objectives of the KDC to ensure that development is compatible with the globally significant environmental and cultural values of the Kimberley; and (k) if no to (j), why not? Hon Alannah MacTiernan replied: (a)

2014/2015 $2,321,000 2015/2016 $2,104,000 2016/2017 $2,146,000 2017/2018 $2,213,000 2018/2019 $2,428,300 (b) $2,737,363 (c)

Chief Executive Contract Full time Director Regional Planning & Projects Delivery Permanent Full time Director, Strategic Planning & Projects Delivery Contract Full time Manager, People & Place Permanent Full time Manager, Research Analysis & Economics Contract Full time Manager Research Analysis & Economics Contract Full time Kimberley Schools Project Officer Contract Full time Grants & Projects Officer Contract Full time Executive Officer Contract Full time Administration Officer Contract Full time All staff except for the Chief Executive are employed by the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development. (d) Seven people are currently on the KDC Board: Member and Ministerial representative (two) Member and Local Government representative (two) Member and Community representative (two) Ex Officio Member (Chief Executive) From the above, a Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Board are appointed. (e) The table below provides Board Member remuneration for 2017/2018:

Position Name Type of Period of Gross/Actual remuneration membership Remuneration $ Chair Michael McConachy Annual 01/07/17 51,573.34 to 30/06/18 Deputy Chair Ian Trust Annual 01/07/17 6,339.97 to 30/06/18 Member Malcolm Edwards Per meeting 01/07/17 Nil to 17/10/17

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019] 3359

Member Eunice Yu Per meeting 01/07/17 882.57 to 30/06/18 – $882.57 Member Robert Boshammer Per meeting 01/07/17 882.57 to 30/06/18 Member Elsia Archer Per meeting 01/07/17 882.57 to 18/10/17 Member Ron Johnston Per meeting 01/07/17 Nil to 18/10/17 Member James Brown Per meeting 01/07/17 882.57 to 30/06/18 CEO Jeff Gooding Not eligible 01/07/17 N/A to 30/06/18 (f)

Year Consultant Cost (Inc GST) 2013/2014 Paul Howorth $90,480.00 2014/2015 Agknowledge $ 1,320.00 2014–2015 Paul Isaachsen $10,285.00 2015/2016 Nil N/A 2016/2017 Nil N/A 2017/2018 Nil N/A 2018/2019 Nil (year to date) N/A (g) Kimberley Schools Project North West Aboriginal Housing Fund Local Content/Local Jobs Development Agenda – Broome Chinatown Revitalisation Regional Development Policy Ministerial regional support Investor briefing and Investment attraction Key Regional Statistics and Socio-Economic development WA Tropical Agricultural Research Initiative Dampier Peninsula Activation Kimberley Aquaculture Ord Development Regional Air Services and Infrastructure Marine Infrastructure & Cruise Shipping WA Regional Film Fund Kimberley Regional Grants Scheme & Community Chest Fund (ongoing project support and monitoring) Regional Economic Development (RED) Grants – 2019 round Kimberley Economic Monitoring Performance Aboriginal Pastoral Participation (h) The Commission’s Mission Statement is currently under review. The Mission Statement responds to the terms of the Regional Development Commissions Act 1993. (i) The Commission’s objectives are those set out in the Regional Development Commission’s Act 1993.

3360 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019]

(j) The Mission is determined by the Board of the Commission and the objectives prescribed in the Regional Development Commission’s Act 1993. Any change to the objectives would require an amendment to the legislation. (k) Not applicable. ROAD SAFETY — BULL BARS 2052. Hon Robin Chapple to the minister representing the Minister for Road Safety: I refer to updated guidelines for the manufacture and installation of vehicle front protection systems (bullbars) in the State. These updates were published in a circular to industry from the Department of Transport in September 2017. This circular to industry claims to provide an appropriate balance between the protection of vehicle occupants from animal strike and the safety of pedestrians. However, specific reference to and consideration of vehicles predominantly operated in rural and remote areas, where the chance of large animal strikes is significant, appears to have been removed from the latest iteration of industry guidelines. The previous circular to industry on bullbar guidelines (May 2015), specifically referenced ‘country vehicles that travel extensively on country roads may need a higher level of protection against a collision with an animal such as a kangaroo or an emu. In this case the more traditional bullbar design may be desirable’, and so I ask if the Minister will indicate: (a) if allowances for vehicles predominantly operating in rural and remote areas requiring a more traditional bullbar have been completely removed from the industry guidelines released in September 2017; (b) if the safety risks to country people being stranded, injured or killed as a result of an animal strike has been considered equally to pedestrian safety in metropolitan areas in the preparation of the new guidelines; (c) how many defect notices have been issued on Western Australian registered vehicles in the past three years as a result of the fitment of a more traditional bullbar; and (d) the technical criteria used by the department for deeming a bullbar to be non-compliant and a full list of reasons for non-compliance listed in defect notices in the past three years? Hon Stephen Dawson replied: The Road Safety Commission advises that the Department of Transport administers and regulates the legislation around bullbars in Western Australia. The Honourable Member may wish to re-direct this Question on Notice to the Minister for the Environment representing the Minister for Transport. REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT — HORTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT — SKUTHORPE, KIMBERLEY 2054. Hon Robin Chapple to the Minister for Regional Development: I refer to the proposed horticultural development at Skuthorpe in the Kimberley and ask: (a) how many hectares of asparagus is planned to be grown; (b) how much water is available for the asparagus; (c) what other crops and how many hectares are planned to be grown; (d) how much water is available for these other crops; (e) how much labour is required to grow these crops; (f) are you aware of whether the proponent will seek overseas workers; (g) on the 20th September, 2018, it was reported in the Broome Advertiser that you said the Department had worked with Kimberley Asparagus to ensure the development plan only includes high value crops like asparagus and table grapes and does not include melons and pumpkins, why; (h) how will the Minister ensure that melons and pumpkins will not be grown; (i) is it possible that the land could be transferred to freehold in the future; and (j) if yes to (i), how would it be ensured that melons and pumpkins not be grown in the future? Hon Alannah MacTiernan replied: (a) 70 hectares which is revised down from the original development plan for at least 100 hectares due to anticipated water availability. (b) Kimberley Asparagus have sought an initial water licence from the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation for 995ML which will service 70 hectares of asparagus and 10 hectares of table grapes. A further 1.75GL is dependent on completion of a further groundwater assessment. (c) Kimberley Asparagus will trial 10 hectares of other high value crops including table grapes.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 15 May 2019] 3361

(d) See answer to part (b). (e) It is estimated that 50 full time equivalent positions will be required over the period of a growing season. (f) All jobs will be advertised locally and unfilled roles will be sourced through backpackers and the Seasonal Worker Programme, which contributes to the economic development of nine Pacific Island countries and Timor-Leste. (g) These statements were in line with the development plan Kimberley Asparagus provided to the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage. (h) The Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage will undertake lease compliance assessments during the term of the lease. (i) Yes. (j) The sale of the land will be restricted to horticulture but not be subject to future crop production restrictions. AGRICULTURE AND FOOD — HORTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT — SKUTHORPE, KIMBERLEY 2055. Hon Robin Chapple to the Minister for Agriculture and Food: I refer to the proposed horticultural development at Skuthorpe in the Kimberley and ask: (a) how many hectares of asparagus is planned to be grown; (b) how much water is available for the asparagus; (c) what other crops and how many hectares are planned to be grown; (d) how much water is available for these other crops; (e) how much labour is required to grow these crops; (f) are you aware of whether the proponent will seek overseas workers; (g) on the 20th September, 2018, it was reported in the Broome Advertiser that you said the Department had worked with Kimberley Asparagus to ensure the development plan only includes high value crops like asparagus and table grapes and does not include melons and pumpkins, why; (h) how will the Minister ensure that melons and pumpkins will not be grown; (i) is it possible that the land could be transferred to freehold in the future; and (j) if yes to (i), how would it be ensured that melons and pumpkins not be grown in the future? Hon Alannah MacTiernan replied: Refer to answer to question on notice 2054. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AUTHORITY — BRIEFING NOTES 2067. Hon Peter Collier to the Leader of the House representing the Premier: I refer to the briefing by the Chairman of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on 21 February 2019, and I ask: (a) did the Premier or any member of the Premier’s staff who attended the meeting take notes, if yes, will the Premier table the notes and, if not, why not; (b) was the Premier or his office provided with any briefing notes or other advice regarding the briefing; and (c) if yes to (c), who prepared the notes or advice and will the Premier table the notes or advice and if not why not? Hon Sue Ellery replied: (a) No. (b) Yes. (c) This question does not make sense. ______